政府資訊公開法之個人隱私保障

Chih-Hao Wu; 吳志浩

請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件： http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/21258

完整後設資料紀錄

DC 欄位	值	語言
dc.contributor.advisor	林明昕(Ming-Hsin Lin)
dc.contributor.author	Chih-Hao Wu	en
dc.contributor.author	吳志浩	zh_TW
dc.date.accessioned	2021-06-08T03:29:41Z	-
dc.date.copyright	2019-08-18
dc.date.issued	2019
dc.date.submitted	2019-08-14
dc.identifier.citation	參考文獻壹、中文文獻一、書籍 (一) 一般書籍葉俊榮、許宗力(1996)。《政府資訊公開制度之研究》。臺北：行政院研考會。葉俊榮(1997)。《環境行政的正當法律程序》。臺北：自刊。許玉秀(2011)。《論正當法律程序原則》。臺北：軍法專刊社。二、書之篇章法治斌(1993)。〈知的權利〉。氏著，《人權保障與釋憲法制》，頁272-287。臺北：月旦。林子儀(2002)。〈言論自由導論〉。李鴻禧(等著)，《台灣憲法之縱剖橫切》，頁103-180，臺北：元照。林子儀(1993)。〈「資訊取得法」立法政策與法制之研究〉。氏著，《權力分立與憲政發展》，頁173-222，臺北：月旦。林子儀(2002)。〈基因資訊與基因隱私權—從保障隱私觀點論基因資訊的利用與法的規制〉。Robert Heuser(等著)，《當代公法新論（中） ─翁岳生教授七秩誕辰祝壽論文集》，臺北：元照，頁693-726。范姜真媺(2017)。〈政府資訊公開法於臺灣之實施狀況〉。張永明等著，《行政執行／行政罰／行政程序／政府資料開放／風險社會與行政訴訟》，頁223-258，臺北：元照。湯德宗(2005)，〈資訊革命與正當行政程序—行政程序法施行兩週年展望〉，收於氏著，《行政程序法論》，頁447-492，臺北：元照。湯德宗(2005)。〈憲法上的正當程序保障〉。氏著，《行政程序法論：論正當行政程序》，增訂二版，頁167-208，臺北：元照。湯德宗(2010)。〈「政府資訊公開法」修正芻議〉。陳新民(等)著，《政治思潮與國家法學－吳庚教授七秩華誕祝壽論文集》，頁263-362。劉定基(2017)。〈臺灣政府資料開放的現況與難題——以個人資料保護為觀察中心〉。張永明(等著)，《行政執行／行政罰／行政程序／政府資料開放／風險社會與行政訴訟》，頁295-321，臺北：元照。三、期刊論文李建良(1999)。〈行政程序法與正當法律程序—初論行政程序法的立法目的與規範內涵〉。《憲政時代》，第25卷第3期，頁3-54。李震山(2000)。〈論人民要求政府公開資訊之權利與落實〉。《月旦法學》，第62期。頁35-46。李惠宗(2008)。〈裁判書上網公開與個人資訊自決權的衝突〉。《月旦法學》，第154期，頁21-34。邱文聰(2018)。〈被淘空的法律保留與變質的資訊隱私憲法保障──評最高行政法院一○六年度判字第五四號判決與相關個資法條文〉。《月旦法學》，第272期，頁32-44。吳全峰、許慧瑩(2018)。〈健保資料目的外利用之法律爭議──從去識別化作業工具談起〉。《月旦法學》，第272期，頁45-62。林明鏘(1993)。〈公務機密與行政資訊公開〉。《臺大法學論叢》，第23卷第1期，頁51-86。林明鏘(2013)。〈都市更新之公共利益：兼評司法院大法官釋字第709號解釋〉。《台灣法學》，227期，頁121-139。林明昕(2003)。〈資訊公開vs秘密保護－論「政府資訊公開法制」之建立〉。《法政學報》，16期，頁27-46。林素鳳(2006)。〈我國政府資訊公開法制初探〉。《月旦法學》，頁33-47。林三欽(2010)。〈政府資訊公開法之執行、保障與救濟制度〉。《東吳公法論叢》，第3卷，頁465-504。林玫君(2018)。〈大數據時代的個人資料保護〉。《興大法學》，第24期，頁1-45。范姜真媺(2001)。〈政府資訊公開與個人隱私之保護〉。《法令月刊》，52卷5期，頁29-42。范姜真媺(2005)。〈政府資訊公開法與個人資訊保護法之交錯適用〉。《銘傳大學法學論叢》，第4期，頁1-39。范姜真媺(2005)。〈日本資訊公開法救濟程序之探討〉。《東吳法律學報》，第17 卷第1期，頁31-80。范姜真媺(2012)。〈個人資料自主權之保護與個人資料之合理利用〉。《法學叢刊》，第57卷第1期，頁69-103。陳愛娥(2000)。〈政府資訊公開法制的憲法基礎〉。《月旦法學》，第62期，頁24-35。陳起行(2008)。〈臺灣法律資料庫及其個人資料之保護〉。《法令月刊》，第59卷第6期，頁99-109。陳仲嶙(2010)。〈從資訊公開法制之理念談人民申請政府機關提供資訊之救濟—評台中高等行政法院96年度訴字第495號判決〉。《法令月刊》，第61卷第7期，頁36-48。翁清坤(2013)。〈告知後同意與消費者個人資料之保護〉。《臺北大學法學叢》，第87期，頁217-322。翁逸泓(2019)。〈開放全民電子健康資料加值應用之個資保護問題──以英國經驗為例〉。《月旦法學》，第285期，頁144-173。許宗力(1999)。〈基本權程序保障功能的最新發展—評司法院釋字第四八八號解釋〉。《月旦法學》，第54期，頁153-160。許國賢(2011)。〈民主生活與公共利益：一個預備性的考察〉。《行政暨政策學報》，第53 期，頁1-24。張陳弘(2018)。〈新興科技下的資訊隱私保護：「告知後同意原則」的侷限性與修正方法之提出〉。《國立臺灣大學法學論叢》，第47期1卷，頁201-297。張陳弘(2018)。〈國家建置全民健康保險資料庫之資訊隱私保護爭議──評最高行政法院106年度判字第54號判決〉。《中原財經法學》，第40期，頁185-257。張陳弘(2019)。〈GDPR關於蒐用一般個人資料之合法事由規範──臺灣個人資料保護法遺漏的正當利益權衡條款〉。《月旦法學》，第285期，頁174-190。湯德宗(2006)。〈政府資訊公開法比較評析〉。《國立臺灣大學法學論叢》，第35卷第6期，頁37-115頁。葉俊榮(1998)。〈邁向「電子化政府」：資訊公開與行政程序的挑戰〉。《臺灣法學會學報》，第19期，頁1-48。葉俊榮(2007)。〈從ㄓ新制談資訊公開與民眾參與〉。《研考雙月刊》，31卷3期，3-14。劉靜怡(2006)。〈隱私權：第一講隱私權的哲學基礎、憲法保障及其相關辯論〉。《月旦法學教室》，第46期，頁40-50。劉靜怡(2006)。〈開啟權力監督新時代?—從美國「資訊自由法」豁免公開規定的晚近發展談起〉。《月旦法學》，136期，頁48-64。劉靜怡(2010)。〈不算進步的立法：「個人資料保護法」初步評析〉。《月旦法學雜誌》，第183期，頁147-164 劉靜怡(2015)。〈政府資訊公開法第十八條研究〉。《法學叢刊》，第239期，頁1-63。劉定基(2012)。〈從美國法的觀點評司法院大法官釋字第六八九號解釋──以新聞自由、言論自由、隱私權的保障與衝突為中心〉。《興大法學》，第11期，頁195-236。劉定基(2013)。〈析論個人資料保護法上「當事人同意」的概念〉。《月旦法學雜誌》，第218期，頁146-167。劉定基(2016)。〈政府資訊公開與政府外聘委員個人資料保護〉。《月旦法學教室》，第163期，頁12-14。劉定基(2016)。〈政府資訊公開法的實務新發展與未來展望〉。《法學叢刊》，第244期，頁57-81。劉定基(2017)。〈大數據與物聯網時代的個人資料自主權〉。《憲政時代》，42期3卷，頁265-308。四、學位論文詹文凱(1998)。《隱私權之研究》。國立臺灣大學法律學研究所博士論文。五、網路文獻行政院(1997)，《電子化／網路化政府中程推動計畫》，載於https://www.ndc.gov.tw/cp.aspxn=D88BA19D378B30C4&s=1F6D9F3EEABADB1D。監察院(2017)，〈公職人員財產申報法問答集〉，載於https://sunshine.cy.gov.tw/GipOpenWeb/wSite/public/Attachment/f1521506728317.pdf。貳、英文文獻一、書籍 Solove, Daniel J. (2004). THE DIGITAL PERSON: TECHNOLOGY AND PRIVACY IN THE INFORMATION AGE. NY: New York University Press. Solove, Daniel J. (2008). UNDERSTANDING PRIVACY (1st ed. 2009). MA: Harvard University Press. 二、書之篇章 Allen, A. L. (1997). Genetic Privacy: Emerging Concepts and Values. In Rothstein, M. A. (Ed.), GENETIC SECRETS PROTECTING PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY IN THE GENETIC ERA (pp. 31-59). New Haven: Yale University Press. Ardia, D. (2017). Privacy and Court Records: Online Access and the Loss of Practical Obscurity. UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LAW REVIEW, vol.2017, 1385-1454. Bamberger, K. A., & Mulligan D. K. (2012). PIA Requirements and Privacy Decision-Making. In Wright, D., & Hert, P. (Ed.), PRIVACY IMPACT ASSESSMENT (pp.225- 250). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Cate, Fred H. (2006). The Failure of Fair Information Practice Principles. In Winn, J. (Ed.), CONSUMER PROTECTION IN THE AGE OF THE ’INFORMATION ECONOMY’ (pp. 343-379). Aldershot, England. Grand, G., & Barrauin, E. (2012). Prior Checking, a Forerunner to Privacy ImpactAssessments. In Wright, D., & Hert, P. (Ed.), PRIVACY IMPACT ASSESSMENT (pp.97-116). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Wright, D., & Hert, P. D. (2012). Introduction to Privacy Impact Assessment. In Wright, D., & Hert, P. (Ed.), PRIVACY IMPACT ASSESSMENT (pp. 3-32). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. 三、期刊論文 Albrecht, J. (2016). How the GDPR Will Change the World. European Data Protection Law Review, vol. 2(3), 287-289. Ardia, D. (2017). Privacy and Court Records: Online Access and the Loss of Practical Obscurity. University of Illinois Law Review, vol. 2017 (4), 1385-1454. Beall, C. (1996). The Exaltation of Privacy Doctrines over Public Information Law. Duke Law Journal, vol. 45, 1249-1300. Brasher, E. (2018). Addressing the Failure of Anonymization: Guidance from the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation. Columbia Business Law Review, vol. 2018(1), 209-253. Cate F., Fields, A., & McBain, J.(1994). The Right to Privacy and the Public's Right to Know: The Central Purpose of the Freedom of Information Act. Administrative Law Review, vol.46, 41-74. Cate F., (2010). Protecting Privacy in Health Research:The Limits of Individual Choice. California Law Review, vol. 98, 1765-1804. Conley, A., Datta, A., Nissenbaum, H., & SHARM, D. (2012). Sustaining Privacy and Open Justice in the Transition to Online Court Records: A Multidisciplinary Inquiry, MARYLAND LAW REVIEW, vol. 71, 772- 847. Emerson, T. (1976). Legal Foundations of the Right to Know, Washington University Law Review, vol. 1976(1), 1-24. Fried, C. (1968). Privacy. Yale Law Journal, vol. 77(3), 475-493. Hoefges, M., Halstuk, M., & Chamberlin B. (2003), Privacy Rights versus FOIA Disclosure Policy: The Uses and Effects Double Standard in Access to Personally-Indentifiable Information in Government Records. William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, vol 12(1), 1-64. Halstuk, M. (2005). When is an Invasion of Privacy Unwarranted under the FOIA - An Analysis of the Supreme Court's Sufficient Reason and Presumption of Legitimacy Standards. University of Florida Journal of Law and Public Policy, vol. 16, 361-399. Ivester, D. (1977). The Constitutional Right to Know. Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, vol.4, 109-163. Jasmontaite, L., Kamara, I., Zanfir-Fortun, G., & Leucci, S. (2018). Data Protection by Design and by Default: Framing Guiding Principles into Legal Obligations in the GDPR. European Data Protection Law Review, vol. 4, 168-189. Kronman, A. (1980). The Privacy Exemption to the Freedom of Information Act. The Journal of Legal Studies, vol 9(4), 727–774. Nissenbaum, H.(1998). Protecting Privacy in an Information Age: The Problem of Privacy in Public. Law and Philosophy, vol. 17(5/6), 559-596. Ohm, P. (2018). Broken Promises of Privacy: Responding to the Surprising Failure of Anonymization. UCLA Law Review, vol. 57, 1701-1778. Prosser, W. (1960). Privacy. California Law Review, vol. 48, 383-423. Polonetsky, J., Tene, O., & Finch, K. (2016). Shades of Gray: Seeing the Full Spectrum of Practical Data De-Intentification. Santa Clara Law Review, 56(3), 593-629. Pardau, S., & Edwards, B. (2017). The FTC, the Unfairness Doctrine, and Privacy by Design: New Legal Frontiers in Cybersecurity. Journal of Business & Technology Law, vol. 12, 227-276. Rubinstein, I., & Hartzog, W. (2016). Anonymization and Risk. Washington Law Review, 91(2), 703-760. Solove, D. (2013). Introduction: Privacy Self-Management and the Consent Dilemma. Harvard Law Review, vol. 126, 1880-1903. Schwartz, P. (2013). The EU-U.S. Privacy Collision: A Turn to Institutions and Procedures. Harvard Law Review, vol. 126, 1966-2009. Warren S., & Brandeis L. (1890). The Right to Privacy. Harvard Law Review, vol. 4(5), 193-220. Winn, P. (2004). Online Court Records: Balancing Judicial Accountability and Privacy in an Age of Electronic Information. Washington Law Review, vol. 79, 307-330. 四、網路文獻 ARTICLE 29 DATA PROTECTION WORKING PARTY. (2014). Statement on the role of a risk-based approach in data protection legal frameworks. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/justice/article-29/documentation/opinion recommendation/files/2014/wp218_en.pdf. ARTICLE 29 DATA PROTECTION WORKING PARTY. (2016). Opinion 02/2016 on the publication of Personal Data for Transparency purposes in the Public Sector. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/article29/document.cfm?action=display&doc_id=55926. Article 29 Working Party. (2017). Guidelines on transparency under Regulation 2016/679. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/article29/document.cfm?action=display&doc_id=51025. ARTICLE 29 DATA PROTECTION WORKING PARTY. (2017). Guidelines on Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) and determining whether processing is “likely to result in a high risk” for the purposes of Regulation 2016/679. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/document.cfm?doc_id=47711. ARTICLE 29 DATA PROTECTION WORKING PARTY. (2017). Guidelines on Data Protection Officers (‘DPOs’). Available at http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/document.cfm?doc_id=44100. ARTICLE 29 DATA PROTECTION WORKING PARTY. (2018). WORKING PARTY 29 POSITION PAPER on the derogations from the obligation to maintain records of processing activities pursuant to Article 30(5) GDPR. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/article29/document.cfm?action=display&doc_id=51422. Cavoukian, A. (2013). Privacy by Design. Available at https://www.ipc.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/pbd-primer.pdf . Cavoukian, A., & Jonas, J. (2012). Privacy by Design in the Age of Big Data. Available at https://je-ffjonas.typepad.com/Privacy-by-Design-in-the-Era-of-Big-Data.pdf . Cavoukian, A. (2011), Privacy by Design: The 7 Foundational Principles Implementation and Mapping of Fair Information Practices. Available at https://www.ipc.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/Resources/pbd-implement-7found-principles.pdf . FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION (2010). PROTECTING CONSUMER PRIVACY IN AN ERA OF RAPID CHANGE: A PROPOSED FRAMEWORK FOR BUSINESSES AND POLICYMAKERS. Available at https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/federal-trade-commission-bureau-consumer-protection-preliminary-ftc-staff-report-protecting-consumer/101201privacyreport.pdf . FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION (2012). PROTECTING CONSUMER PRIVACY IN AN ERA OF RAPID CHANGE: A PROPOSED FRAMEWORK FOR BUSINESSES AND POLICYMAKERS. Available at https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/federal-trade-commission-report-protecting-consumer-privacy-era-rapid-change-recommendations/120326privacyreport.pdf . Kuner, C., Bygrave, L., Docksey, C., Svantesson, D., de Terwagne, C., Kotschy, W., & Kranenborg, H. (2018). 2018 Draft commentaries on 10 GDPR articles (from Commentary on the EU General Data Protection Regulation, OUP 2019). Oxford University Press. Available at https://works.bepress.com/christopher-kuner/1/download/ . Kotschy, W. (2016). The new General Data Protection Regulation - Is there sufficient pay-off for taking the trouble to anonymize or pseudonymize data ?. Available at https://fpf.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Kotschy-paper-on-pseudonymisation.pdf . Morrison, C. (2008). Privacy, Accountability, and the Cooperating Defendant: Towards a New Role for Internet Access to Court Records. New York University Public Law and Legal Theory Working Papers. 88, available at https://lsr.nellco.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1088&context=nyu_plltwp . Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2013).THE OECD PRIVACY FRAMEWORK. Available at https://www.oecd.org/sti/ieconomy/oecd_privacy_framework.pdf . 參、日文文獻一、書籍宇賀克也(2010)。《新‧情報公開法の逐條解說―行政機関情報公開法・独立行政法人等情報公開法》。第5版。東京：有斐閣。松井茂記(2003)。《情報公開法》。東京：有斐閣。二、期刊論文人見剛(2016)，〈番号法における個人番号制度をめぐる諸問題〉，《法律時報》，通巻 1097号，頁1-3。石井夏生利(2013)，〈個人番号制度と第三者機関〉，《法学セミナー》，通巻 707号，頁14-19。宇賀克也(2016)，〈個人情報の保護と利用――ポジティブ・サムを目指した改革〉の意義と課題〉，《法律時報》，通巻 1094号，頁67-73。三、網路文獻特定個人情報保護委員会(2014)，特定個人情報保護評価指針，載於https://www.ppc.go.jp/files/pdf/shishin.pdf。個人情報保護委員会(2018)，特定個人情報の適正な取扱いに関するガイドライン（行政機関等・地方公共団体等編），載於https://www.ppc.go.jp/files/pdf/my_number_guideline_gyosei-chihou.pdf。
dc.identifier.uri	http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/21258	-
dc.description.abstract	本文旨在探討政府資訊公開法對於個人隱私之保障。政府資訊公開法制是當代民主社會的重要典章，攸關人民知的權利與民主政治之健全發展。另一方面，資訊公開不免與個人隱私有所衝突，而且隱私資訊一旦公開即無法回復原狀。從而，資訊公開法制應如何兼顧個人隱私之保障，實屬重要課題。本文之研究重點分為三個部分：第一部分是「利益衡量」，資訊公開可能侵害個人隱私之情況，是否公開應取決於利益衡量之結論，亦即「公共利益」與「隱私利益」孰輕孰重的問題。第二部分是「程序保障」，有鑑於隱私侵害之不可回復性，政府機關作成公開資訊之決定前，應提供事前之程序保障，以降低終局決定可能之隱私風險。第三部分是「公開方式之保障」，在當事機關作成公開資訊之終局決定後，系爭公開決定之執行方式上，仍應對個人隱私提供保障。結論而言，本文之研究發現如下：一、關於「利益衡量」之部分，涉及資公法第18條第1項第6款之操作，應採取三階段的審查模式。二、關於「程序保障」之部分，首先應強化「參與性」程序保障，使當事人能夠有效參與資訊公開之決策過程，同時亦應建立「課責性」程序保障，要求政府機關採取降低隱私風險之積極保護措施。三、關於「公開方式之保障」之部分，去識別化作為目前常見的作法，雖非全然無懈可擊，但仍是目前具可行性之方法。為了補正去識別化方法之缺陷，應同時採取其他技術性與程序性之適當措施。	zh_TW
dc.description.abstract	The purpose of this thesis is to investigate the protection of personal privacy under the Freedom of Government Information Law. The Freedom of Government Information Law is understood to be fundamental in a modern democracy, which is essential to the fulfilment of the right to know and has a significant impact in the quality of democracy. Nevertheless, the disclosure of government information might conflict with personal privacy, and what is more, once the privacy information has been made available to the public, it is impossible to be restored to the status quo ante. Thus, it is important to think up a method to protect privacy under The Freedom of Government Information Law. This thesis is divided into three parts. First, whenever the disclosure of government information would constitute an invasion of personal privacy, it is necessary to weigh personal privacy against public interest of the disclosure. In other words, the challenge is to decide whether public interest could prevail over personal privacy or not. Second, the implementation of procedural protection is of vital importance, including “participative procedural protection” and “accountable procedural protection”. Third, it is necessary to protect personal privacy by the way making available to public, that is to say, even the government agency has already decided to make information available to public, however, it still has need to protect privacy by the way making available to public such as de-identification. There are several findings in this thesis. First, with regard to the balancing between personal privacy and public interest, it is important to adopt a three-stage model. Second, the implementation of procedural protection is of vital importance, including “participative procedural protection”, which makes individuals able to participate in the process of decision-making, and also including “accountable procedural protection”, which means the government agency should implement appropriate procedural measures to mitigate privacy risk. Third, de-identification is a common measure for privacy protection, although it is not so perfect, however, it’s still a practicable measure to date. As a result, another measure which is technical or procedural should also be took in addition to de-identification.	en
dc.description.provenance	Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-08T03:29:41Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-108-R04a21026-1.pdf: 3379668 bytes, checksum: 54336466203e73ad1b098517213e15b3 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2019	en
dc.description.tableofcontents	第一章緒論 1 第一節問題意識 1 第二節研究範圍與研究步驟 4 第二章政府資訊公開與個人隱私之界限 7 第一節政府資訊公開與個人隱私之概念探討 7 壹、政府資訊公開之概念探討 7 貳、個人隱私之概念探討 17 第二節政府資訊公開與個人隱私之衝突 23 第三節政府資訊公開與個人隱私之利益衡量 27 壹、我國現行法律規範 27 貳、我國法院實務見解 29 參、比較法之發展 35 第四節小結 48 壹、三階段之審查模式 48 貳、隱私利益之界定 49 參、公共利益之界定 54 第三章資訊公開之決定程序對於個人隱私之保障 59 第一節程序保障之理論基礎 60 壹、正當法律程序之要求 60 貳、卡夫卡式隱喻之隱私困境 64 參、個人資料保護法制與程序保障 67 第二節參與性之程序保障 73 壹、我國法制現況 73 貳、歐盟GDPR對於當事人參與之保障 80 參、檢討 87 第三節課責性之程序保障 97 壹、課責原則之內涵 97 貳、課責原則之具體措施 100 參、檢討 111 第四節小結 118 第四章資訊公開之實施方式對於個人隱私之保障 124 第一節資訊公開方式保障個人隱私之理論基礎 125 壹、從設計著手保護隱私(Privacy by Design)之理論 125 貳、從設計著手保護隱私與政府資訊公開 130 第二節資訊公開方式保障個人隱私之具體方法 132 壹、現行法之相關規定 132 貳、去識別化之概念辯證 137 參、檢討 144 第三節案例分析：裁判書公開 148 壹、事實背景 149 貳、檢討 153 第四節小結 162 第五章結論 164 參考文獻 170
dc.language.iso	zh-TW
dc.title	政府資訊公開法之個人隱私保障	zh_TW
dc.title	Protection of Personal Privacy under the Freedom of Government Information Law	en
dc.type	Thesis
dc.date.schoolyear	107-2
dc.description.degree	碩士
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee	劉靜怡(Ching-Yi Liu),劉定基(Ting-Chi Liu)
dc.subject.keyword	政府資訊公開法,個人隱私,利益衡量,程序保障,個人資料保護法,歐盟一般資料保護規則,去識別化,	zh_TW
dc.subject.keyword	the Freedom of Government Information Law,personal privacy,procedural protection,General Data Protection Regulation,de-identification,	en
dc.relation.page	186
dc.identifier.doi	10.6342/NTU201903730
dc.rights.note	未授權
dc.date.accepted	2019-08-15
dc.contributor.author-college	法律學院	zh_TW
dc.contributor.author-dept	法律學研究所	zh_TW
顯示於系所單位：	法律學系

文件中的檔案：

檔案	大小	格式
ntu-108-1.pdf 未授權公開取用	3.3 MB	Adobe PDF

顯示文件簡單紀錄

系統中的文件，除了特別指名其著作權條款之外，均受到著作權保護，並且保留所有的權利。