Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/85841Full metadata record
| ???org.dspace.app.webui.jsptag.ItemTag.dcfield??? | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 楊岳平(Yueh-Ping Yang) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Cheng-Ju Lu | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 呂承儒 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2023-03-19T23:26:05Z | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2022-03-07 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2022 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2022-02-22 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 中文文獻 一、專書 王文宇（2019），《探索商業智慧：契約與組織》，元照。 王文宇（編）（2019），《金融法》，十版，元照。 許文義（2001），《個人資料保護法論》，三民。 詹德恩（2021），《法令遵循理論與實務》，元照。 二、期刊論文 李婉萍、鄭婉瓊（2003），《金融服務百貨化與消費者個人資料之保護—法律與經濟分析的觀點》，法令月刊，54卷10期，頁60-76。 林育廷（2007），《金融隱私權保障與財富管理發展之衝突與協調——兼評美國與臺灣之規範政策》，科技法學評論，4卷2期，頁147-198。 翁清坤（2008），〈臺灣與美國金融機構分享客戶個人資料之法律界限〉，《輔仁法學》，35期，頁69-162。 三、研討會論文 熊愛卿（2014），〈金融控股公司共同行銷時之個人資料保護：兼述2014年6月金融控股公司法第43條之修正〉，發表於：《2014銘傳大學法律學院教學研究成果學術研討會論文》，銘傳大學法律學院（主辦），台北。 四、學位論文 於知慶（2005），《論客戶資料在金融控股公司於共同行銷時應有之保護》，國立臺北大學法學系碩士班碩士論文（未出版），台北。 五、平面新聞 邱金蘭，（08/31/2020），〈金控集團 將可共享客戶資料〉，《經濟日報》。 六、網路資料 中央社記者（2021），〈金管會將清查產險濫用保戶個資推銷〉，《工商時報》，載於：https://ctee.com.tw/news/insurance/405589.html。 台灣金融服務業聯合總會（2010），《109年金融建言白皮書》，載於：https://www.tfsr.org.tw/Uploads/files/109%E5%B9%B4%E9%87%91%E8%9E%8D%E5%BB%BA%E8%A8%80%E7%99%BD%E7%9A%AE%E6%9B%B8-2020_9_28.pdf。 周志豪（2021），〈一次投保、推銷不斷 金管會：清查若有違個資法將重罰〉，《聯合新聞網》，載於：https://udn.com/news/story/7239/5188603。 金融監督管理委員會（2020），《金融科技發展路徑圖》，載於： https://www.fsc.gov.tw/uploaddowndoc?file=news/202008271855440.pdf&filedisplay=1090827%E9%87%91%E8%9E%8D%E7%A7%91%E6%8A%80%E7%99%BC%E5%B1%95%E8%B7%AF%E5%BE%91%E5%9C%96%E5%A0%B1%E5%91%8A%E6%9B%B8%28%E4%BF%AE%29.pdf&flag=doc。 金融監督管理委員會，（2021），《金融機構間資料共享指引》，載於：https://www.fsc.gov.tw/uploaddowndoc?file=news/202112231500351.pdf&filedisplay=%E9%87%91%E8%9E%8D%E6%A9%9F%E6%A7%8B%E8%BE%A6%E7%90%86%E8%B3%87%E6%96%99%E5%85%B1%E4%BA%AB%E6%8C%87%E5%BC%95%E9%80%90%E9%BB%9E%E8%AA%AA%E6%98%8E.pdf&flag=doc。 陳惠綾（2020），〈金融科技座談 前主委王儷玲提四大建言 建議解套個資法〉，《Anue鉅亨台股新聞》，載於：https://news.cnyes.com/news/id/4506481。 陳蕙綾（2020），〈金融科技座談 聚焦七大議題 黃天牧以哈姆雷特金句勉業者〉，《Anue鉅亨台股新聞》，載於：https://news.cnyes.com/news/id/4500444。 英文文獻 一、專書 CAMERER, COLIN F. et al. (eds.) (2004), ADVANCES IN BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS. COOTER, ROBERT & THOMAS ULEN (2016), LAW AND ECONOMICS, 6th ed. GRAND, JULIAN LE & BILL NEW (2015), GOVERNMENT PATERNALISM: NANNY STATE OR HELPFUL FRIEND?. KAHNEMAN, DANIEL (2011), THINKING, FAST AND SLOW. KAUFMAN, GEORGE G. (1995), THE U.S. FINANCIAL SYSTEM: MONEY, MARKETS, AND INSTITUTIONS, 6th ed. OLSON, MANCUR (1971), LOGIC OF COLLECTIVE ACTION: PUBLIC GOODS AND THE THEORY OF GROUPS. POSNER, RICHARD A. (2011), ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF LAW, 8th ed. REGAN, PRISCILLA M. (1995), LEGISLATING PRIVACY: TECHNOLOGY, SOCIAL VALUES, AND PUBLIC POLICY. SHARIF, ELDAR (ed.) (2013), THE BEHAVIORAL FOUNDATIONS OF PUBLIC POLICY. THALER, RICHARD H. & CASS R. SUNSTEIN (2009), NUDGE: IMPROVING DECISIONS ABOUT HEALTH, WEALTH, AND HAPPINESS. ZAMIR, EYAL (ed.) (2014), THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS AND THE LAW. 二、期刊論文 Akerlof, George A., The Market for Lemons: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism, 84(3) THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS 488 (1970). Brill, Elizabeth K., Privacy and Financial Institutions: Current Developments concerning the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, 21 ANNUAL REVIEW OF BANKING LAW 167 (2002). Calo, Ryan, Digital Market Manipulation, 82 (4) GEORGE WASHINGTON LAW REVIEW 995 (2014). Camerer, Colin et al., Regulation for Conservatives: Behavioral Economics and The Case For “Asymmetric Paternalism”, 151(3) UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW 1211 (2003) Coase, Ronald H., The Problem of Social Cost, 3 JOURNAL OF LAW & ECONOMICS 1 (1960). Cofone, Ignacio N. & Adriana Z. Robertson, Consumer Privacy in a Behavioral World, 69(6) HASTINGS LAW JOURNAL 1471 (2018). Cohen, Julie E., Examined Lives: Informational Privacy and the Subject as Object, 52(5) STANFORD LAW REVIEW 1373 (2000) Cooper, Arnold C. et al., Dunkelberg, Entrepreneur's Perceived Chances for Success, 3(2) JOURNAL OF BUSINESS VENTURING 97 (1988). Cranor, Lorrie F. et al., A Large-Scale Evaluation of U.S. Financial Institution's Standardized Privacy Notices, 10(3) ACM TRANSACTION ON THE WEB, Article 17, 1 (2016). Craswell, Richard, Property Rules in Unconscionability and Related Doctrines, 60(1) UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW REVIEW 1(1993). Cuaresma, Jolina C., The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, 17(1) BERKELEY TECHNOLOGY LAW JOURNAL 497 (2002). Drexler, Lawrence S., Privacy in Financial Services: A Hard Rain's Gonna Fall, 18(2) DELAWARE LAWYER 9 (2000). Eskridge, William N., Jr., One Hundred Years of Ineptitude: The Need for Mortgage Rules Consonant with the Economic and Psychological Dynamics of the Home Sale and Loan Transaction, 70(6) VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW 1083 (1984). Fisher, Richard L. & Clarke Dryden Camper, Reform Law and Privacy: A Road Map, 164(223) AMERICAN BANKER 6 (1999). Janger, Edward J. & Paul M. Schwartz, The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Information Privacy, and the Limits of Default Rules, 86(6) MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW 1219 (2002). Jolls, Christine et al., A Behavioral Approach to Law and Economics, 50(5) STANFORD LAW REVIEW 1471 (1998). Kahneman, Daniel & Amos Tversky, Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk, 47(2) ECONOMETRICA 263 (1979). Kahneman, Daniel et al., Fairness and the Assumption of Economics, 59(4) THE JOURNAL OF BUSINESS S285 (1986). Katz, Avery, The Strategic Structure of Offer and Acceptance: Game Theory and the Law of Contract Formation, 89(2) MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW 215 (1990). Knetsch, Jack L., The Endowment Effect and Evidence of Nonreversible Indifference Curves, 79(5) THE AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW 1277 (1989). Mitchell, Gregory, Libertarian Paternalism Is an Oxymoron, 99(3) NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 1245 (2005). Mitchell, Jason P. et al., Medial Prefrontal Cortex Predicts Intertemporal Choice, 23(4) JOURNAL OF COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE 857 (2011). Nguyen, Adam & Matt Watkins, Financial Services Reform, 37(2) HARVARD JOURNAL ON LEGISLATION 579 (2000). Olmstead, Alan L. & Paul Rhode, Rationing without Government: The West Coast Gas Famine of 1920, 75(5) THE AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW 1044, 1053-54 (1985). Robin, Matthew, Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics, 83(5) THE AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW 1281 (1993). Roderer, David W., Tentative Steps Toward Financial Privacy, 4(1) NORTH CAROLINA BANKING INSTITUTE 209 (2000). Rothchild, John A., Against Notice and Choice: The Manifest Failure of the Proceduralist Paradigm to Protect Privacy Online, 66(3) Cleveland State Law Review 559 (2018). Rozin, Paul et al., Nudge to Nobesity I: Minor Changes in Accessibility Decrease Food Intake, 6(4) JUDGEMENT AND DECISION MAKING 322 (2011). Samuelson, Pamela, Privacy as Intellectual Property?, 52(5) STANFORD LAW REVIEW 1125 (2000). Savino, William M. & Stephan J. Smirti Jr., Banks Must Begin to Develop Forms, Polices and Practices to Comply with New Federal Privacy Regulations, 117(1) BANKING LAW JOURNAL 8 (2000). Schwartz, Paul M., Privacy and the Economics of Personal Health Care Information, 76(1) TEXAS LAW REVIEW 1(1997). Schwartz, Paul M., Property, Privacy, and Personal Data, 117(7) HARVARD LAW REVIEW 2056 (2004). Solow, Robert M., On Theories of Unemployment, 70(1) THE AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW 1 (1980). Sovern, Jeff, Opting in, Opting out, or No Options at All: The Fight for Control of Personal Information, 74(4) WASHINGTON LAW REVIEW 1033 (1999). Staten, Michael E. & Fred H. Cate, The Impact of Opt-In Privacy Rules on Retail Credit Markets: A Case Study of MBNA, 52(4) DUKE LAW JOURNAL 745 (2003). Sunstein, Cass R., The Storrs Lectures: Behavioral Economics and Paternalism, 122(7) YALE LAW JOURNAL 1826 (2013). Swire, Peter P., The Surprising Virtues of the New Financial Privacy Law, 86(6) MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW 1263 (2002). Thaler, Richard H., Behavioral Economics: Past, Present, and Future, 106(7) THE AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW 1577 (2016). Tversky, Amos & Daniel Kahneman, Availability: A Heuristic for Judging Frequency and Probability, 5(2) COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 207 (1973). Tversky, Amos & Daniel Kahneman, Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, 185(4157) SCIENCE 1124 (1974). 三、專書論文 Camerer, Colin F. & George Loewenstein, Behavioral Economics: Past, Present, Future, in ADVANCES IN BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS 1 (Colin F. Camerer et al. eds., 2004). Camerer, Colin F., Prospect Theory in the Wild: Evidence from the Field, in ADVANCES IN BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS 101 (Colin F. Camerer et al. eds., 2004). Kahneman, Daniel et al., Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem, in ADVANCES IN BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS 55 (Colin F. Camerer et al. eds., 2004). Kahneman, Daniel et al., Fairness as a Constraint on Profit Seeking: Entitlement in the Market, in ADVANCES IN BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS 253 (Colin F. Camerer et al. eds., 2004). Loewenstein, George, Out of Control: Visceral Influences on Behavior, in ADVANCES IN BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS 689 (Colin F. Camerer et al. eds., 2004). Shefrin, Hersh M. & Richard H. Thaler, Mental Accounting, Saving, and Self-Control, in ADVANCES IN BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS 395 (Colin F. Camerer et al. eds., 2004). Sunstein, Cass R., Nudges.gov: Behaviorally Informed Regulation, in THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS AND THE LAW 719 (Eyal Zamir & Doron Teichman eds., 2014). Thaler, Richard H. et al., Choice Architecture, in THE BEHAVIORAL FOUNDATIONS OF PUBLIC POLICY 428 (Eldar Sharif ed., 2013). Yang, Yueh-Ping (Alex), Data Protection in the Big Data Era: The Broken Informed Consent Regime and The Way Forward, in DATA GOVERNANCE IN AI, FINTECH AND REGTECH: LAW AND REGULATION IN THE FINANCIAL SECTOR (Joseph Lee ed., Forthcoming). 四、政府資料 Amendment to the Annual Privacy Notice Requirement Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (Regulation P), 79(208) Fed. Reg. 64057 (2014). Final Model Privacy Form Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, 74(229) Fed. Reg. 62890 (2009). Financial Privacy Notice: A Report on Validation Testing Results, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION (2009), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/financial-privacy-notice-report-validation-testing-results-kleimann-validation-report/financial_privacy_notice_a_report_on_validation_testing_results_kleimann_validation_report.pdf. FRB: ANNUAL REPORT OF 2006, https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/annual06/sec2/c5.htm. Landesberg, Martha K. et al., Privacy Online: A Report to Congress, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION (1998), https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/privacy-online-report-congress/priv-23a.pdf. Privacy of Consumer Financial Information (Regulation P), 76 Fed. Reg. 79028 (2011). Spitzer Secures Privacy Agreement with National Bank, NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PRESS RELEASE (Jan. 25, 2000), https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2000/spitzer-secures-privacy-agreement-national-bank. Swire, Peter P., Markets, Self-Regulation, and Government Enforcement in the Protection of Personal Information, NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION, https://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/chapter-1-theory-markets-and-privacy. Westin, Alan F., 'Whatever Works': The American Public's Attitude Toward Regulation and Self-Regulation on Consumer Privacy Issues, NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION, https://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/chapter-1-theory-markets-and-privacy. 五、網路資料 Cate, Fred H. & Michael E. Staten, Protecting Privacy in the New Millennium: The Fallacy of 'Opt-in', http://home.uchicago.edu/~mferzige/fallacyofoptin.pdf. Cherry, Kendra, Heuristic and Cognitive Biases, VERYWELLMIND, https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-heuristic-2795235#citation-1 Flesch, Rudolf, How to Write Plain English, https://web.archive.org/web/20160712094308/http://www.mang.canterbury.ac.nz/writing_guide/writing/flesch.shtml. Grynbaum, Michael M. & Marjorie Connelly, 60% in City Oppose Bloomberg's Soda Ban, Poll Finds, NEW YORK TIMES (Aug. 22, 2012), https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/23/nyregion/most-new-yorkers-oppose-bloombergs-soda-ban.html?smid=url-share. Hatch sues U.S. Bank, MINNEAPOLIS/ ST. PAUL BUSINESS JOURNAL (Jun 9, 1999 16:45), https://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/stories/1999/06/07/daily11.html. Hochhauser, Mark, Lost in the Fine Print: Readability of Financial Privacy Notices, PRIVACY RIGHTS CLEARINGHOUSE, https://privacyrights.org/resources/lost-fine-print-readability-financial-privacy-notices-hochhauser. Lukitsch, Bill, Independence Advises COVID-19 Tests After Positive Case Traced to Mask-Focused Meeting, THE KANSAS CITY STAR (Aug. 30, 2021 17:15), https://www.kansascity.com/news/coronavirus/article253863138.html. 六、其他 Givens, Beth & Tena Friery, Opt-In to Financial Privacy, SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE (May. 1, 2000), at A23. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/85841 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 有鑑於近年來實務界不斷呼籲主管機關放寬金融機構交互運用客戶個人資料之管制，本文以我國金融控股公司法與個人資料保護法之相關規定為觀察重點，提出現行規範架構可能具有無法達成充分傳遞資訊予客戶以及促進金融資訊市場效率之問題。基此，本文先分別以新古典經濟學與行為經濟學之角度檢視客戶於金融資訊市場中可能面臨之市場失靈與行為偏誤問題，並提出以「輕推」與「非對稱性的家父長主義」作為衡平客戶個人資料保護與促進資訊市場效率之方法。本文再參考美國Gramm-Leach-Bliley、Regulation P與加州金融資訊隱私權法案作為比較法之研究依據，最後提出我國相關規範應採取預設的選擇退出制之結論，以放寬金融機構交互使用客戶個人資料時所受限制，並應同時採取「清楚與具顯著性」之通知原則、提供行使選擇退出權之合理機制，與採用標準化隱私權通知規範格式等相關配套措施，如此方能確保客戶對其個人資訊擁有完整之自主控制權並同時維持資訊市場之效率。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | The financial industries have called for loosening the limitation on exchanging customers' personal information for co-selling in recent years. In light of that, this thesis focuses on the relevant regulations under the Financial Holding Company Act and Personal Data Protection Act in Taiwan, advocating that the current legal system is inadequate to push financial institutions for informing their customers and to promote the efficiency of the financial information market. It firstly adopts the views from neo-classical economics and behavioral economics, identifying the plausible problems regarding market failures and behavioral biases in the financial information market. Besides, it proposes feasible resolutions by utilizing the concepts of 'Nudge' and 'Libertarian Paternalism'. It then employs comparative studies that review the Gramm-Leach-Bliley, Regulation P, and California Financial Privacy Act of 2011 in the United States. Based on the above, this thesis proposes that Taiwan's legal system should adopt similar opt-out default rules, accompanying with the 'clear and salient' principle when financial institutions inform their customers, providing them reasonable chances for opting-out, and imposing model privacy form to financial institutions. In conclusion, only with the measures mentioned above could we strike the balance between the privacy protection of customers and the efficiency of the financial information market. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2023-03-19T23:26:05Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 U0001-1702202212530600.pdf: 4105614 bytes, checksum: beb7a409e674c998fbed98ab576f84f0 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2022 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 謝辭 I 摘要 III ABSTRACT IV 簡目 V 詳目 VII 圖目錄 XIII 表目錄 XIII 第一章 前言 1 第一節 研究動機與目的 1 第二節 研究範圍與限制 3 第三節 研究方法 3 第四節 研究架構 4 第二章 我國現行規範架構及其問題 7 第一節 共同行銷之定義 7 第二節 共同行銷就個人資料保護之相關規範 9 第三節 現行制度之問題 34 第三章 從法律經濟分析觀點探求共同行銷與個人資料保護之平衡 37 第一節 寇斯定理假設下的理想交易環境與現實 37 第二節 新古典經濟學觀點 39 第三節 行為經濟學觀點 53 第四節 以法律作為衡平共同行銷與個人資料保護之方法 78 第五節 從法律經濟分析觀點到金融資訊市場之制度建議 91 第四章 比較法研究 95 第一節 金融服務現代化法案 95 第二節 加州金融資訊隱私權法案 138 第三節 美國學界與實務對GRAMM-LEACH-BLILEY ACT之評釋 151 第四節 小結 160 第五章 從法律經濟分析與比較法觀點檢視我國現行法律制度 167 第一節 從法律經濟分析觀點探討我國金融資訊市場之問題 167 第二節 從比較法研究型塑我國之法律制度 183 第三節 制度建議 194 第六章 結論 197 參考書目 199 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.subject | 加州金融資訊隱私權法案 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 金融控股公司 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 共同行銷 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 金融資訊市場 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 個人資料保護 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 預設規範 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 行為經濟學 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 輕推 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | Behavioral Economics | en |
| dc.subject | California Financial Privacy Act of 2011 | en |
| dc.subject | Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act | en |
| dc.subject | Financial Holding Company | en |
| dc.subject | Cross-Selling | en |
| dc.subject | Market of Financial Information | en |
| dc.subject | Protection of Personal Data | en |
| dc.subject | Default Rules | en |
| dc.subject | Nudge | en |
| dc.title | 論金融控股公司共同行銷之個人資料保護法制 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Personal Data Protection Laws of Financial Holding Companies’ Cross-Selling | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 110-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 郭大維(Ta-Wei Kuo),蔡英欣(Ying-Hsin Tsai) | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 金融控股公司,共同行銷,金融資訊市場,個人資料保護,預設規範,行為經濟學,輕推,Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act,加州金融資訊隱私權法案, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Financial Holding Company,Cross-Selling,Market of Financial Information,Protection of Personal Data,Default Rules,Behavioral Economics,Nudge,Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act,California Financial Privacy Act of 2011, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 206 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202200598 | |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2022-02-22 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 法律學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 法律學研究所 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.embargo-lift | 2022-03-07 | - |
| Appears in Collections: | 法律學系 | |
Files in This Item:
| File | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|
| U0001-1702202212530600.pdf | 4.01 MB | Adobe PDF | View/Open |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.