| The “credit information sharing” discussed in this paper refers to the behavior that an enterprise uses the personal credit information it controls to provide credit information to a third party in the form of credit assessment reports,credit scores,or other forms.The conflict between corporate property rights and personal information rights in credit information sharing is manifested in the conflict of specific powers such as dominance rights,defense rights,and formation rights.Because the right of personal information has the dual attributes of property rights and personality rights,so the conflict on the type of conflict between the property rights of the enterprise property rights and personal credit information property rights,corporate property rights and personal credit information personality rights conflict.In response to such conflicts,this paper attempts to propose several suggestions for adaptation so that legal rights can be effectively guaranteed and economic benefits can be effectively developed.In the adaptation of the conflict between the right of information property and personal information,the maximization of efficiency should be the basic idea.Maximizing efficiency means that when there is a conflict between corporate property rights and personal information rights,the legal restrictions on sharing personal credit information by companies are reduced as much as possible,and the cost for companies to share personal credit information is reduced.At the same time,the cost of personal credit certification is also reduced.Maximizing efficiency is reflected not only in the protection of corporate property rights,but also in the protection of the property rights of personal information rights of credit information subjects.However,there is also a boundary between efficiency maximization,that is,the protection of the personality right of personal information right.When the attributes of corporate property rights and personal information personality rights conflict,the protection of personal information personal property rights takes precedence.These protection measures for the personality right of personal credit information will be distributed along with the maximization of efficiency among the specific measures such as the exclusion rules of credit information,the consent rules of credit information,and the obligation of companies to verify the authenticity of credit information.The reasons for maximizing efficiency are as follows: On the one hand,the law itself pursues efficiency values.In thepursuit of justice,the law should not exclude efficiency.An efficient law is the proper institutional arrangement.Maximizing efficiency to reduce transaction costs,reducing sharing restrictions and reducing the cost of credit information sharing,thereby contributing to the establishment of a credit system,and ultimately reducing market transaction costs;on the other hand,although the principle of maximum efficiency under special circumstances limits the right of personal information Personality attributes,but did not cause excessive damage.Moreover,maximizing the efficiency is conducive to the construction of the market order.The market order has a reasonable limit to the proper restriction of the personality right of personal information right.In the adaptation of the conflict between corporate property rights and personal information rights,the maximization of efficiency should be the basic concept.Maximizing efficiency means that when there is a conflict between corporate property rights and personal information rights,the legal restrictions on sharing personal credit information by companies are reduced as much as possible,and the cost for companies to share personal credit information is reduced.At the same time,the cost of personal credit certification is also reduced.Maximizing efficiency is reflected not only in the protection of corporate property rights,but also in the protection of the property rights of personal information rights of credit information subjects.However,there is also a boundary between efficiency maximization,that is,the protection of the personality right of personal information right.When the attributes of corporate property rights and personal information personality rights conflict,the protection of personal information personal property rights takes precedence.These protection measures for the personality right of personal credit information will be distributed along with the maximization of efficiency among the specific measures such as the exclusion rules of credit information,the consent rules of credit information,and the obligation of companies to verify the authenticity of credit information.The reasons for maximizing efficiency are as follows: On the one hand,the law itself pursues efficiency values.In the pursuit of justice,the law should not exclude efficiency.An efficient law is the proper institutional arrangement.Maximizing efficiency to reduce transaction costs,reducing sharing restrictions and reducing the cost of credit information sharing,thereby contributing to the establishment of a credit system,and ultimately reducing market transaction costs;on the other hand,although the principle of maximum efficiency under special circumstances limits the right of personal information Personality attributes,but did not cause excessive damage.Moreover,maximizing the efficiency is conducive to the construction of the market order.The market order has a reasonable limit to the proper restriction of the personality right of personal information right.Credit information exclusion rules aim to avoid unnecessary conflicts.The credit information that does not constitute the right of personal information should be removed.It is necessary to debug the right to constitute personal information.Starting from the basic types of personal information rights,the author believes that the disclosed personal credit information should not be included in the protection of personal information rights.In the protection of personal information rights,personal identity information,commercial credit records,and social public information belong to the category of personal information protection.There should be no controversy.However,information involving civil,criminal or administrative litigation that may affect personal credit conditions or that has already been disclosed should not be included in the protection of personal information rights.That is,the sharing of such information by companies does not constitute infringement of personal information rights.Whether the records of administrative punishments fall within the scope of the government’s disclosure is still controversial,but once it is made public,the sharing of such information by companies does not constitute infringement of personal information rights.The credit information agrees rules and aims at adapting the conflict over dominance.Credit information sharing behavior is the most important way to use personal credit information.The use of behavior and the acquisition of consent is the most important way to adjust personal information rights and corporate property rights.The establishment of consent rules must take into account two aspects.On the one hand,China’s current credit industry is still in its infancy,and the more agreed exemption is undoubtedly beneficial to the development of the credit industry.On the other hand,the infringement of personal information in our country has the tendency of flooding,and it urgently needs legal protection.Therefore,the author believes that the collection of personal credit information in China should adopt a combination of direct acquisition and protocol acquisition.It has been directly and publicly collected,and has not been published.In the use of methods,the principle of consent to use,credit,purchase,payment,debt,investment,leasing,guarantees,employment,insurance,etc.are exceptions,these circumstances can be shared without consent.The obligation of the enterprise to verify the authenticity of credit information is to adjust the conflict between the right to defense and the right to form.As far as the source of the company’s authenticity review obligation is concerned,it is derived from the Tort Law for the subject of the information,and it is due to the contractual obligation for the party to be shared.Regarding the responsibility of the company for violating the authenticity audit obligation,since this article mainly discusses the conflict reconciliation between the credit information subject and the enterprise,it does not elaborate on the liability of the shareholder for breach of contract,but only discusses the responsibility of the credit information subject.Including: Correction of liability,correction of wrong information.Liability can be determined in three situations.If the provider of credit information is mandatory by law,the credit information provider should be liable for damages.If the credit information is purchased by the company and the credit information provider through the contractual agreement,the company needs compensation,but the company has the right of recovery.If the credit information is obtained by the company itself,the company will bear the responsibility. |
