| As a new model of social governance,credit governance is conducive to improving the efficiency of social operation and reducing the cost of social governance.However,due to the lack of effective regulation,with the rapid expansion of credit governance scale,the risk of infringement caused by improper use of credit information is increasing day by day.Therefore,it is an inevitable requirement for the in-depth development of social credit system to protect the rights and interests of the information subject from the legislative level so as to resolve the risk of credit management.At present,China’s social credit system has turned to the stage of focusing on the development of public credit,but in the aspect of the rule of law,there is a lack of unified legislation at the national level.Driven by the actual needs of local credit governance activities and guided by the relevant policies of the State Council,local governments have successively started to explore the legislation of public credit in recent years.At present,the 25 established local special credit laws in China have basically formed a relatively complete remedy system for the rights and interests of public credit information subjects,which mainly consists of dissent handling.Therefore,it is necessary to study the results and deficiencies of the existing local legislation,so as to provide experience for the central level of credit information subject rights and interests protection legislation.The first part of this paper classifies the legislative norms from three levels: the application of dissent,the treatment of dissent and the remedy of dissent,and sorts out the legislative status quo from six aspects: the application condition,the subject of acceptance,the prepositive procedure,the treatment methods,the remedy of the period and results.The second part of this paper evaluates the advantages and disadvantages of legislation on the comparative basis of the content and summarize the following main problems: the application conditions are not comprehensive,and there is no enumeration of information infringement situations;The subject of acceptance is not unified,and some specific expressions do not conform to local realities;The prepositive procedure is not perfect,and there is lack of information comparison mechanism;The specific treatment method is not clear to be able to accurately match the corresponding situation;The remedy of the result of handing is not perfect,and the re-check remedy mechanism is notreasonable.The remedy mechanism during the processing period is not perfect,and the dissent labeling mechanism cannot be established uniformly.The third part of this paper takes the FCRA,GDPR and other representative foreign relevant legislation as examples,introduces the relevant legislative experience of the United States,the European Union and Japan,and summarizes their enlightenment to the local legislation in China in aspects of the remedy of results,the application condition and the subject of acceptance.The fourth part of this paper,based on the comparative analysis between the texts and reference to the relevant legislative experience at home and abroad,puts forward the following suggestions for improvement: expand the application conditions and increase the situation of information infringement;Unify the subject of acceptance and avoid being too specific with expression;Perfect the prepositive procedure and establish the information comparison mechanism;Define specific handling methods to match with different dissent cases;Perfect the remedy of the handling result and arrange the review mechanism reasonably;Improve the remedy of the handling period and set up a unified dissent labeling mechanism. |
