연구논문 : 최근 개인정보자기결정권의 동향

백윤철 ( Yun Chul Ba다 ) 단국대학교 법학연구소 2014 법학논총 Vol.38 No.3

The Information Privacy Rights is the one of the rights that private information can impact on personal life right to control the subject itself. And the difference between Information Privacy Rights and the privacy of the information that traditionally used, based on the information that the privacy of an individual`s private life that is free physical space for decision-making has been to emphasize the exclusion of interference in the traditional sense, and it has privacy and discrimination. For information about privacy rights violations during the most. It is about the CCTV, ``CCTV`` technology for the installation of the expansion of the protection of human rights of the people first think to protect your personal information, and keeping with the principles of the Constitution prohibits excessive ``CCTV`` evidence of ability to admit the evidence. But still ``CCTV`` idea of a view of the installation is a panacea, which is a violation of people`s privacy rights and information about Portrait rights has been forgotten. ``CCTV`` needs and the installation of at least keeping with the principles of the constitutional prohibition must be installed. In addition, installation of domestic airport`s full body scanner become a concern at the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. Which violate the principles of the Constitution prohibits the excess can be seen as examples. In addition to the Human Rights Commission, the National Pension Corporation personal information from unauthorized view of human rights violations against the recommendation was sitting reading room at the National University Library Person of human rights violations by fingerprint identification system also recommended that measures to protect the personal information. In this perspective, ironically, the current protection of personal information is protecting by Human Rights Committee, rather than the Committee of Personal Information Protection Because of privacy laws are enacted, protection of personal information should not have blind spots, but still protecting personal information law system can not be committed. As I described, the protection of personal information does not abolished, so Act on the Protection of Personal Combine Information have been conflicted with privacy laws. and privacy during work on the important work that the Personal Information Dispute Mediation Committee role. Privacy Commissioner of deliberation and voting rights, but it does not have a ministerial committee that is only good semblance. Thus, the original intent of the Privacy Act that people have the right to receive privacy established by the specific identification method and the abolition of privacy, Privacy Commissioner is able to function with different legal status of their permanent status and country Council also operates as same. If the committee of personal information protection can not function it as they described, the Human Rights Commissioner could possibly protect the basic human rights.

최근 개인정보자기결정권의 동향

백윤철 단국대학교 법학연구소 2014 법학논총 Vol.38 No.3

The Information Privacy Rights is the one of the rights that private information can impact on personal life right to control the subject itself. And the difference between Information Privacy Rights and the privacy of the information that traditionally used, based on the information that the privacy ofan individual's private life that is free physical space for decision-making has been to emphasize the exclusion of interference in the traditional sense, and it has privacy and discrimination. For information about privacy rights violations during the most. It is about the CCTV, 'CCTV' technology for the installation of the expansion of the protection of human rights of the people first think to protect your personal information, and keeping with the principles of the Constitution prohibits excessive 'CCTV' evidence of ability to admit the evidence. But still 'CCTV' idea of a view of the installation is a panacea, whichis a violation of people's privacy rights and information about Portrait rights has been forgotten. 'CCTV' needs and the installation of at least keeping with the principles of the constitutional prohibition must be installed. In addition, installation of domestic airport's full body scanner become a concern at the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. Which violate the principles of the Constitution prohibits the excess can be seen as examples. In addition to the Human Rights Commission, the National Pension Corporation personal information from unauthorized view of human rights violations against there commendation was sitting reading room at the National University Library Person of human rights violations by fingerprint identification system also recommended that measures to protect the personal information. In this perspective, ironically, the current protection of personal information is protectingby Human Rights Committee, rather than the Committee of Personal Information Protection Because of privacy laws are enacted, protection of personal information should not have blind spots, but still protecting personal information law system can not be committed. As I described, the protection of personal information does not abolished, so Act on the Protection of Personal CombineInformation have been conflicted with privacy laws. and privacy during work on the important work that the Personal Information Dispute Mediation Committeerole. Privacy Commissioner of deliberation and voting rights, but it does not have a ministerial committee that is only good semblance. Thus, the originalintent of the Privacy Act that people have the right to receive privacy established by the specific identification method and the abolition of privacy, Privacy Commissioner is able to function with different legal status of their permanent status and country Council also operates as same. If the committee of personal information protection can not function it as they described, the Human Rights Commissioner could possibly protect the basic human rights. 최근 불법정보도 아닌데 사회질서를 해한다는 이유로 인터넷 상의 글들이방통심의위에 의해 삭제되고 있다. 최근에는 유병언 전 세모그룹 회장의 사체를 두고 의혹을 제기한 글들이 삭제됐다. 조속한 법 개정이 필요하다는 주장이 나온다. 아울러 ‘잊혀질 권리’를 위한 법 개정 과정에서 인터넷 검열이 강화될 수 있다는 우려도 제기된다. 이러한 측면에서 18세기부터 19세기에 이르러 확립된 기본권(fundamental human rights)이라든가 자유(freedom)의 보장이라는 근대법 이념이 더욱 추진되어, 21세기 인터넷시대에는 개인의 정보주권자로서의 위치와 그 실질적 평등이 지도원리가 될 것이다. 인터넷세계에 있어서는 ‘소비자’라는 관념 그 자체가 정보관계적으로 변경되고, 바뀌어서 등장하는 것이, 있어야 할 모습으로서는 정보주권자(informationalsovereign)이다. 이 의미는, 인터넷세계에 있어서는, 정보의 홍수현상이 더욱 발달되고, 그 중에서 효율적으로 정확하고 필요한 정보에 접근하여 취득, 전달하는 능력이 사람에 따라서 크게 다르며, 이념으로서는 정보주권자인 사람들이, 현실적으로는 정보처리능력에서 열등한 정보약자가 될 수 있다는 것이다. 정보의 홍수현상은 인터넷세계의 시민(netizen)을 삼켜버리고, 편중된 방향으로 netizen을 흘려 넣을 위험이 있다. 여기에서의 정보처리능력이라 함은, 그러한 정보의 홍수현상에 저항할 만큼의 지력과 자율성을 의미한다. 개인의 존중에 필요한 것은 정보의 홍수현상이 아니라, 개인이, 필요로 하는 정확하고 적절한 정보를 알고, 제어할 수 있는 것이다. 모든 시민(netizen)이이 의미의 ‘정보기본권’(fundamental right to information) 내지 정보인권을갖기 위해서는, 각자가 올바른 정보처리능력을 몸에 붙일 권리와 의무를 가질 것이 필요하다. 그러면 이러한 정보기본권 내지 정보인권이란 실정법적 개념이 아닌데, 그 개념에 대한 정의를 하면 우선 여기서 정보란 사전적 의미로 사물이나 어떤 상황에 대한 새로운 소식이나 자료를 의미하고, 정보기본권에서 정보란 사전적 의미에 기본권 주체에 관련된 정보이고, 이러한 정보는 수집, 가공, 수정, 유통, 처리, 활용 등에 관한 기본권 주체가 이에 대하여 통제할 수 있는 기본권이라 정의하고자 한다. 그 의미에서 소비자교육과는 다른, 인터넷시민적 교육(netizenry education), 정보주권자(informationsovereign, holder of (fundamental human) rights to information)에 적합한 자율성이 중요하다. 그와 같이 자율성, 주체성을 보지하는 인터넷세계의 주민 netizen이, Net상에서 사회적으로 적극적으로 발언하고, 주장하고, 행동한다면, 그곳에 원시성운과 같은 대단한 에네르기를 갖는 정보사회가 창조될 것이다. 모든 발신의 근원을 포함시킨 Net상의 정보량은, 진정 천문학적인 규모에 달하는 것이다. 정보에 관한 자유의 정도는 정말로 ‘폭발한다’고 하여도 좋을 것이다. 그리고 인터넷과 헌법의 문제에서 논의되고 있는 주제는 다음과 같다. 우선 사이버공간이 영토, 영해, 영공에 이은 제4의 영역이 될 수 있는냐는 문제이다. 이러한 문제는 관할권 문제가 제기된다. 특히 인터넷은 국경이 없는 공간이기 때문에 이러한 문제를 해결하는 것은 쉽지가 않다. 그리고 인터넷과 기본권 문제로서 제기되는 것은 표현의 자유, 개인정보자기결정권 문제, 교육권, 소비자의 권리, 재판청구권문제, 그리고 전자적 민주주의라는 주제로 논의되는 정치적 표현 ...

헌법상 개인정보의 법적성질과 보호범위에 관한 연구

백수원 경북대학교 IT와 법연구소 2014 IT와 법 연구 Vol.0 No.9

To clarify the concept of privacy(personal information, personal data) would help define it’s legal aspects between the scope of fundamental rights, personality, liberty and property. At the same time it could be helpful to clarify the limits of privacy. The fundamental rights target different objects which are based on the clarity of the legal concept of the privacy depending on how you set the policy direction of the legislation can be changed around. Privacy rights in the United States are belonged to the liberties basically, however after the concept of the informational privacy appeared, the American privacy rights taking after and accommodating its concept to the that of Europe in many areas. In Europe, the human dignity ranks on the highest value of the fundamental rights. However, the absolute fundamental rights protect narrowly in the legal area more conservative then any others. In the end, the United States and European privacy laws are different, but it is misunderstanding that the United States underestimate person’s privacy. The United States believe private autonomy should think the top priority thus, the subject of a specific fundamental right to be protected when the government interferes less. Whether privacy belonged any fundamental rights, in this informational society, privacy protection is more emphasis inevitably on important values. Even Though a privacy right could understand as the right of personality, it could be in the area of property at the same time. Privacy should be protected by its unique character.

사이버공간상 프라이버시 개념의 변화와 그에 대한 법적 대응방안

노동일,정완 경희대학교 법학연구소 2010 경희법학 Vol.45 No.4

Traditionally, the concept of the right to privacy has been discussed under several different subtitles: namely, the right to be let alone, limited access to the self, secrecy, control of personal information, personhood and intimacy. However, since the inception of the concept of “privacy”, it has become to embrace so many concepts that the usage of the word “privacy” is now almost limitless. That is especially true when the courts and legal scholars acknowledge that the right to privacy means control over information concerning his or her person. The control-over-information aspect of privacy in the U.S. can be referred to as the right to informational self-determination in Germany and Korea. Even though both the rights of privacy to control over information and informational self-determination have constitutional dimensions, the property or even intellectual property rights of privacy or information has become more and more important. The reason behind this change is that social networking services, or SNS, such as Facebook, MySpace and Xing are gaining great importance around the world. In this article, we discuss that SNS have distinctive characteristics in terms of privacy compared to other activities in cyberspace. All users of SNS voluntarily upload information about themselves and they can’t claim the protection of privacy to that information. Users of SNS regularly disclose the information of other individuals in the name of ‘friends’ without obtaining the consent of those individuals. We argue in this article that in those situations the users and other individuals should have rights to control over the information about him or herself. The rights to control over the information could not only be the constitutional rights, but also property and or contractual rights. By doing this, we can protect human dignity associated with the information of the self, we can also promote the efficiency of the transactions of information in cyberspace, including SNS.

정보통신기술의 발달과 한국의 프라이버시권 관련 주요 쟁점

권건보 헌법재판연구원 2021 헌법재판연구 Vol.8 No.1

국가에 의한 개인정보의 처리는 어떤 면에서 시민들의 더 많은 자유를 보장하는 데 기여할 수도 있다. 하지만 개인에 대한 국가의 무분별한 감시는 민주주의와 인권에 대한 근본적 위협이 될 수 있다. 이러한 점에서 민주주의의 이념과 법치국가의 원리에 입각하여 국가의 감시행위를 효율적으로 통제할 수 있는 법적 장치가 필요하다. 그리고 이것은 시민들이 국가가 어떤 개인정보를 수집할 것인지, 개인과 집단의 행동을 어떻게 추적하고 기록할 것인지 결정하는 과정에 참여하고 통제할 수 있는 권리를 헌법적 차원에서 보장될 때 실질적인 의미를 가질 수 있다. 정보프라이버시 또는 개인정보자기결정권은 자신에 관한 정보의 노출을 억제하는 데만 중점이 있는 것이 아니라 그 흐름을 적극적으로 형성하는 측면도 있다. 따라서 개인이 자신에 관한 정보를 필요에 따라 자의에 의하여 제공하거나 타인에게 알릴 수 있고 타인이 보유하고 있는 자신에 관한 정보의 상태를 파악하여 그것이 그 상태로 계속 보유되거나 활용되어도 좋을 것인지 아니면 새로운 내용으로 변경되어야 할 것인지를 결정할 수 있어야 한다. 이러한 점에서 정보의 상태와 흐름을 일반인이 자유롭게 확인하고 이용할 수 있는 권리인 알 권리와 더불어 개인정보자기결정권은 의사소통의 활성화와 원활화에 기여하며, 궁극적으로는 시민의 의사소통능력과 민주사회의 기능촉진을 위하여 기능한다고 할 수 있다. 개인정보자기결정권은 다른 기본권이나 헌법적 가치와 견주어서 항상 우선시되어야 할 만큼 절대적 의미를 갖는 기본권으로 이해될 수는 없는 것이다. 이에 따라 개인정보자기결정권은 국방, 경찰, 수사, 재판, 통계, 조세, 복지 등을 위하여 제한될 수 있으며, 언론의 자유, 알 권리 등 타인의 기본권과 충돌되는 경우에 일정한 제약을 받을 수 있다. 이러한 점에서 개인정보자기결정권도 다른 기본권과의 관계에서 적절한 조화를 이루는 한도에서 그 구체적인 보장의 수준이 결정되어야 할 것이다. 그러한 한계 속에서 개인정보자기결정권이 실효적으로 보장되기 위해서는 입법적으로 충분한 뒷받침이 이루어져야 한다. 나날이 고도화되는 정보통신 테크놀로지의 등장으로 개인정보보호의 과제는 항상 새로운 도전에 직면하게 된다. 이에 따라 새로운 개인정보침해의 양상에 대처하기 위한 입법적 보완조치를 지속적으로 강구해나갈 필요가 있다. 지능정보기술의 적용으로 인하여 인간의 주체성과 존엄성이 침해될지 모른다는 우려를 불식하기 위해서는 무엇보다도 정보처리에 대한 정보주체의 자율적 통제권, 즉 개인정보자기결정권이 실효적으로 보장되도록 입법적으로 뒷받침하는 것이 중요하다. Monitoring by the government through the handling of personal information may be suppressive to individuals, but from a wider perspective, it may also contribute to guaranteeing the freedom of more people. However, given that indiscreet monitoring is a fundamental threat to democracy and human rights, it may be necessary to develop legal and institutional mechanisms to effectively control monitoring by the government and civil society based on the principles of democracy, separation of powers and the guarantee of basic rights. By doing so, people should be able to participate in and control the process of establishing the plans regarding what forms of personal information should be collected and how the activities of individuals and groups should be tracked and recorded as part of the administrative functions of a government. This legal status of the people would have meaning when incorporated into legislation for the guarantee of basic rights. Data privacy or the right to self-determination of personal information not only focuses on containing the exposure of personal information but also actively forms and leads the flow of personal information. Therefore, it is important that an individual should be able to provide his or her personal information to other people voluntarily when there is a need, to identify the status of his or her personal information held by others and to decide whether to allow it to be retained and used by others or to change it into new information. In this respect, it can be said that the right to self-determination of personal information, along with the right to know that enables ordinary people to freely check the status and flow of information and use it, contributes to the facilitation of communication and ultimately serves to promote the communication capabilities of people and to facilitate the functions of a democratic society. The right to self-determination cannot be an absolute right that can never be restricted under any circumstances or for whatever reason. As such, the right to self-determination can be restricted to some degree when doing so is necessary for the sake of national defense, policing, investigation, court trials, statistics, taxation and welfare, etc., and also when it is in conflict with the basic rights of others, such as the freedom of information and the right to know, etc. In this regard, a harmonious balance between the necessity of handling personal information and the potential for human rights infringement could be found by guaranteeing the right to self-determination to an appropriate degree. In order for the right to self-determination to be effectively guaranteed, there must be a sufficient legislative foundation. With the advent of ICT that becomes more sophisticated each day, the task of protecting personal information faces new challenges. Against this backdrop, it would be necessary to continuously seek measures to supplement legislation in order to cope with the new patterns of personal information infringement. In Korea, opinions have been raised to modernize legislation regarding the protection of personal information in order to protect the rights and interests of data subjects in preparation for the Fourth Industrial Revolution, to rationalize regulations regarding personal information in response to ICT innovations and to secure the international applicability of legislation regarding personal information. The higher our expectations for the intelligent information society, the greater the necessity to devise effective measures to protect and control personal information to deal with the expanding use of personal information. In order to dispel the concerns that the application of intelligent information technology may infringe upon the identity and the dignity of humans, it is most important to provide legislative foundations so that data subjects’ autonomous control over the handling of information, or the right to self-determination, could...

빅데이터 환경에서 프라이버시권 개념의 재정식화

변용완,장재옥 아주대학교 법학연구소 2022 아주법학 Vol.16 No.3

In today's information technology era, even if there is no individual confidentiality in itself, if it is comprehensively collected and processed, the individual's life and personality are in a position to be revealed without hiding. The current situation is that personal information or personal data in the information age can be searched and used at any time, increasing the risk of infringing on an individual's personality or privacy. In particular, there have been many studies in the fields of philosophy, ethics, and law on the value of privacy and social functions. In other words, there are personal values such as building and maintaining various human relationships, realizing social freedom, securing superiority in strategic behavior or competition with others, and easing tensions, while considering social values such as realizing individual autonomy, balance of power relations with organizations such as governments and companies, etc. are becoming serious. In particular, when big data including personal information is used for the purpose of realizing social benefits, there is a problem of conflict or balance between the principle of personal information or privacy protection and free use of information. In this paper, I examined the development process of constitutional privacy rights in the United States, which can be considered the starting point of privacy, and the domestic discussion process. In the United States, the existing privacy type has a limitation in that it cannot grasp new privacy violations caused by the development and distribution of information technology, and in Korea, privacy rights are understood as a kind of personal rights, so it can be seen that they are unclear. Based on this awareness of the problem, the theory of Solove and Nissenbaum was examined as a major study of the pragmatic approach to privacy in big data. Solove presented the approximate types of situations such as information collection, processing, diffusion, and intrusion from the perspective of the information subject, and further subdivided each situation type to extract 16 types of harmful activities. Identifying the problem of privacy infringement according to the above type and classification system can prevent the phenomenon that privacy with conceptually abstract and ambiguous characteristics is exaggerated and recognized. Furthermore, according to Solov's classification system, various cultural perceptions of privacy can be reflected depending on the detailed types of harmful or problematic acts belonging to privacy violations. Nissenbaum grasped privacy by context. Context refers to a structured social situation characterized by typical activities, roles, relationships, power structures, rules, and internal values (goals or purposes), and using this basic framework, Nissenbaum can predict the possibility of privacy invasion when new information services, science, and business are introduced. Solove and Nissenbaum's practical approach is meaningful in that it specifically illuminates the abstract problem of privacy from various angles and provides specific measures suitable for the purpose of privacy protection. In particular, Nissenbaum's proposition, "Privacy is the proper flow of information," is meaningful as a starting point for alternatives to improve the limitations of the concept of privacy in big data era.

데이터 주도 혁신 시대의 개인정보자기결정권 ― 정보통신망법과 EU GDPR의 동의 제도 비교를 통한 규제 개선방향을 중심으로 ―

김태오 행정법이론실무학회(行政法理論實務學會) 2018 행정법연구 Vol.- No.55

Data is a key factor in the 4th Industrial Revolution era, and new value creation possibilities and global competitiveness depend on the data use environment and capabilities. The personal-related data are also subject to protection as personal information. It is essential that, in principle, the prior consent is essential to the use of data. This consent is based on the constitutional right to informational self-determination. By the way, the right to informational self-determination tends to be absolute. Therefore, if you do not obtain prior consent, as the core of personal information protection regulations that specify the constitutional right to informational self-determination, the availability of data is effectively blocked. However, the development of big data, the Internet of Things, and artificial intelligence technologies will be limited by this prior consent regime. It is time to harmonize the use of data with the protection of personal information. This paper examines the nature and limitations of personal information self-determination rights in order to provide direction for harmony and to find out a basis to improving privacy regulations through the EU GDPR consent system. First, since informational self-determination and privacy protection are both problematic, the right to self-determination and the protection of privacy should be considered simultaneously. Therefore, on the basis of the judicial logic of informational self-determination, it is necessary to evaluate the interests of the state or the judiciary according to the jurisprudence of privacy, while respecting the self-determination of the information subject. Second, the focus of privacy regulation has been on the collection stage of personal information. At the collection stage, the purpose of the personal information collected is specified. However, it is more important how personal information is used and how it affects the subject of information than whether it is based on consent. It is necessary to shift the focus of privacy regulations on data uses and impact, and risk management approach areas. Third, the system of prior consent is not the only correct proposition, as the basic setting of personal information self-determination assumes the ability of the data subjects to make rational decisions. Rather, given these abilities, an information subject can control his or her personal information sufficiently with an opt-out basis. Depending on the circumstances and importance, data collection and utilization based on prior consent and opt-out basis should be mixed. Fourth, we need to think about privacy regulations considering the behavior of the information subjects. Data subjects are fundamentally indifferent about the purpose for which personal information is collected and used, and exercise consent in such indifference situations. However, the right of consent is the most powerful source to the business and the basis of immunity. Therefore, it is reasonable to mix the prior consent and opt-out basis, considering the consent exercise behaviour of the information subjects when sufficient information is given. 데이터는 4차 산업혁명 시대의 핵심적인 원료이다. 데이터 이용은 산업발전과 새로운 가치창출의 촉매이다. 동시에 개인과 관련성이 있는 데이터는 개인정보로서 보호의 대상이기도 하다. 데이터의 이용을 위해서는 원칙적으로 정보주체의 사전동의(opt-in)가 필수적이다. 이러한 동의제도는 헌법상 개인정보자기결정권에 근거하고 있다. 그런데 개인정보자기결정권이 절대시되는 경향이 있다. 이에 따라, 개인정보자기결정권을 구체화한 개인정보보호규제의 핵심인 사전동의를 받지 않으면 데이터의 이용가능성이 사실상 봉쇄된다. 그러나 빅데이터, 사물인터넷, 인공지능 기술 등은 사전동의 제도로 인해 큰 제약을 받을 수밖에 없다. 데이터의 이용과 개인정보보호의 조화가 필요한 시점이다. 본 논문은 이러한 조화의 방향을 제시하기 위해 개인정보자기결정권의 본질과 한계를 살펴보고, EU GDPR의 동의제도를 통해 개인정보보호규제의 개선을 위한 단초를 찾고자 하였다. 첫째, 규범조화적인 개인정보보호 규제가 필요하다. 개인정보보호는 개인정보자기결정권과 프라이버시 보호 모두가 중첩적으로 문제가 되기 때문에, 개인정보자기결정권의 법리와 프라이버시 보호 법리가 동시에 고려되어야 한다. 그러므로 개인정보자기결정권 법리에 따라 정보주체가 스스로 보호범위를 설정한 것을 존중하면서도, 프라이버시와 인격권 침해의 법리에 따라 국가나 사법부에 의한 이익형량과 평가도 여전히 필요한 상황이다. 둘째, 개인정보자기결정권에 기반한 개인정보보호 규제의 초점은 그간 개인정보의 수집단계에 있었다. 수집단계에서는 수집 대상인 개인정보의 이용 목적이 특정된다. 그러나 동의에 기초한 개인정보 이용인지 여부보다, 개인정보가 어떻게 이용되고 그 이용으로부터 정보주체에게 어떠한 영향을 미치는 지가 더 중요하다. 개인정보보호 규제의 초점을 이용 중심, 리스크관리 중심으로 전환할 필요가 있다. 셋째, 개인정보자기결정권의 기본설정에 따르면 정보주체는 합리적이고 이성적인 결정을 내릴 능력을 전제한다. 그렇다면, 사전동의 제도만이 올바른 명제는 아니다. 오히려 이러한 능력을 전제하면, 정보주체는 사후거부(opt-out)로도 충분히 자신의 개인정보를 통제할 수 있다. 데이터 이용 상황과 중요성에 따라 사전동의와 사후거부에 따른 데이터 수집ㆍ이용을 안분하면 될 것이다. 넷째, 정보주체의 행태를 고려한 개인정보보호 규제를 고민할 필요가 있다. 근본적으로 정보주체는 개인정보가 어떠한 목적으로 수집되고 이용되는지에 대해 근본적으로 무관심하며, 이러한 무관심 상황에서 동의권을 행사하고 있다. 그런데 동의권은 사업자에게 개인정보 이용의 가장 강력한 권원이자 면책의 근거이다. 따라서 충분한 정보가 주어졌을 때 정보주체의 동의권 행사 행태를 고려하여, 사전동의제와 사후거부제를 혼합하는 방안이 합리적이다.

헌법체계상 인격권과의 관계에서 본 프라이버시권(사생활의 비밀과 자유)의 내용 및 성격 -암호화된 의료정보에 있어 민감정보 범위 및 안전조치 기준에 관한 보론

박찬권 사법발전재단 2023 사법 Vol.1 No.65

프라이버시권은 미국에서 생성·발전한 권리이지만 수정헌법에 직접 명시한 권리는 아니다. 다만, 헌법에 명시된 기본권이 실현되는 과정에서 그 빛의 발산으로 새로운 생명력을 가진 권리를 만드는 반영권의 성격을 지닌다. 초기에는 자신의 집 안에서 정부의 권력으로부터 안전을 보장받을 권리로 나타났다. 이후 사회의 변화와 과학기술의 발전에 따라 혼자 있을 권리라는 포괄적 의미로 변천하여 지성과 감성의 정신적 생활도 보호영역에 속하게 되었다. 오늘날 프라이버시권은 수정헌법 제14조 정당한 법의 절차로 보호되는 자유에 근거하여 설명하는 입장으로 수렴된다. 프라이버시권에 있어 법적 구제의 중심은 손실의 전보에 있지 않고 사회적 위협으로부터의 개인의 존엄과 정신을 옹호하는 데 있다. 이는 사회의 규범적 비난으로부터 벗어나 개인이 자신의 사적인 삶을 존중받을 수 있는 권리를 의미한다. 프라이버시권은 사적 생활영역에서의 개인의 자율성 그 자체를 보장하는 관념적·형식적 권리이다. 한편, 인격권은 독일에서 생성·발전한 권리로 일반적 행동의 자유와 좁은 인격적 생활영역의 권리로 나누어진다. 일반적 행동의 자유는 다른 개별 기본권들을 모두 포함하는 포괄적 권리의 성격을 갖는다. 반면, 좁은 인격적 생활영역의 권리는 개별 기본권들에 의해 미처 파악하지 못한 인격적 이익을 보호하는 보충적 권리로서의 성격을 갖는다. 그러함에도 두 기본권은 별개의 권리가 아니라 자기결정권을 공통의 기초로 하는 관념적 형식의 권리이다. 프라이버시권과 인격권은 관념적 형식의 권리라는 점에서 다른 개별 기본권들과 구별된다. 또한 법체계의 근본규범이 될 요건을 동일하게 갖추고 있다. 그러나 우리 헌법이 추구하는 인간상이 개인성과 사회성이 조화를 이룬 균형잡힌 인간이라는 점에서 사적 자율성과 공적 자율성을 함께 추구하는 인격권과 그 근거인 인간의 존엄성이 프라이버시권 보다는 근본규범에 더 부합한다. 우리 헌법 제17조는 사생활의 자유와 비밀을 규정하여 프라이버시권을 별도로 규정하고 있다. 이렇게 규정된 프라이버시권의 독자적 의미는 헌법이 추구하는 인간상에 맞는 인격을 형성하는 과정이 단순하지 않다는 데서 찾아야 한다. 인격권이 전제하고 있는 고양된 인격의 완성은 각 개인이 자신만의 고유한 가치를 잃지 않는 데서 출발하는데, 이는 국가나 다른 개인으로부터는 물론 사회가 자신에게 부여한 역할로 부터도 벗어날 때라야 비로소 개발할 수 있다. 프라이버시권은 개인이 사회적 관계로부터 단절되어 자연인으로서 갖는 고유한 가치를 실현하기 위한 기본권으로 사적 자율성만을 보장한다. 이러한 점에서 관념적 형식의 권리이지만 인격권과는 구별된다. Privacy right is a right that has been created and developed in the United States. but It is not stipulated in the Constitution. It has the nature of the penumbras creating a new life-force right stipulated in the Constitution. In the beginning, it appeared to be the right of security within one’s home from the power of the government. But it has changed into a comprehensive meaning of the right to be let alone with the changes of society and the development of science and technology. It also included the spiritual life of intelligence and emotion, Currently, the basis for the right to privacy converges to something based on the 14th Amendment. The backbone of the legal remedy is not in the compensation for damages but in the social advocacy of individual dignity and spirit. For this reason, the right to privacy is developed into the right to respect one's private life free from the normative condemnation of society. It has become an abstract and formal right guaranteeing individual autonomy in the private sphere of life. Meanwhile, personal rights is a right that has been created and developed in Germany. It is classified into general freedom of action and the right to personal life in a narrow sense. General freedom of action has a comprehensive nature of rights covering all other fundamental rights. Whereas the right to personal life in a narrow sense has a nature of supplementary rights. It protects personal interests that have not yet been identified with other fundamental rights. The two fundamental rights are not separate rights but two aspects in which the same rights are realized in reality because both are based on self-determination based on personal rights. The right to privacy and personal rights have a commonality that distinguishes themselves from other fundamental rights in that they are abstract rights. But Personal rights and human dignity are more consistent with basic norm because the human image pursued by the Constitution is a balanced human being whose individuality and sociality are harmonized. Personal rights have both private and public autonomy. Article 17 of the Korean Constitution separately protects the right to privacy by stipulating freedom of privacy and confidentiality. The right to privacy has its own meaning that distinguishes it from personal rights. The completion of an elevated personality, which personal rights makes a premise, begins with each individual not losing his or her own unique value. It can only be developed when an individual breaks away from other individuals as well as the social role given to himself. The right to privacy is a fundamental right that guarantees a person's unique value which an individual has as a natural person cutting off from social relationships. It is an abstract form of right in that it only guarantees private autonomy but distinct from personal rights.

개인정보자기결정권의 헌법적 근거에 관한 고찰

이상명 한국공법학회 2008 公法硏究 Vol.36 No.3

As information communication technique advanced, The surveillance ability about the individual of the nation increased, and the infringement possibility of the privacy grew bigger in the private area due to the data base about the individual information. In the situation like this We needed the constitutional right for the personal information protection, and this is the indivisual right to control the circulation of information relation to oneself, The right to informational self-determination. About The constitutional basis of The right to informational self-determination, Many stance is opposing. The right to informational self-determination is guaranteed by the dignity and value of human and the right to pursue happiness of Article 10 and privacy right of Article 17 of constitution. But We must acknowledge privacy right of Article 17 as active right.

개인건강정보에 대한 열람권과 정정권

박종현(Jong Hyun Park) 중앙법학회 2010 中央法學 Vol.12 No.3

It is significant to protect an informational privacy right to private information in information age. Considering the sensitive nature of private health information, it is pecially valuable to find a way to guarantee a privacy right to health information. Furthermore, because rights to access and amendment are core legal devices in controlling information, it is necessary to devise a method to protect access and amendment rights to private health information. This work basically requires a study of what the contents of these rights should be, and this study might be performed well if we focus on various contents of informational privacy rights regarding health information through comparative legal studies. According to this work, an individual who offers proof of identity should have the right to know whether information concerning him is being processed and to obtain it in an intelligible form, without undue delay or expense, and to have appropriate rectifications or erasures made in the case of unlawful, unnecessary or inaccurate entries. These principles are basic contents of access and amendment rights to private health information, and should be incorporated in privacy laws about health information. However, we cannot find these principles in recent bills of a basic law regarding protection of health information. In a future legislative process on preparing the basic privacy law about health information, universal principles and contents on access and amendment rights to private health information should be considered.