Privacy Protection And Restriction Of Public Official

In the process of legalization reconstruction, the heated debate of three political issues, such as the statutory power and liabilities, liabilities going along with power and the exercise of political leadership under supervision, has drawn more and more public attention. The operation process of national power resource has in its way of publicity, institutionalization and standardization. No state of any extent is ruled without a bureaucracy organized by certain size of public officials. And in the process of supervision and restriction of state-power and resource allocation, public officials have been supervised by both the public-sectors officials (e.g.Disciplinary Inspection Office) and the citizens.The activities within working hours of public officials is not the sole part being supervised, but also domestic affairs in leisure time, which means, the supervision of implementation process has invade into the area of housing, revenue, relevant income and financing situation of a staff who works in the government. For good of public rights of citizens, the private part of public officials is inevitably involved into judgment of abuse of power and proper rights of public officials. The differences among democracy, power supervision and private rights have been complicated and irreconcilable.The implacable contradiction leads to the research of privacy of public officials and specilized definition between employees in the public-sectors and private-sectors. And the two characters of governmentality and humanity belonged to public officials in some degree are emphased on.The definition in this article of public officials is described as"A public official is a civilian public sector employee, who carries out their official tasks and allocates public resource and has certain influences on the social benefit, is elected by the public or nominated under a legal process by bureaucracy appointment in a modern democracy country."Such definition includes publicans, politicians, officials, the (sovereign) state's employees and workers in"non-department public bodies"(also known as"Guangos"), but also specialized those people in a more complicated ways.In modern democratic states, the power of government is origins from the rights of people, and this has been proved in the history of the democracy and rule of law movements. Position of trust is not belonged to the bureaucracy only but all the citizens in such regions, and the power also includes obligation and public expectation. The fidelity liability is partly a character of public officials roles as well as economic household rationality, and sometimes, individual has to avoid rent-seeking which maximize the illegal income of public officials themselves. To keep justice and objectivity, the restrains of activities of public officials is much necessary for the following three aspects,the safety of public interest, knowledge of politics by the public and politics involvement. As one part, to specialize the job seekers with high moral standards and low ones, is good to lower the risk of corruption, and in the other part, the supervision of public officials activities is helpful to prevent them from personal rent-seeking. It is so important that to prevent public power from privatization and dissimilation, and as a result, the adoption of constrains, knowing as Right-to-know politics by the public, media supervision rights and rights of supervision of functions by specialized agencies, has comes into reality. For good of country as a whole, the problem of democracy, power supervision and privacy rights is hardly to be solved by the social scientists.However, the legitimate and proper operation of right-to-know by the public and media supervision rights has some certain positive effects, as well as the negative ones on invasion of privacy of public officials. As a main part of human rights, the privacy is not only about the self-respect and the private life should be protected by both the government and individuals, but also the widespread argument which related with bullying and threatening. Therefore, the privacy of public savants should also be emphasized on, and the restriction of power has no priority to privacy as the base of human rights. With Journalism freedom and multiple-supervision, legislation system of reasonable and normal institutionalization is a balance between rights conflicts and value conflicts. And considering the social changes and public officials privacy, the equilibrium of rights conflict and dilemma should be reached.The balance of power should be both flexible in legal implement and restricted with the code law. In general, the principle of public interest, proportion principle and the principle of malicious comments to bond the areas of protection of public officials privacy. Among those legal principles, the principle of public interest should be set in the first place, and the protection of right-to-know and to supervise politics by the public is equally weighted as well as the privacy of public officials as human rights of great importance. Another proportion principle lies on the rights and obligations to respect the personality of natural persons of public officials and the intervention of the right-to-know politics by the public and media supervation rights. And the other principle of malicious comments protects the public officials from malicious attack and misunderstanding of public or media journalists.From the legislation and mechanism views, the legislation modification of privacy of public officials is a complicated systematic process, which related with many legal departments such as Constitution Law, Civil Law, the Administrative Law and Procedure Law. First and foremost, the protection of human rights is provided by Constitution Law, to define the legal concepts of privacy, and to confirm the fidelity liability of public officials, and the previous statement outlines the principles of legislation basis which influencing other legal departments. Secondly, Civil Law must regulate some cases which applied in the Personality Law and Tort Law, and public officials could read their rights to protect their privacy. Thirdly, Administrative Law leads to certain obligation descriptions of loyalty and fidelity liability, in order to explicate the dynamics of formulation and adoption of policy in situations of policy publication and power supervision. In the last place, Procedure Law and Criminal Law and other related regulations, launch the fundamental legal departments to support and protect the privacy rights of public officials and to deal with the controversial problems related with right-to-know politics by the public and public opinions supervision rights.As a conclusion, the controversial issues between privacy rights of public officials and the requirement of democracy and power supervision, adjustment of law should not emphases one over another, but to keep the equilibrium balance of public status and individual factors of public officials. The principle of leading an interest coordinating mechanism is combined with privacy rights of public officials, media supervision rights, and under such legislation system which meets the satisfactions of democracy and power supervision, and meanwhile maximizes the efficiency of respecting human rights and liberty of public officials, and as a result, to optimal the social resource allocation between public interest and personality interest of public officials.