The Research Of The Infringement On The Right To Individual Privacy In "Human-powered Search"

Search engine has become an indispensable part of our work and life in the computer era. "human-powered search", as a brand new approach to search for a person, is convenient and fast. However, it has brought huge negative social effects at the same time. And it has triggered wide range of disputes of whether the "human-powered search" violates the right to privacy of the citizens. With the close of the "first case of human-powered search" in Beijing, "human-powered search" has became a matter of general interest. Conflicts between the right to privacy and the right to information have been arised.I have paid close attention to explore the "human-powered search" in the relationship between tort law and legal responsibility. In this paper, I use "the first case of human-powered search" as the perspective, combining with the theory of privacy and the privacy protection thoery of the Western, from the boundary of the right to information and privacy in "human-powered search" and the identify of infringement of the "human-powered search" and the compensation for moral damage of the "human-powered search" to analyze the "human-powered search".Besides the brief introduction, it comprises five parts:First, I propose a typical "human-powered search" case, and described the relevant circumstances;Second, I point out the boundary of the right to information and privacy in "human-powered search";Thirdly, I point out the privacy violations in the "human-powered search";Fourthly, I analyze the compensation for moral damage of the "human-powered search";And in the end, I propose the ways which guide the "human-powered search" healthily developed to.Part one:,A brief review of the case. Give a description of the first case of "human-powered search" and the general facts of the legal case.Part two:Boundary of the right to information and privacy in "human-powered search". From my point of view, the scope of the right to know with only limited public interest and legitimate public interest in the field, that field of public affairs. In the conflict, if it is all about the public interest, we must give priority to public interest. However, if it is entirely private matter, it should be free from public comment, then for the protection of personal privacy should be a higher pursuit than the needs of the public right to know.Part three:Privacy violations within the "human-powered search". First I introduce a number of feature of "human-powered search" that it is a tool, interactive and spontaneous, intelligent. Then pointed out that privacy is not willing to be put out publicly available, and the public interest independent of private information, private activities and private areas. And I think the privacy in "human-powered search" should be limited. And then I come to the conclusion that the main infringer should include the initiator and the related users, internet service providers.Part four:Compensation for damage of the "human-powered search". First, I point out the basis of the compensation for moral damage of the "human-powered search". I think compensation should be given to whom sufferd from moral damages. Then from the specific principles and considerations in two aspects, to discuss how to determine the amount of damages of the spirit in the "human-powered search". And I think that as a result of such way, the damage of the privacy interests of the victims and the mental suffering is enormous and can not recover by itself, so the comfort should be based on the principle of full compensation for the victims. In addition, the scope and extent of each case is different, we should give the judge a full of discretion, depending on the degree of infringement, and whether it can fully compensate the victims.Part five:The approaches which guide the "human-powered search" healthily developed to. In my opinion, NRS can be implemented to enhance the sense of responsibility and self-awareness of internet users. Second, I believe that the obligation of the network service providers should be reasonable limited. We should not condemn them on pure monitoring, only in case of fault to ask for their responsibility. Finally, I believe that raising legal consciousness of the internet users could help building a harmonious internet environment.