Individual Information Protection In Precision Marketing

The case lasted three years,from the first instance of the infringement to the second instance of the reversal,not only reflects the definition of "personal information" is not unified,but also reflects the traditional model of personal information protection cannot meet the requirements of the times.This paper attempts to proceed from the three controversial points of the case,analyze the different penalties of the courts,and draw their own conclusions.This article is divided into five parts:The first part is the introduction of the case,through the comparison of the results of the courts,summed up the three major points of controversy.The second part is an overview of personal information.First of all,the core of personal information is "recognition".And then elaborated on our country's protection of personal information.Finally,analyzed the question--Is Cookie a personal information? As the basis of accurate marketing,Cookie records the user to browse the site trajectory,through its analysis can know the user on and off the line time and click habits and so on.Although these data correspond to "people who use the computer" or "people who use the browser",and not with the user's real information to get through,but can be linked to personal use of the terminal(such as computers,mobile phones,etc.).I believe that with the development of information social,requiring personal information must be linked with the specific identity of real life has not meet the requirements of the times.The third part is to analyze whether BIDU should bear the liability for damages.First of all,BIDU use the privacy statement to obtain the user's default authorization,but because the statement did not appear in a significant way,BIDU didn't fulfill the obligation,the privacy statement didn't be effective.Although the defendant did not disclose the information collected,but the use of the same can constitute infringement.Then determine the existence of violations.As the plaintiff cannot prove that she suffered "serious mental damage",so the defendant should not bear the spirit of compensation.But the plaintiff did suffer the spirit of the damage;the 1000 yuan of notary fees should be paid.Finally,the analysis of causality and fault.According to the corresponding causal relationship,BIDU's behavior has "considerable" and "conditional relationship",and BIDU laissez-faire results,so the defendant is faulty.There has causal relationship between behavior and damage.The fourth part is a comprehensive analysis of the judgment of the two trials.The first instance verdict BIDU constitutes a tort,although not bear the mental damage solatium,but the plaintiff 1000 yuan notarization fee should be compensated.While the second trial revoked the first instance verdict,dismissed the plaintiff's all claims.The first instance verdict is more conducive to the protection of user rights,and also has positive significance to Internet industry.The last part is case revelation.The arrival of the big data age makes the personal information subject to the threat from individuals,enterprises and even the administrative organs.The traditional way of protecting personal information is in the cart,and the new method is urgently needed.The right to personal information and privacy have a natural connection but cannot replace each other,the right to personal information as a specific personality,and the development of specialized laws to protect it is the path.