113 /342
臺大管理論叢
第
27
卷第
2S
期
113
prove to be enlightening in that they provide a relatively realistic picture of big data
applications involving personal information and in that they offer an in-depth refection on
major enforcement obstacles confronted by Personal Information Protection Act.
Largely determined by its fundamental nature and defining features, the big data
architecture inherently contrasts with Personal Information Protection Act, and consequently,
data breach seems to be a real and easy possibility. Avoidance might be a proper method of
handling risk for the present moment when gaps between rules and reality still remain. To be
specific, since many relevant legal concepts are still awaiting further scrutiny and
classification, avoiding the use of personal information might to some extent appease
un-secured data controllers. As for those institutions with abundant personal information, the
way forward might be information de-identification, a necessary first step in the right
direction to prevent running into data breach problems by virtue of escaping the rigor of
Personal Information Protection Act without losing track of the economic values deeply
embedded in personal information. With respect to new information collection, both renewed
and specially-designed collection process and approaches are in great need to lend legitimacy
to such data and to come to grips with the potential legal risks posed by data breach.
Both civil law systems and common law systems offer certain strengths and entail
certain disadvantages. The enormous social benefits provided by personal information
protection must be recognized. But such benefits might be easily obscured by too many
restrictions resulting from the legislators’ single-minded focus on personal information
protection, which gives little room for the development of big data analysis. Germany and
Japan are receiving positive international appraisal for their efforts to protect personal
information. It is fairly understandable that Taiwan chose to follow a similar pattern to these
two countries regarding personal information protection as Taiwan bears much resemblance
to Germany and Japan in view of legal system. However, there presently exists a global
impetus to promote big data applications; current personal information protection rules
indeed fails to capture the power of big data applications, thus building the case for further
improvement is necessary. In order to seize the opportunities and meet the challenges
associated with big data, American legislators’ attitude on information free-flow could
profitably be taken on board when revisiting this issue. This paper, hoping to advance
rational utilization of big data while managing potential conflicts and finding the right
balance between efficiency and fairness in the meantime, proposes a radical shift towards
utilizer accountability approach, complemented with well-performed right relief
mechanisms, rather than right-claiming on the part of information owners.