论人工智能治理的监管沙盒路径与机制

如何在监管人工智能风险与支持人工智能创新之间寻求平衡点,已经成为人工智能治理的核心问题.为缓和监管和创新的紧张关系,各国监管机构逐渐将发端于金融领域的监管沙盒应用于人工智能治理中.人工智能监管沙盒不仅有助于控制技术风险,还避免扼杀人工智能创新,为我国人工智能治理开辟一条具有可行性的新路径.它为尚未投入市场的新型人工智能提供了进行开发和试验的可控环境,在监管机构可控范围内为创新者保留了必要的试错容错空间.相较于传统自上而下的硬性监管、事后监管和严格监管方式,监管沙盒以敏捷与包容审慎的理念对人工智能进行全周期的治理.但其也具有固有局限性并且在运行中可能会遇到实践障碍,需要更合理的制度加以克服.我国人工智能监管沙盒制度应当构建与完善准入与退出机制、沙盒与个人信息保护的协调机制,以及豁免、披露和沟通交流等机制,...Abstract：The main challenge in AI governance today is striking a balance between controlling AI dangers and foster-ing AI innovation.Regulators in a number of nations have progressively extended the regulatory sandbox,which was first implemented in the banking sector,to AI governance in an effort to reduce the conflict between regulation and in-novation.The AI regulatory sandbox is a new and feasible route for AI governance in China that not only helps to man-age the risks of technology application but also prevents inhibiting AI innovation.It keeps inventors'trial-and-error tolerance space inside the regulatory purview while offering a controlled setting for the development and testing of novel AI that hasn't yet bee

《科技与法律》| 2024年05期

数字时代自洗钱行为防控研究

虚拟货币、网络银行和人工智能技术的发展,促进了贪污贿赂犯罪中自洗钱的实施和完成.《中华人民共和国刑法修正案(十一)》生效后,自洗钱行为单独构成洗钱罪,与贪污贿赂罪数罪并罚.在总体国家安全观确立后,中国对反洗钱的重视程度持续提升,自洗钱只能由他犯的限制性框架被解禁."自洗钱"入罪符合相关国际公约的立法宗旨,有利于推进反腐败国际追逃追赃.但"自洗钱"入罪作为加大涉腐洗钱犯罪惩治力度的法律利器,在具体司法适用过程中面临困境,如适用率低、入罪难等问题.这一方面与自洗钱行为的主观认识内涵有关,另一方面也与贪污贿赂自洗钱行为模式复杂、过程隐蔽相关.针对该问题,必须基于中国司法实践环境与国际洗钱与反洗钱博弈综合考量,建议适度扩张自洗钱法益保护范围,建立自洗钱犯罪处罚、合作体系,扩充自洗钱行为方式范围,涉腐自洗钱条款也会逐渐走出适用困境. Abstract：The development of virtual currencies,network banking,and artificial intelligence technologies facilitates the implementation and completion of self-money laundering in crimes involving embezzlement and bribery.Amend-ment XI to the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China lists self-money laundering as a separate money laun-dering crime,breaking the restrictive framework that it must be committed by someone else.This is reflective of the specific interest that China has in anti-money laundering.The criminalization of self-money laundering has been ad-opted as a powerful legal weapon against money laundering.However,it has confronted a series of dilemmas in terms of specific judicial applicat...

《科技与法律》| 2024年05期

变迁与调适:医疗机构数据合规的法治因应

医疗机构数据合规是数字社会的外生产物,也是维系和平衡数据保护与数据共享、个人利益与公共利益之间关系的重要途径,对于健康中国战略的实施具有重大现实意义.实践中,医疗机构数据囊括了诊疗前收集的个人身份识别数据、诊疗中产生的临床医疗数据、公共卫生管理中收集的医疗数据、日常生活中产生的潜在医疗数据等主要样态.在全面推进中国式现代化的新征程上,应明晰从个人本位向社会本位的价值转向,凸显信赖理念的补强作用,以数据利用的最小化原则为指南,着眼于后疫情时代医疗机构数据的新发展和新变化.与此同时,通过履行告知同意义务、明确数据收集和使用范围、强化相关技术措施的规范使用、健全数据合规法律责任体系等一系列举措,建构出一套灵活且高效的医疗机构数据合规体系. Abstract：Medical institution data compliance is an exogenous product of the digital society,serving as a crucial means to maintain and balance the relationship between data protection and data sharing,as well as individual inter-ests and public interests.The implementation of the Healthy China Initiative greatly benefits from its practical signifi-cance.In practice,data from medical institutions takes varied forms,including personally identifiable data collected before diagnosis and treatment,clinical medical data generated during diagnosis and treatment,medical data collected in public health management,and potential medical data generated in daily life.In the new journey of comprehensively promoting the Chinese pat...

《科技与法律》| 2024年05期

人工智能生成内容保护的行为规制逻辑选择与路径建构

赋权规制与公共领域规制作为现有对人工智能生成内容保护的规制逻辑,前者面临"独创性"认定标准不一、权利主体及内容不明等争议;后者虽能满足公共性使用的需求,但存在激励机制缺失、公共性资源滥用等问题,难以有效维护各方利益.相比之下,采取行为规制逻辑,不仅能够有效促进公共利益目标的实现、凝聚社会成员公共性使用的"普遍性共识",还能有效实现对产业发展的合理激励与利益平衡,在推动技术创新的同时兼顾利益的分配公平.关于人工智能生成内容保护的行为规制路径建构,应当通过厘清人工智能生成内容所蕴含的市场性利益、营业性利益以及公共性利益三重保护利益,并基于利益指向实现人工智能生成内容的动态保护,以此为技术演变与产业发展提供更加灵活的空间,实现科技与法律关系的良性互动与逻辑自洽. Abstract：Empowerment regulation and public domain regulation are the existing regulatory logics for AI-generated content protection,but the former is faced with controversies such as different criteria for the determination of"original-ity",uncertainty of the subject of the right and its content;although the latter can meet the demand for public use,there are problems such as lack of incentives and misuse of public resources,which makes it difficult to effectively pro-tect the interests of all parties.In contrast,adopting the logic of behavioural regulation can not only effectively promote the realization of the public interest goal and gather the"general consensus"of the public use of the members of the so-ciety;it can also...

《科技与法律》| 2024年05期

具身人工智能的著作权主体思考

具身人工智能可以主动收集信息、调整行为来适应复杂多变的环境,并在没有人类直接干预的情况下自主地进行学习,通过"思想"与"身体"的协同,在"体验"中提升"创造"的能力.基于人工智能工具主义观,具身人工智能尽管具备了技术上的显著优势,仍然难以在著作权法律体系中获得主体资格,但如果忽视具身人工智能所引发的创作形态变革,否定其内容生成行为的创作属性,将导致著作权中创作标准的失序.对此,应当对权利主体与创造主体予以区分,以作品中心主义理论以及具身认知为正当性锚点,完善具身人工智能与人类的二元作者结构,建构委托关系下的具身人工智能开发者权利归属模式. Abstract：Embodied artificial intelligence can actively gather information and adjust behavior to adapt to complex and dynamic environments,autonomously learning without direct human intervention.Through the synergy of"mind"and"body",it enhances its creative abilities through"experience".From the perspective of AI instrumentalism,although embodied artificial intelligence has significant technical advantages,it struggles to achieve subject status within the copyright legal system.However,ignoring the transformative impact of embodied artificial intelligence on creative forms and denying the creative nature of its content generation activities will lead to the disarray of creation standards in copyright l...

《科技与法律》| 2024年05期

论著作权侵权惩罚性赔偿适用标准的统一 ——基于687件裁判文书的实证分析

摘要：我国《著作权法》在第三次修改时引入了惩罚性赔偿制度,但立法语言的模糊导致司法裁判标准混乱.基于对687件裁判文书实证分析可知:一方面,法定赔偿暗含的惩罚属性压缩了惩罚性赔偿的适用空间,也带来了能否将这一实践中具有绝对主导地位的损害赔偿计算标准作为惩罚性赔偿基准额的争议;另一方面,惩罚性赔偿构成要件语义模糊、规范指引缺乏,导致裁判标准无法统一.要促进我国著作权侵权惩罚性赔偿制度的司法完善,须以类型化、体系化的思维统一惩罚性赔偿适用标准.具体而言,须厘清并协调"故意"与"情节严重"等构成要件的功能;允许在特定条件下将法定赔偿作为惩罚性赔偿的基数;降低数额认定的高精度期待,避免损害赔偿"数学化"而忽略其法律价值;厘清法定赔偿与惩罚性赔偿的边界,在防止对侵权事实重复评价的基础上促进二者的协调适用. Abstract：China's Copyright Law introduced punitive damage rule in third amendment,but the ambiguity of legisla-tive language led to the confusion on judicial standards.Based on the empirical analysis of 687 judging documents,it can be concluded that,the implied punitive attribute of statutory compensation has compressed the space for the appli-cation of punitive compensation,which also brought about the controversy of whether the standard of calculating dam-ages has an absolutely dominant position in the practice as the benchmark punitive compensation.However,the seman-tic ambiguity of the constituent elements of punitive compensation and the lack of normative guidelines hav...

《科技与法律》| 2024年05期

热门精选

重混创作的用户生成内容著作权问题研究

数智化时代的技术加持、智能手机APP的飞速发展,使得重混创作的用户生成内容持续迸发出勃勃活力.合理界定重混创作的用户生成内容并分析其引发的相关著作权问题有利于促进文化传播和知识创新.虽然可以采用"差异化独创性标准"对重混创作进行保护,但重混创作毕竟要利用在先作品,因此必须要明确是否构成侵权或者合理使用,采用"转换性使用"的标准具有一定的合理性,将其纳入合理使用兜底性条款开创了判断重混创作的用户生成内容构成合理使用的新路径.从保障公众参与文化的角度提出了用户"使用者权",以积极性权利激发用户重混创作的活力;从保障著作权人固有正当利益的角度建议设置"选择退出"的消极许可模式,从而更好地调和著作权人与用户的关系,推动文化市场的扩展和文化价值的传播;从技术赋能的角度促使重混创作UGC平台服务者在事前阶段积极行动、主动作为,以营造...Abstract：With the support of technology in the era of digital intelligence and the rapid development of smart phone APP,the user-generated-content created by remixing continues to burst into full vitality.Reasonably defining the user-generated content and analyzing the related copyright problems caused by it is conducive to promoting cultural communication and knowledge innovation.Although can use"differentiation originality standard"to protect remix cre-ation,remix creation needs to use prior works,so the judgments of infringement and reasonable use are particularly im-portant.The converted use standard be included in the bottom term of reasonable use creates a new path to judge the remixed user-generat.

《科技与法律》| 2024年05期

"规范保护目的论":数字经济时代反垄断的新应对

数字经济时代反垄断面临的挑战需要探究新的应对策略.面对反垄断文本模糊引致规范准确适用难题、文本竞合造成规范选择适用障碍的双重挑战,"规范保护目的论"因其发展轨迹及外在功能,可为解决数字经济时代反垄断的挑战提供有益借鉴.出于尊重差异、预防滥用的考量,"规范保护目的论"适用于反垄断领域应遵循类型化的基本要求.依循数字经济时代垄断纠纷与反垄断法律规范文本之间的关系,可得出数字经济时代反垄断领域"规范保护目的论"的三种场景化适用路径:文本明确时补强适用、文本模糊时解释适用、文本竞合时选择适用. Abstract：The challenges facing anti-monopoly in the era of digital economy require the exploration of new coping strategies.In the face of the dual challenges of accurate application of norms due to the ambiguity of anti-monopoly texts and the obstacle of selective application of norms due to textual competition,"the theory of normative protection purposes",due to its developmental trajectory and extrinsic functions,can provide useful reference for solving the chal-lenges of anti-monopoly in the digital economy era.In order to respect differences and prevent abuses,the application of"the theory of normative protection purposes",to the anti-monopoly field should follow the basic requirement of ty-pology.Followi

《科技与法律》| 2024年05期

公私合作治理模式在个人信息保护中的应用

公私合作治理模式作为一种前瞻性和创新性的治理方式,是国家治理从消极义务向积极义务的螺旋式升级的体现,特别是在智能社会治理中尤为体现其治理优势.文章以智能社会治理中较为突出的个人信息保护领域为重点讨论公私合作共治的法律问题.公私合作治理以行政委托、协商制定行政规则以及公私合作规制的方式促进公权力和私权力的深度合作,符合个人信息保护的效益原则.然而,在明确引入合作治理机制后,有必要厘清可能存在的法律风险,防止造成行政法向私法逃遁、引发私权力的滥用及腐败、隐私政策的效力不清以及对第三方机构的监管不完善等问题.对于公私合作治理模式下的个人信息保护,还应关注私权力集中的平台责任以及国家担保责任的机制嬗变,为公私合作治理模式在个人信息保护上发挥作用扫清障碍. Abstract：As a forward-looking and innovative governance mode,the public-private partnership governance mode is the embodiment of the spiral upgrading of national governance from negative obligation to positive obligation,espe-cially in its governance advantages in the intelligent social governance.This paper focuses on the prominent field of personal information protection and discusses the legal issues of public-private partnership co-governance.Public-private partnership governance promotes the deep cooperation between public power and private power in the way of administrative entrustment,negotiated formulation of administrative rules and public-private partnership regulation,which is in line with t...

《科技与法律》| 2024年05期

人工智能时代公共数据处理者权责配置探讨

人工智能时代的公共数据不仅释放了经济和社会价值,而且成为推动社会治理现代化、促进数字经济高质量发展和实现国家治理体系与治理能力现代化的关键力量.公共数据处理者的权责配置应当与人工智能发展水平相适应.当前公共数据的数据处理者权责不够清晰和周延,限制了公共数据开放和利用的进一步发展.根据权责对等原则,在处理公共数据时,应当赋予不同主体以不同的职责和权限.为此提出公共数据处理者权责配置思路是从数据确权到数据管理运营权的确立,构建公共数据处理者管理、运营、开发的权责体系,并在此基础上明确公共数据处理者责任主体范围、建立多维风险防范措施、平衡数据开放与个人信息及隐私保护、强化数据开放和获取的公平性等公共数据处理者权责配置具体措施. Abstract：In the era of artificial intelligence,public data not only unleashes economic and social value but also be-comes a key force in promoting the modernization of social governance,fostering high-quality development of the digi-tal economy,and achieving the modernization of the national governance system and governance capabilities.The allo-cation of rights and responsibilities of public data processors should be in line with the level of artificial intelligence de-velopment.At present,the rights and responsibilities of data processors of public data are not clear and extended,which limits the further development of public data opening and utilization.To this end,the idea of configuring the rights and responsi...

《科技与法律》| 2024年05期

竞争关系反思与数据确权路径再思考

围绕数据权益保护,有权利保护模式和行为规制模式之分.但两种模式是否截然二分,以反不正当竞争法为代表的行为规制模式是否存在数据赋权的可能性,都值得再思考.司法实践中,竞争关系认定已经趋于泛化,其不适宜再被定位为实体要件或起诉条件.对不正当竞争行为的判定重心应由"竞争关系"转向"竞争秩序",由此竞争法上数据权益便获得了一定程度的对世性.权利和利益的分野并不在其采取的保护模式,而在其是否契合权益区分的法教义学标准.只要归属效能和排除效能清晰到获得社会典型公开性的程度,行为规制模式亦可实现权利化.鉴于当今司法实践主要通过反不正当竞争法保护数据权益,凝聚两种模式的共识,以行为规制权利化路径落地数据产权结构性分置,或许是为一条可行路径. Abstract：In the realm of protecting data rights and interests,there is a distinction between the pattern of rights protec-tion and the pattern of behavior regulation.However,it is worth reconsidering whether these two patterns are strictly di-chotomous and whether the pattern of behavior regulation,as represented by the Anti-Unfair Competition Law,holds the potential for data empowerment.In judicial practice,the determination of competitive relationship has become so generalized that it is no longer suitable as a substantive requirement or a condition for litigation.The determination of unfair competition should shift its focus from"competitive relationship"to"competitive order",thereby granting data rights and ...

《科技与法律》| 2024年05期

赋权思路下中国科技成果权属制度的完善路径 ——从对美国《拜杜法》的再考察出发

中国科技成果权属制度改革以赋权为思路,在模式上参考了美国《拜杜法》的同时也对其有所超越,将科技成果权属适用范围扩大至所有智力成果类知识产权,更符合中国国情和发展新质生产力的需要.但中美两国由于国情不同,赋权于特定主体的具体含义也有所不同.在中国,赋权特定主体应当是构建一种多元权属制度模式,允许单位将科技成果的知识产权转让给包括科研人员在内的与市场有紧密联系的主体.在未来,中国科技成果转化立法需要在赋权思路下构建统一完备的科技成果权属制度.首先,构建多元的权属模式,允许单位将科技成果转让给科研人员,并允许二者在项目立项之初就科技成果知识产权的归属进行协商.其次,还应及时修改《科技成果转化法》等科技法律,使其与新修订的《科技进步法》相配合,构建完备的科技立法体系适应科技改革新动向.最后,立法需要对政府介入权进行明确定... Abstract：Bayh-Dole Act has been the representative law in technology transfer for its innovation that endow private subjects with patents of government-funded technology.By introducing the Bayh-Dole rules into the Chinese legal sys-tem,Law of the People's Republic of China on Science and Technology has exceeded the Bayh-Dole Act in that it ex-tends the rules of ownership to all intellectual properties,which is an act based on China's legal practice.Empower-ment in China is endowing subjects that are highly related to market,like researchers and companies with intellectual property right.Under the empowerment theory,the Chinese rules still have much room for further improvement.Firstly,researchers sh...

《科技与法律》| 2024年05期