Personal data propertisation in China: A difficult road under the 20 Key Measures on Data

IF 3.3 3区社会学 Q1 LAW

Computer Law & Security Review Pub Date : 2025-06-20 DOI:10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106153

Qifan Yang

{"title":"Personal data propertisation in China: A difficult road under the 20 Key Measures on Data","authors":"Qifan Yang","doi":"10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106153","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The Opinions on Building Basic Systems for Data to Better Exploit the Value of Data Factors (the 20 Key Measures on Data) in China has significantly influenced the discourse around propertising personal data, leading to a distinct approach to personal data protection from the EU and the US. The ownership-usufruct system and conditional personal data property system are raised as two representative property systems in China. In the ownership-usufruct system, the ownership of personal data belongs to the original subject, and the data processors (the data controllers in the GDPR) obtain their usufructuary right through “obtaining consent + consideration”. In the conditional personal data property system, the data processors originally acquired the data property right based on legitimate data collection behaviour. The data property right is limited by pre-existing rights, the proportionality principle, and the fair use principle. Rather than idealising the propertisation of personal data, this paper offers a nuanced critique of its limitations, including conceptual ambiguities, the failure of the consent mechanism, and unbalanced digital market structures. These challenges reveal that the propertisation of personal data is a socio-technical issue that requires legal frameworks and technical infrastructures.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51516,"journal":{"name":"Computer Law & Security Review","volume":"58 ","pages":"Article 106153"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computer Law & Security Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212473X25000264","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Opinions on Building Basic Systems for Data to Better Exploit the Value of Data Factors (the 20 Key Measures on Data) in China has significantly influenced the discourse around propertising personal data, leading to a distinct approach to personal data protection from the EU and the US. The ownership-usufruct system and conditional personal data property system are raised as two representative property systems in China. In the ownership-usufruct system, the ownership of personal data belongs to the original subject, and the data processors (the data controllers in the GDPR) obtain their usufructuary right through “obtaining consent + consideration”. In the conditional personal data property system, the data processors originally acquired the data property right based on legitimate data collection behaviour. The data property right is limited by pre-existing rights, the proportionality principle, and the fair use principle. Rather than idealising the propertisation of personal data, this paper offers a nuanced critique of its limitations, including conceptual ambiguities, the failure of the consent mechanism, and unbalanced digital market structures. These challenges reveal that the propertisation of personal data is a socio-technical issue that requires legal frameworks and technical infrastructures.

查看原文本刊更多论文

中国个人数据产权化：20项数据重点措施下的艰难之路

中国《关于建立数据基本制度，更好发挥数据要素价值的意见》（《数据20项关键措施》）对个人数据产权的论述产生了重大影响，导致欧盟和美国在个人数据保护方面的做法截然不同。提出了所有权用益制度和有条件个人资料财产制度作为中国两种具有代表性的财产制度。在所有权-用益物权制度下，个人数据的所有权属于原始主体，数据处理方（GDPR中的数据控制者）通过“征得同意+对价”的方式获得用益物权。在有条件个人数据产权制度中，数据处理者最初是基于合法的数据收集行为获得数据产权的。数据产权受到先存权、比例原则和合理使用原则的限制。本文没有将个人数据的财产化理想化，而是对其局限性进行了细致的批评，包括概念上的模糊性、同意机制的失败以及数字市场结构的不平衡。这些挑战表明，个人数据的财产化是一个社会技术问题，需要法律框架和技术基础设施。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Computer Law & Security Review LAW-

CiteScore

5.60

自引率

10.30%

发文量

审稿时长

67 days

期刊介绍： CLSR publishes refereed academic and practitioner papers on topics such as Web 2.0, IT security, Identity management, ID cards, RFID, interference with privacy, Internet law, telecoms regulation, online broadcasting, intellectual property, software law, e-commerce, outsourcing, data protection, EU policy, freedom of information, computer security and many other topics. In addition it provides a regular update on European Union developments, national news from more than 20 jurisdictions in both Europe and the Pacific Rim. It is looking for papers within the subject area that display good quality legal analysis and new lines of legal thought or policy development that go beyond mere description of the subject area, however accurate that may be.