net - yskkyhh3

金沢地方裁判所以外の上記は、国・地方自治情報センターが全面勝訴となっておりますが、「自己情報コントロール権は憲法１３条で保障されたプライバシー権である」の件については、名古屋・福岡では判断されず、金沢・大阪では認められた結果となっています。ちなみに、損害賠償請求については、どれも国家賠償法の違法性は認められないとなっています。

ここで考えたいのは「人格権」「自己情報コントロール権」「プライバシー権」です。プライバシー権の侵害や保障に関して、 ①金沢地方裁判所、②名古屋地方裁判所では以下のような判決です。

①「私事への公開・私生活への侵入からの自由としてのプライバシーの権利は、いわゆる人格権の一内容として憲法１３条により保障されていると解すべき。プライバシーの権利には、自己情報コントロール権が重要な一内容として含まれると解すべき。」

②「自己情報をコントロールする権利がプライバシー権となるか否かは別として、みだりに収集開示されたくないという期待は法的利益が認められる。しかしながら、４情報については、台帳閲覧や住民票交付が認められており秘匿される必要性が高いとは言えない。」

本国会で住民基本台帳法の改正案がだされています。これまで公開原則だった住民基本台帳上の個人情報が、個人情報保護に十分留意した制度として再構築されるならば、制度上４情報の公開が大幅に制限されることになろうかと思われます。

①②に関して個人的な見解を述べさせていただくなら、自己情報をコントロールする権利が大きくクローズアップされ、「秘匿される必要性が高いと言えない」ところの４情報も制度上、個人のコントロール権が及ぶ方向にシフトすることになっていこうかと思われます。

こうなっていくと個人情報保護法に住民基本台帳法もぐっと近づくという言い方も出てきて、これはこれで整理がついてよいと思うのですが、これだけで個人情報に関する問題が解決できるのでありましょうか。

私は消極です。

個人的な意見ではなはだ恐縮ですが、役所の窓口で住民基本台帳上の個人情報が制限（営利目的公開制限）できても、個人情報を利用した「迷惑行為」が問題の根源にある限り解決し得るとは言い難く、 DMが総じて「迷惑」であるとは限らないわけでありましょうし、迷惑と思う人のために限定的にどうすべきかが肝心であろうかと思う訳です。

巷では、個人情報はあらゆるところから収集されています。流出させている張本人は誰か。それはその人自身である場合が大半だとも考えられます。

答えは簡単。アンンケートを書いた事はおありでしょう。

４情報は社会とつながっている場合がほとんどです。私たちは日常生活のいろんなところで、氏名・住所・電話番号・男女別・年齢を出しています。

もっとも、シチュエーションによっては秘匿性の高い場合もあるでしょうが、通常の生活の上では、４情報はオープンの場合がほとんどです。

こういった事から、１９年度以降、迷惑なDM件数は減ると思いますか。個人情報の流通が減ると思いますか。個人情報の流出といった苦情が減ると思いますか。

予想は否です。

では、どうすれば解決に近づくか。誤解を恐れず、大胆に述べさせていただくのなら、以下の２点に着目です。

①ADRによる解決。

個人情報に関する苦情を迅速に扱う第３者機関の機能充実です。 DMを迷惑と感じる人とDM発信業者とがうまくいけばよいのです。これを取り持つのがADR。

②一般公衆回線上を流れる個人情報の自己コントロール

これは以前、新井康平佐賀大学理工学部教授が研究発表なさっておられたところのものです。いよいよ試験的になさるというお話をお伺いいたしました。機会あれば何かのお役に立ちたいと申し上げたところでございます。

この辺りで・・・・。

写真は致遠館中学卒業式で在校生全員にくださった紅白餅です。家族でありがたく頂戴しました。校章入りです。長男はこの春２年生。

As for this list of names of the committee of council, HP of the prefecture is already opening to the public. It wants also to have opened this conference to the public and it arranges, and to describe the opinion of my own way later.

The lawsuit relation of the basic resident register inspection system is chiefly in Kanazawa district court (decision on May 30, 2005) Nagoya district court (decision on May 31, 2005) Fukuoka district court (decision on October 14, 2005) Osaka district court (decision on February 9, 2006).

In the Kanazawa district court, a part of country and the home rule clearing house are lost cases. It is assumed, "The character right and the privacy right are violated by the resident registry network system (Only the plaintiff ", and exists in the text , saying that "The prefecture and the home rule clearing house must stop the personal identification clerical work concerning plaintiffs, and delete the preservation data of a magnetic desk".

Three above-mentioneds other than the Kanazawa district court Though the country and the home rule clearing house are the overall winning the case It is a result of no judgment of the matter of "The self-information control right is a privacy right secured by Article 13 of the constitution" in Nagoya and Fukuoka, and the admissions in Kanazawa and Osaka. By the way, all becomes it illegal of State Redress Law of the claim if not admitted.

It is "Character right", "Self-information control right", and "Privacy right. " to want to think here. For the violation and the security of the privacy right ?They are the following decisions in @ Kanazawa district court and the ?A Nagoya district court.

?@｢The right of privacy as freedom from the invasion to opening to the public and the private life to the personal matter should be understood as security as one content of a so-called character right by Article 13 of the constitution. It should be understood that the self-information control right is included in the right to privacy as one important content. ｣

?A｢As for the expectation that the collection indication doesn't want to be done recklessly, a legal profit is admitted except whether the right to control self-information becomes a privacy right. The ledger inspection the resident's card delivery is high, and however, four information necessarily is admitted and is not high the necessity hided secretly. ｣

The amendment bill of Law of the Basic Resident Registers has been shown in the own country association. Up to now, it has seemed that be greatly limited disclosing four information in the system if individual information on the basic resident register that is the principle of opening to the public is restructured as a system that notes protection of individual information enough.

?The right to control self-information is greatly closed up, and if @?A will make personal remarks, it is supposed to shift in the direction in which a control right individual in the system extends it and it seems that a long ages as many as four information "It cannot be said that the necessity hided secretly is high".

shall. it is possible to solve the problem concerning individual information only this it, think that you may come out also the expression that Law of the Basic Resident Registers approaches Act for Protection of Computer Processed Personal Data held by Administrative Organs with a jerk, and attach the arrangement in itself when becoming it so

I am a depolarization.

Very excuse me, in the one's personal observation It is a translation thought that how it is necessary to do limitedly difficult to say to be able to solve as long as "Trouble act" using individual information is in the root of the problem even if individual information on the basic resident register can be limited at the window of the public office (limitation of the profit-pursuing purpose opening to the public) for the person because of no "Trouble" generally DM who thinks the trouble of it might be essential.

Individual information is collected from all places on the street. Who is the ringleader who is flowing out? It is thought that the case who is the person is the majority.

The answer is easy. Might the thing to write Anncat.

In four information, the case connected with the society is most. We : in various places of daily life. The name, the address, the telephone number, by sex, and the age have been put out.

However, after it lives usually, the case of the opening is most according to the situation will be likely in four information.

From such a thing Is it thought the DM number to be decreasing no trouble 19 fiscal year after? Do you think that the circulation of individual information decreases?

Do you think that the complaint of outflow of individual information decreases?

The expectation is no.

Then, do you approximate a solution if it does very? It is the following two points. will not fear the misunderstanding, and describe boldly

?Solution by @ADR.

It is function of the third person organization that promptly treats the complaint concerning individual information enhancement. The person and the DM sending trader who feels DM a trouble only have to succeed. It is ADR to receive this.

?Self-control of individual information that flows on A general public circuit

It is the one that the research announcement was done to the professor of Arai Yasshihira Sagadaigaccotowari Department of Engineering at before this. The talk of finally keeping experimental also visited. I said that it wanted to help something in case of being at the chance.

････ around here.