注意啦！电子眼监控应遵守这几个规则

The way to carry out the right of privacy must be the road of conflict of interest and harmony. Then, how should we harmoniously benefit all kinds of interests so as to maximize the right limit of privacy? In my opinion, it is necessary to strictly limit the scope of electronic eye monitoring in the public sphere and the need for legal equipment. At the same time, the following criteria should be observed in the field of electronic eye monitoring.

第一，约束监控准则。在《德国联邦材料维护法》与《美国隐私权法》中都有关于约束搜集或许说直接准则的清晰规则，主要是指个人材料应在当事人知情的情况下向其直接搜集，而不得隐秘搜集。详细到电子眼的监控上，要求关于摄像设备应设备有警示标志，使得当事人清晰知道自己是处于电子眼监督之下。

First, constraint monitoring criteria. Both the Federal Material Protection Act of Germany and the Privacy Act of the United States have clear rules governing the direct criterion of collection, which mainly refers to the fact that personal materials should be collected directly from the parties without the knowledge of the parties, and not secretly. Detailed to the monitoring of the electronic eye, the camera equipment should have warning signs, so that the parties clearly know that they are under the supervision of the electronic eye.

第二，意图拘束准则。即设备电子眼有必要有合理、合法、清晰的意图，并且监控所获得的信息不能用于此特定意图之外。比方，公安机关依据摄像监控获得的材料只能用于维护治安之意图，除法令有清晰规则外，不能用于其他用处。

Second, the intention is to bind the rules. That is, it is necessary for the electronic eye to have a reasonable, legitimate and clear intention, and the information obtained by monitoring can not be used outside this particular intention. For example, the material obtained by the public security organs on the basis of video surveillance can only be used for the purpose of maintaining public order, and can not be used for any other purpose except for clear rules of law.

第三，严厉保密准则。电子眼监控不只在于监督，更在于依据监督所得信息进行办理操控。而对隐私权侵略最多的即是监督所得信息的不正当传达，因而这一准则尤为重要。

Third, strict confidentiality guidelines. Electronic eye monitoring is not only supervised but also manipulated according to the information obtained from supervision. And the most aggressive right to privacy is the improper transmission of information obtained by supervision, so this criterion is particularly important.

第四，职责准则。不具有强制性和保证性的准则其可执行性明显下降，电子眼监控中出现侵略隐私权的景象时，当事人假如不能得到有用维护，那么侵权现象将会大量出现。

Fourth, duty rules. The enforceability of the non-mandatory and guaranteed criteria is obviously reduced. If the parties can not be effectively safeguarded, the infringement will occur in large numbers when the invasion of privacy occurs in electronic eye monitoring.

世界各国关于电子眼监控没有有清晰的法令规则，但是欧美各国关于个人隐私、个人信息维护的立法现已根本完善，电子眼监控所带来的问题现已能够被相关立法所包容。而我国关于隐私权的维护系统没有完善，尤其是国家赔偿中关于精力危害不予赔偿形成隐私权维护的法令缺位。现在北京、重庆、成都等城市公布的关于电子眼的规章多是从行政办理角度出发标准电子眼的设置，虽然各个规章中都强调对隐私权的维护，但是除北京市的规则外，其他规则过于简单，没有可强制执行性，且各地规则繁简不同，详细要求各异，对隐私权的维护不行完善。

There are no clear laws and regulations on electronic eye monitoring in the world, but the legislation on privacy and personal information maintenance in Europe and America has been perfected, and the problems caused by electronic eye monitoring can be contained in the relevant legislation. However, China's privacy protection system is not perfect, especially in the state compensation for the lack of compensation for energy damage caused by the absence of privacy protection ordinance. Nowadays, most of the regulations on electronic eyes published by Beijing, Chongqing, Chengdu and other cities are set up from the angle of administrative management. Although each regulation emphasizes the protection of privacy, other rules are too simple to be enforceable, and the rules are too complicated to be enforced. Meanwhile, the detailed requirements are different, and the maintenance of privacy rights can not be perfected.

隐私权的维护应以民法维护为主，其他法令维护为辅。在现行法令结构下，咱们应一方面加速隐私权的民事立法，清晰隐私权的权力规模、权能、维护方式，另一方面能够先由国务院拟定一致的行政法规，在行政办理层面将电子眼监控予以标准化，从而为隐私利益与公共利益划定一个相对清晰的界限，并在适宜的时分在国家赔偿法中增加关于精力危害赔偿的相关规则，或许经过特别立法予以规则。这样就能够为隐私权供给一个完善的维护结构，较好地和谐其与电子眼所代表的公共利益的冲突。

The protection of privacy should be mainly based on civil law, while other laws and regulations should be supplemented. Under the current statutory structure, we should speed up the civil legislation of the right to privacy, clarify the power scale, power and safeguard of the right to privacy, and on the other hand, we should formulate a consistent administrative regulation by the State Council to standardize the electronic eye monitoring at the administrative level, so as to delimit the privacy interests and public interests. A relatively clear demarcation line and the addition of relevant rules on compensation for energetic hazards to the national compensation law at appropriate times may be ruled by special legislation. In this way, the right to privacy can be provided with a perfect maintenance structure to better harmonize its conflict with the public interests represented by the electronic eye.