Quantitative jurisprudence: dynamic balancing framework of personal information protection via information entropy and Alexy's formula

• Qizhen Yang ^[1]
  1. [1] Shanxi University

     Shanxi University

     China

     
• Localización: Cadernos de dereito actual, ISSN-e 2386-5229, ISSN 2340-860X, Nº. 28, 2025, págs. 46-62
• Idioma: inglés
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo
• Resumen

  • China's personal information protection system mainly unfolds around the protection of personal information rights and the realization of data interests. However, this system faces two major predicaments in practice: the definition of the protected objects and the balance between rights and interests. Whether information belongs to personal information needs to be judged specifically in specific usage scenarios. Personal information simultaneously carries the dual demands of data flow and rights protection, and a balance needs to be achieved. The entropy weight model based on information entropy theory can calculate and describe the identification ability of personal information, providing objective parameters for judgment. By substituting the calculation results of the entropy weight model into the Alexy weight formula, the balance between personal information rights and data flow interests in dynamic scenarios can be analyzed. This article proposes a method to assist in determining the legal definition of the object and the dynamic balance of rights and interests through calculation conclusions by adopting an interdisciplinary research approach, and presents an effective research paradigm for personal protection.

• Referencias bibliográficas
  • ALEXY, R. “The weight formula.” In Rights: Concepts and Contexts; Routledge, 2017. pp. 539–558.
  • BEESLEY, S.J., POWELL, A., GROAT, D., BUTLER, J., HOPKINS, R.O., ROZENBLUM, R., BROWN, S.M. “Evaluating the balance between privacy and access...
  • BERRESHEIM, L. Balancing Privacy and Other Rights. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, 2024.
  • CHEN, L., HUANG, Y., OUYANG, S., XIONG, W. The Data Privacy Paradox and Digital Demand (No. w28854); National Bureau of Economic Research,...
  • CLOAREC, J., MEYER-WAARDEN, L., MUNZEL, A. “Transformative privacy calculus: Conceptualizing the personalization-privacy paradox on social...
  • FAINMESSER, I.P., GALEOTTI, A., MOMOT, R. “Digital privacy.” Management Science, v. 69, n. 6, 2023, p. 3157-3173.
  • KANG, J. “Information privacy in cyberspace transactions.” Stanford Law Review, v. 50, n. 1, 1997, p. 1193-1254.
  • KORGANBEKOVA, M., ZUBER, C. “Balancing user privacy and personalization.” Work in Progress, 2023, 6.
  • LAH, F. “Are IP addresses personally identifiable information?” ISJLP, v. 4, n. 3, 2008, p. 681.
  • NISSENBAUM, H. “Privacy as contextual integrity.” Washington Law Review, v. 79, n. 119, 2004, p. 119-157.
  • POPOWICZ–PAZDEJ, A. “The proportionality principle in privacy and data protection law.” Journal of Data Protection & Privacy, v. 4, n....
  • POSNER, R.A. “The economics of privacy.” The American Economic Review, v. 71, n. 2, 1981, p. 405-409.
  • SHAO, Y. “Personal information protection: China's path choice.” US-China L. Rev., v. 18, n. 5, 2021, p. 227.
  • SHANNON, C.E. “The mathematical theory of communication.” The Bell System Technical Journal, v. 27, n. 3, 1948, p. 379-423.
  • SMITH, H.J., Dinev, T., Xu, H. “Information privacy research: An interdisciplinary review.” MIS Quarterly, v. 35, n. 4, 2011, 989-1015.
  • SOLOVE, D.J. “A taxonomy of privacy.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review, v. 154, n. 3, 2005, p. 477-560.
  • XIAO, X. “An analysis and construction of personal information rights.” Legal Studies, v.45, n. 6, 2023, p. 73.