個人資料保護法學術公益條款下之衛生福利資料科學中心資料庫串檔之法制研究

The Legal Research of Linked Files from the Databases of Health and Welfare Data Center Under Public Interest Article of Personal Data Protection Law

本文先從我國個人資料保護法出發，與歐盟個人資料保護規則比較關於特種個人資料、學術公益條款的差異與規範，雖特種個人資料與歐盟的規範上有出入，惟我國法不一定需要照單全收，但在學術公益條款上，我國法本就對於個人資料保護相關請求權有所匱乏的狀態下，與歐盟法在學術公益前提下便無從比較，此乃體系性之問題，若短時間內無從通盤檢討，應獨立出學術公益條款並賦予其相應請求權。惟就學術公益條款，本文提出應視不同資料予以不同程度之必要性規範，亦即應區分資料敏感之程度，而分別要求有不同程度之公益方可予以資料利用。而後就串檔部分，串檔乃我國研究者尚未研究之部分，大多僅著墨於衛生福利資料科學中心之健保資料庫本身，惟在最高行政法院已經認為其合法之狀況下，如何透過現有法制因應該種類繁雜之資料庫，本文在前述學術公益條款之見解下，分別建議應視個別利用之資料所涉及之敏感程度問題，分別探討是否均具釋字第603號所稱之必要性，若均符合，始得予以串檔。亦就現行衛生福利部統計處之衛生福利資料審議會提出明文入法（或行政規則）、導入外部專家機制等，期能更保障當事人之資訊自主權。

This article starts from Taiwanese Personal Data Protection Law. It compares the difference between the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation in“special personal data”and“public interest and scientific research purposes.”Though special personal data have some differences between Taiwanese law and EU law, due to the culture, it is acceptable. In contrast, in the part of“public interest and scientific research purposes,”Taiwanese law had a lot of - almost none rights to claim, and this is the whole problem of Taiwanese law. If the legislator cannot review the whole Act, at least give an independent article for public interest and scientific research purposes and give the right to claim. For public interest and scientific research purposes, this article suggests that users have different public interests to use different databases. Linked files lack the Taiwanese research have not to focus on, whereas put attention in NHIRD itself. However, after the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court, the Database is legal; thus, we need to apply our legal system to meet the requirements of J.Y Interpretation No. 603. Hence, based on the aforementioned, we should check the databases one by one and case by case that accepted under Taiwanese Law; moreover, the committee under Department of Statistics, Ministry of Health and Welfare needs to input the external experts, etc.; thus, hope to protect peoples’rights of information autonomy.