Self-governance of e-commerce platform business has become a governance model recognized by the e-commerce industry and state agencies. However, the leakage of user information during the online transaction process, the abuse problem has occurred frequently, seriously jeopardizing the legitimate rights and interests of network users. By analyzing the autonomy rules of the online e-commerce platform business, the author found that the platform obtains the right to use the user’s private information by setting various mandatory clauses, which is not protected and leads to the abuse and disclosure of information. The article proposes that third-party institutions as the evaluation party of the network autonomy rules, through the scientific and rigorous evaluation index system to make a score on the autonomy rules of the online e-commerce platform business, urge the platform to improve its autonomy rules, thereby protecting the legitimate rights and interests of users.
User information Autonomous rules Credit appraisal system E-commerce platform business
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Beijing normal University Zhuhai Branch Teachers’ Scientific Research ability Promotion Program < Research on Autonomous rules of Network Trading platform > Medium-term results.
Bagheri P, Hassan K (2015) Access to information and rights of withdrawal in internet contracts in Iran: the legal challenges. Comput Law Secur Rev 31(1):90–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumann F, Friehe T (2013) Private protection against crime when property value is private information. Int Rev Law Econ 35(1):73–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coe P (2015) The social media paradox: an intersection with freedom of expression and the criminal law. Inf Commun Technol Law 24(1):16–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gao Y (2017) Forward looking versus backward looking: an empirical study on the effectiveness of credit evaluation system in China’s online P2P lending market. China Finance Rev Int 7(2):228–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grace J (2013) Privacy, stigma and public protection: a socio-legal analysis of criminality information practices in the UK. Int J Law Crime Justice 41(4):303–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenleaf G, Park W (2014) South Korea’s innovations in data privacy principles: Asian comparisons. Comput Law Secur Rev Int J Technol Law Pract 30(5):492–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang H (2016) Platform based e-commerce credit evaluation system based on fuzzy comprehensive evaluation. Paper presented at the international conference on intelligent transportation, big data and smart cityGoogle Scholar
Lee J (2016) The presence and future of the use of DNA-information and the protection of genetic informational privacy: a comparative perspective. Int J Law Crime Justice 44:212–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu P (2014) An open shield: antitrust arguments against extending copyright protection to fashion designs. Inf Commun Technol Law 23(2):159–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelino P (2013) Law enforcement agencies’ activities in the cloud environment: a European legal perspective. Inf Commun Technol Law 22(2):165–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volokh A (2013) The new private-regulation skepticism, due process, non-delegation, and antitrust challenges. Soc Sci Electron Publ 37(3):931–1007Google Scholar
Wangmann J (2013) Incidents versus context: how does the NSW protection order system understand intimate partner violence. Syd Law Rev 34(4):695Google Scholar
Wissink L, Duijkersloot T, Widdershoven R (2014) Shifts in competences between member states and the EU in the new supervisory system for credit institutions and their consequences for judicial protection. Utrecht Law Rev 10(5):92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhu S, Song X, Cao Y (2016) Based on multi-objective fuzzy decision model to study tech micro enterprise financing credit risk evaluation system. Paper presented at the international conference on intelligent transportation, big data and smart cityGoogle Scholar