TYGlobe

Some time ago, a female teacher at a middle school in Shanghai was reported by her husband via real-name report for having an improper affair with a 16-year-old male student, and chat records involving the improper relationship between the two were disclosed to the public. Once the relevant post was published, it was widely disseminated online, triggering heated discussions among netizens and even topping the hot search list at one point. The views of topics related to this incident on social platforms have long exceeded 100 million. However, in the face of such huge traffic, many netizens raised the question of whether the aforesaid conduct of Mr. Wu, the female teacher's husband, is also suspected of infringing on the right to personal privacy.

Before answering this question, we shall first clarify what the right to privacy is. As stipulated in Article 1032 of the *Civil Code of the People's Republic of China*, natural persons enjoy the right to privacy. No organization or individual may infringe upon others' right to privacy by means of prying, harassment, divulgence, public disclosure or otherwise. The right to privacy referred to herein is a personality right under which a citizen's peace of personal life and private information are protected by law, and the citizen is entitled to immunity from unlawful infringements by others including harassment, access, collection, use and public disclosure.

The peace of private life, namely the peaceful and undisturbed living state of natural persons, is protected by law. The peace and tranquility of private life serves as the prerequisite and basis for natural persons to obtain self-esteem and a sense of security. The right to peace of private life is designed to protect the peaceful private life interests enjoyed by natural persons, so as to realize their personality dignity and personality freedom. Accordingly, no organization or individual shall pry into, intrude upon, disclose or publicize the private life of others. Any illegal acts including illegal tracking, snooping, stuffing others' mailboxes with all kinds of spam, and telephone harassment may constitute an infringement upon the peace of private life.

Private information refers to information that a natural person is subjectively unwilling to make known to others, which has the attributes of private interest and individual identifiability. As long as such concealment of information does not violate the law and public morality, it constitutes privacy protected by law. Such privacy covers personal physiological information, physical privacy, property privacy, family privacy, conversation privacy, privacy of personal experience, medical history and medical records, physical defects, health status, property status, social relations, family situation, marital and romantic status, personal hobbies and other privacy related to personal life, as well as private spaces, private activities and private information that natural persons are unwilling to disclose to others.

Secondly, what elements must be satisfied to constitute privacy infringement? Pursuant to the relevant provisions of the *Civil Code of the People's Republic of China*, acts of infringement upon the right to privacy generally have the following four constituent elements.

1. There exists intent or gross negligence subjectively. That is, when the tortfeasor discloses the privacy of others, the tortfeasor has subjective intent or gross negligence to infringe upon the privacy of others.

2. The tortfeasor has committed illegal acts infringing upon the privacy of other persons, including acts of eavesdropping, surveillance, prying into, interfering with, disclosing and publicizing the privacy of other persons.

3. Damage consequences have occurred. Namely, the disclosure of private content has given rise to damage consequences including property losses, damage to personality interests and mental distress.

4. There is a causal relationship between the incurred damage consequences and the tortious acts committed by the tortfeasor.

Then, does the act of reposting or disclosing chat records in cyberspace constitute an infringement of the right to privacy?

The first step is to ascertain where the chat records were disclosed, isn't it?

If chat records are disclosed on social media platforms open to the general public such as Weibo and Douyin, and the content of the said chat records involves the privacy of others, a large number of people will have access to the chat records, which may constitute infringement upon the right to privacy of others. However, where the chat records are only disclosed among a specific small group of people, such as a family group chat. Generally, an ordinary family group chat only has several members, and even a large extended family group chat only has around a dozen members, which is in a closed state not open to the public, and unrelated third parties cannot join. Under such circumstances, it is rather difficult to deem such an act as an act of infringement of the right to privacy.

Step 2: What is the content of the disclosed chat records that shall be reviewed?

Generally, chat records frequently disclosed to the public online fall into four major categories, namely private chat records between individuals, information concerning other persons' suspected illegal and criminal acts, moral defects of other persons unknown to the public, and negative information relating to other persons.

Private chat records between individuals, for example, a female internet celebrity once disclosed chat records between her and a second-generation wealthy individual, which showed that the latter had been vigorously pursuing the former. The aforesaid chat records triggered heated discussions across the entire internet immediately upon disclosure, and the "domineering president" persona of the second-generation wealthy individual collapsed instantly because of the line "I have been missing you all night", and he was widely ridiculed by netizens. In fact, for both parties involved in the chat, the chat dialogue space has constituted a virtual private space. Therefore, the chat content, no matter it is pouring out feelings to each other, sweet romantic words, or mutual accusations, bickering and scolding, is only sent and received between the parties concerned. That is to say, the content of private chats between individuals falls into the category of personal privacy protected by law.

Information involving others' suspected illegal and criminal activities, for example, Du Moumou once disclosed information including the promiscuous private life, suspected rape, infringement upon minors and other relevant issues of a well-known male entertainer Wu Moumou through long online posts, screenshots of chat records and other means. Under such circumstances, if the information is true, the relevant act can be determined as reporting conduct, and does not infringe on the right to privacy of others. For illegal and criminal acts will inevitably harm the interests of the state, the collective or a third party. If privacy protection is granted to criminal suspects to mislead the public, it will definitely cause damage to social and public interests as well as the legitimate interests of others. Therefore, where a person is suspected of illegal and criminal activities such as drug taking, tax evasion, infringement upon minors, rape, soliciting prostitution, etc., since such activities have already infringed on national interests, social and public interests or the interests of others, the disclosure of such activities by the reporter is a legitimate act, and shall not be determined as an infringement on the right to privacy. Of course, if the report is false, or the reporter deliberately fabricates facts to damage the reputation of others, the act shall also constitute an infringement on the right to reputation of others, and may even constitute the crime of defamation.

The unknown moral defects of others fall into two categories: one is moral defects involving social and public interests; the other is private moral misconduct unrelated to social and public interests. The first category includes fraudulent donation by public figures, paper plagiarism and other acts. Such acts are suspected of infringing upon social and public interests and violating academic norms, therefore the public shall be granted reasonable supervisory power, and such acts shall not be protected by the right to privacy. The second category refers to personal moral misconduct, such as third-party interference in relationships, rumors of romantic cheating and the like. Where public interests have not been infringed, it is appropriate to criticize and condemn such persons committing moral misconduct within a certain scope. However, if such information is directly disclosed to the public to incite unspecified members of the public to mock and launch cyber violence against the persons committing moral misconduct, it goes beyond the reasonable limit and may constitute infringement of the privacy of the said persons.

Take the ex-girlfriend of singer Mr. Huo as an example. Apart from disclosing her emotional disputes with Mr. Huo, she also disclosed the group chat records between Mr. Huo and other individuals, which involved opinions expressed by other relevant parties, and eventually resulted in doxxing and cyberbullying against other group members. When a natural person makes negative comments on other persons or matters in private within specific chat spaces and to his or her trusted contacts, he or she has no way to foresee that such trusted contacts will disclose the aforesaid chat content to the public someday. If screenshots of private chat content and group chat conversations are allowed to be made public arbitrarily, it may lead to public misinterpretation or unintended harm to third parties. The downside of Internet information dissemination lies in its extremely high speed and extremely wide coverage. Due to information asymmetry, some ordinary netizens often become indignant based on unilateral disclosures, which usually trigger cyberbullying as a consequence. Therefore, negative information related to others, chat screenshots and other similar materials constitute the privacy of others, and shall be protected by law.

We now revert to the female teacher infidelity case mentioned at the opening of this article. As the male student involved in the case has reached the age of 16 and there is no circumstance of coercion exerted by the female teacher on the male student, the chat records disclosed by the female teacher's husband do not constitute information involving others' suspected illegal or criminal offenses, but fall into the category of exposing others' moral defects. Under such circumstance, if the female teacher and the male student suffer substantial harm as a result of the online disclosure subsequently, the actor who published the relevant information shall bear corresponding legal liabilities.

Specifically, improper online disclosure of chat records constitutes an act of privacy infringement. The perpetrator shall not only bear civil liabilities including ceasing the infringement, compensating for losses, eliminating adverse effects, rehabilitating reputation and making a formal apology. In accordance with the provisions of the *Law of the People's Republic of China on Penalties for Administration of Public Security*, whoever peeps, takes secret photos, eavesdrops on or disseminates the privacy of others shall be subject to a detention of no more than five days or a fine of no more than 500 yuan. Where the circumstances are relatively serious, the offender shall be subject to a detention of not less than five days but not more than ten days, concurrently with a fine of no more than 500 yuan. If serious circumstances of insult and defamation are involved in the process of disclosing chat records and infringing upon others' privacy, the perpetrator may be convicted of the crime of insult and defamation, and shall bear corresponding criminal liabilities.

Nowadays, the rise of social platforms such as Weibo, WeChat and Douyin has gradually broken the time and space restrictions on information dissemination. However, while enjoying the convenience brought by social media, we must also stay alert to tortious acts that go beyond legal boundaries and can easily constitute infringement upon the rights of others. It is hoped that all rights defenders will safeguard their rights in a rational manner, and all members of the public following online public events will also view such events rationally.