本文以賽局理論進行目前美國、歐盟與歐盟人民間隱私權個人資料保護法案的未來發展分析。在國家公共政策及法律規範制度下，個人資料及隱私權保護在權利權擁有人，透過獨立地行動號召，凝聚群體共識與政府進行角力及協商；雙方各自透過長期賽局，探求自身利益最大化；彼此之間的關係，由不合作走向合作的路徑，是典型的社會群體“集體行動”的邏輯，更是多數當政府的政策，涉及人權相關議題時，該政策發展的軌跡。

透過了解美國與歐盟間隱私權個人資料保護規範及雙方發展歷程，模型運用賽局理論，從分析美國與歐盟、歐盟與歐盟人民、異議者與歐盟人民間所採取的策略立場出發，論述架構結合集體行動邏輯理論，分析目前現況以及推演未來局勢；再依據分析結果，剖析美國、歐盟及歐盟人民就隱私權個人資料保護，未來保護政策制定的發展；結論預估美國、歐盟與歐盟人民因應未來策略發展下，所得以採取的回應策略做法。

In this paper, the future development of the personal data protection act for privacy right between the United States (US), the European Union (EU) and the EU citizens is analyzed by application of game theory. The protection of personal privacy rights is a typical form of "collective action" in public affairs management. The path of the individual action from uncooperativeness to the cooperativeness through the long-term game that maximizes the profit is the developmental trajectory of most legal public affairs policy issues.

Through understanding personal data protection between the United States and the European Union and the development history of both parties, the model analyzes the strategies taken between the US and the EU, the EU and the EU citizens & the dissidents and the EU citizens by means of the game theory. It combines all the logical theories of collective actions to estimate the current and future situation. The future development of the personal data protection between the US, the EU and the EU citizens is evaluated according to the analysis results. In the conclusion, the actions of US, the EU and the EU in response to the development of the future strategies will be estimated.

【中文參考文獻】

1.李利文, 陳思蓉, 凌嘉瑋, & 何萌. (2012). 被拆群体集体行動的影響因素分析——基於奥爾森《 集體行動的邏辑》 的分析. 改革與開放, (10X), 81-83.
2.周慧蓮. (2004) .資訊隱私保護爭議之國際化.月旦法學雜誌.第 104 期.
3.陳艷秋. (2016) .從歐洲法院“安全港協議"無效裁決看網絡數據隱私權的保護理論觀察.理论观察. (2016 年 05), 59-60.
4.紀佩儀. (2016)歐美資料隱私屏障協議及標準合約條款之爭議.經貿法訊.第205期.
5.張陳弘. (2018). 隱私之合理期待標準於我國司法實務的操作-我的期待? 你的合理? 誰的隱私?. 法令月刊, 69(2), 82-112.
6.張順教. (2015) .賽局與談判. 財經傳訊.
7.張順教. (2015) .賽局與策略管理個案分析.華泰文化.
8.曼瑟·奧爾森. (2014)《權力與繁榮》. 蘇長和、嵇飛譯.上海人民出版社.
9.陳俐伶. (2016)歐美針對跨太平洋資料之流動達成新架構性協議.經貿法訊.第192期.
10.陳起行. (2000). 資訊隱私權法理探討 以美國法為中心.政大法學評論.
11.曾更瑩. (2018). 企業應儘速評估歐盟個資法遵循事宜. 理律法律雜誌 , 15-17.
12.楊智傑. (2014).美國醫療資訊保護法規之初探：以 HIPAA/HITECH 之隱私規則 與資安規則為中心.軍法專刊.第 60 卷第 5 期.
13.葉志良. (2016).大數據應用下個人資料定義的檢討：以我國法院判決為例.資訊社會研究.第31期.2016年.
14.趙汀陽. (2007).衝突、合作與和諧的博弈哲學.世界經濟與政治.
15.趙蓉蓉. (2014).淺談奧爾森集體行動邏輯的分析.
16.劉靜怡. (2002).網際網路時代的資訊使用與隱私權保護規範: 個人, 政府與市場的拔河. 資訊管理研究, 4(3), 137-161.
17.劉靜怡. (2002).資訊隱私權保護的國際化爭議--從個人資料保護體制的規範協調到國際貿易規範的適用. 月旦法學雜誌.
18.蔣文能. (2009). 搭便車, 集體行動與國家興衰——奧爾森集體行動理論述評.
19.謝巧君. (2002).美國與歐盟安全港架構協議（The Safe Harbor Framework）介紹.科技法律透析.
20.財團法人金融聯合徵信中心.(2017).歐盟個人資料保護規則. 金融與徵信叢書 NO.77

【英文參考文獻】

1.Bazelon, D. L. (1976). Probing privacy. Gonz. L. Rev., 12, 587.
2.Buchanan, J. M., & Wagner, R. E. (1977). Democracy in deficit: The political legacy of Lord Keynes (Vol. 4). New York: Academic Press
3.Cate, F. H. (1994). The EU data protection directive, information privacy, and the public interest. Iowa L. Rev., 80, 431
4.Cate, F. H. (1997). Privacy in the information age.
5.Cohen, A. P. (2013). Symbolic construction of community. Routledge.
6.Corken, E. (2015). The Changing Expectation of Privacy: Keeping up with the Milennial Generation and Looking toward the Future. N. Ky. L. Rev., 42, 287.
7.David L. Bazelon, (1997).The Morality of Criminal Law, 49 U.S.C. REV . ... L. & CRIMINOLOGY 15, 24.
8.de l'Europe, C. (1981). Convention for the protection of individuals with regard to automatic processing of personal data(Vol. 108). Council of Europe.
9.Gatewood, J. C. (2013). District of Columbia Jones and the Mosaic Theory-In Search of a Public Right of Privacy: The Equilibrium Effect of the Mosaic Theory. Neb. L. Rev., 92, 504.
10.Gellman, R. M. (1993). Fragmented, incomplete, and discontinuous: The failure of federal privacy regulatory proposals and institutions. Software LJ, 6, 199.
11.Gellman, R. M. (1993). Fragmented, incomplete, and discontinuous: The failure of federal privacy regulatory proposals and institutions. Software LJ, 6, 199.
12.Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Harvard University Press.
13.Goodman, J. W. (2015). Statistical optics. John Wiley & Sons.
14.Keynes, J. M. (2010). The end of laissez-faire. In Essays in persuasion (pp. 272-294). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
15.King, J. H., & Richards, N. M. (2014). What’s up with Big Data ethics.
16.Kirchmeier, J. L. (2004). A tear in the eye of the law: Mitigating factors and the progression toward a disease theory of criminal justice. Or. L. Rev., 83, 631.
17.Kjeldsen, T. H. (2001). John von Neumann's conception of the minimax theorem: a journey through different mathematical contexts. Archive for history of exact sciences, 56(1), 39-68.
18.McCallister, E., Grance, T., & Scarfone, K. A. (2010). Guide to protecting the confidentiality of personally identifiable information (PII) (No. Special Publication (NIST SP)-800-122).
19.McClellan, S., Follmer, T., Catten, J. C., Capps, E., Ord, D., Eyre, R., ... & Maynard, E. (2010). U.S. Patent No. 7,859,392. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
20.Messick, D. M., & McClintock, C. G. (1968). Motivational bases of choice in experimental games. Journal of experimental social psychology, 4(1), 1-25.
21.Messick, D. M., & McClintock, C. G. (1968). Motivational bases of choice in experimental games. Journal of experimental social psychology, 4(1), 1-25.
22.Nissenbaum, H. (2014). Respect for context as a benchmark for privacy online: What it is and isn’t. Cahier de prospective, 19.
23.Nissenbaum, H. (2018). Respecting context to protect privacy: Why meaning matters. Science and engineering ethics, 24(3), 831-852.
24.Olson, M. (1989). Collective action. In The Invisible Hand (pp. 61-69). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
25.Olson, M. (2002). Power and prosperity. Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 5(2), 85-87.
26.Pozen, D. E. (2005). The mosaic theory, national security, and the freedom of information act. The Yale Law Journal, 628-679
27.REGARD, H. Recommendation of the Council concerning Guidelines governing the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data (2013).
28.Richards, N. M., & King, J. H. (2014). Big data ethics. Wake Forest L. Rev., 49, 393.
29.Salisbury, R. H. (1984). Interest representation: The dominance of institutions. American political science review, 78(1), 64-76.
30.Schwartz, P. M. (1994). Privacy and participation: Personal information and public sector regulation in the United States. Iowa L. Rev., 80, 553.
31.Schwartz, P. M. (1995). Protection of Privacy in Healt Care Reform, The. Vand. L. Rev., 48, 295.
32.Schwartz, S. (2013, May). Value priorities and behavior: Applying. In The psychology of values: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 8).
33.Stefik, M. (1997). Shifting the possible: How trusted systems and digital property rights challenge us to rethink digital publishing. Berkeley Tech. LJ, 12, 137.
34.Stone, N. J., Robinson, J. G., Lichtenstein, A. H., Merz, C. N. B., Blum, C. B., Eckel, R. H., ... & McBride, P. (2014). 2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the treatment of blood cholesterol to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 63(25 Part B), 2889-2934.
35.Tene, O., & Polonetsky, J. (2012). Big data for all: Privacy and user control in the age of analytics. Nw. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop., 11, xxvii.
36.Tene, O., & Polonetsky, J. (2012). Big data for all: Privacy and user control in the age of analytics. Nw. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop., 11, xxvii.
37.Underwood, A. J. (1997). Experiments in ecology: their logical design and interpretation using analysis of variance. Cambridge University Press.
38.Vieweg, S., Hughes, A. L., Starbird, K., & Palen, L. (2010, April). Microblogging during two natural hazards events: what twitter may contribute to situational awareness. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1079-1088). ACM.
39.Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1945). Theory of games and economic behavior. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc, 51(7), 498-504.
40.Wagner, R. E. (1966). Pressure groups and political entrepreneurs: A review article. Papers on Non-Market Decision Making, 1(1), 161-170
41.Warren, S. D., & Brandeis, L. D. (1890). The right to privacy. Harvard law review, 193-220.

【網頁參考文獻】

1.布魯塞爾( 2018年4月6日)，洩漏歐盟270萬用戶 個資臉書認了：分享給劍橋，中央社，2018年5月20日，取自http://www.setn.com/News.aspx?NewsID=365947。
2.布魯塞爾( 2018年3月27日)，個資外洩風暴 歐盟要臉書回覆5大問題，中央社，2018年5月20日，取自https://udn.com/news/story/11922/3055356。
3.即時新聞( 2018年3月20日)臉書逾 5千萬用戶個資遭盜 歐盟要查 股價重挫，自由時報，2018年5月20日，取自http://3c.ltn.com.tw/news/33240。
4.EDPB採認之GDPR相關解釋文件之連結，國家發展委員會，2018年5月20日，取自https://www.ndc.gov.tw/Content_List.aspx?n=F98A8C27A0F54C30。