news

한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

in january this year, director liu xinda was found guilty of violating the privacy rights of lin shengbin by checking and publishing his flight records. liu xinda was dissatisfied with the verdict, believing that his checking and publishing of lin shengbin's travel records was legitimate public opinion supervision, so he appealed.

red star news learned that on september 10, the second-instance court made a ruling: the appeal was rejected and the original judgment was upheld. the court ruled that liu xinda's method of obtaining the above information was not legal, and the act of publishing the above information on a public network platform constituted an infringement of other people's private information.

▲lin shengbin

liu xinda appeals:

involving public events, it is legitimate public opinion supervision

in june 2017, the "nanny arson incident" in hangzhou caused the death of a mother and three children, which attracted widespread attention. after the incident, some people said that "lin shengbin, the husband of the deceased hostess, was suspected of committing the crime." lin shengbin told the media at the time that he flew from guangzhou to hangzhou in the early morning of the incident and was not at the crime scene.

director and writer liu xinda has been following this case for a long time and is skeptical of lin shengbin's remarks. in september 2021, liu xinda checked lin shengbin's travel records with several airlines and said that he did not find any flight records in june 2017. afterwards, he posted the recording of the call to check lin shengbin's flight records on weibo.

in may 2022, lin shengbin took liu xinda and the operating company of the weibo platform to court.

in january this year, the beijing internet court ruled that liu xinda had violated lin shengbin's privacy rights. liu xinda was dissatisfied with the verdict and believed that his inquiry and publication of lin shengbin's travel records was legitimate public opinion supervision, so he appealed.

liu xinda appealed that personal privacy refers to secrets in a citizen's personal life that he or she does not want to be disclosed or known to others, and these secrets have nothing to do with the interests of others or the public interest. disclosure of the secret will cause harm to the parties involved, so the law will protect personal privacy, "but when personal privacy conflicts with the public interest, the public interest should be resolved first. once personal privacy harms social interests, personal privacy should not be protected by law." liu xinda said that lin shengbin's travel records at the time were related to a major criminal case and did not belong to personal privacy.

the second instance judgment dismissed the appeal

liu xinda has publicly apologized to lin shengbin

on september 10, liu xinda told red star news that on the same day, the beijing no. 4 intermediate people's court made a second-instance judgment on the case.

the court ruled that, after review, first, the evidence in the case showed that liu xinda obtained and used lin shengbin’s identity information without authorization and without lin shengbin’s consent, and obtained lin shengbin’s information on china eastern airlines flights from 2015 to 2021 by impersonating others and fabricating facts. therefore, liu xinda’s method of obtaining the above information was not legal.

secondly, the evidence in the case also shows that liu xinda posted the above information on a public network platform for unspecified people to discuss and evaluate lin shengbin. even if lin shengbin is a public figure, his personal travel information does not necessarily have the attribute of public interest. citizens' whereabouts information implies private life secrets, and the time period of liu xinda's public travel information far exceeds the time period of hot events. therefore, liu xinda's act of posting the above information on a public network platform constitutes an infringement on the private information of others. the first instance court determined that liu xinda's behavior constituted an infringement on lin shengbin's privacy rights and there was nothing wrong with it.

the court ruled that regarding liu xinda’s appeal opinion that the personal information was both evidence of whether lin shengbin was suspected of major crimes and an important clue for criminal investigation, given that the competent authority had already made a corresponding determination on the facts of the criminal crime and the above opinion was not a statutory exemption for liu xinda to obtain and disclose lin shengbin’s personal information, the court’s appeal opinion was not accepted.

in the end, the court ruled: the appeal was dismissed and the original judgment was upheld.

on the evening of september 10, liu xinda told red star news that although he did not agree with the result of the second-instance judgment, out of respect for the court's effective judgment, he had made a public apology to lin shengbin on weibo.

red star news reporter saw that at 10:43 pm on september 10, liu xinda posted the apology statement on his weibo account with over one million followers. in the statement, liu xinda reiterated that he had to apologize publicly out of respect for the court's decision.

red star news reporter hu xianhe