【访谈】中国政法大学副校长、数据法治研究院院长时建中：数字经济高质量发展亟需全国性立法

近年来，我国数字经济蓬勃发展，已成为推动国民经济增长的重要引擎。数据作为数字经济时代的基础性资源、重要生产力和关键生产要素，已快速融入生产、分配、流通、消费和社会服务管理等各环节，深刻改变着生产方式、生活方式和社会治理方式。当前，我国数字经济正在从“做大”向“做强做优”的高质量发展阶段迈进，数据作为关键要素，其赋能作用仍未充分发挥，亟需加快推进数据基础制度建设。其中，数据法律制度是推动数字经济健康有序发展的重要保障。那么，目前我国数据法律制度建设情况如何？有哪些难点、重点问题亟待解决？应从哪些方面着手去推进？带着这些问题，有记者专访了中国政法大学副校长、数据法治研究院院长时建中，希望他的见解能够为中国数据法律制度建设提供思路。

Q1：近几年，国家大力推进数据基础制度建设，在数据法律制度方面，除各地政府纷纷出台相关法律规范外，对数据进行全国性立法的呼声也很高。对此，您有何看法？

时建中：2022年12月2日发布的《中共中央国务院关于构建数据基础制度更好发挥数据要素作用的意见》（以下简称《意见》），作为迄今为止我国最为全面、权威的数据基本政策，明确提出“构建适应数据特征、符合数字经济发展规律、保障国家数据安全、彰显创新引领的数据基础制度”。目前，我国的数据基础制度建设已经有了丰富的地方立法实践，除西藏外，其他省、自治区和直辖市均有省级地方数据立法，凝聚着我国数据法律制度建设的智慧，成为构建全国数据基础制度的宝贵资源，值得认真研究并加以总结、提炼和吸收。 CXO UNION-CXO联盟（cxounion.cn）

地方数据立法经历了认识不断深化和升华的过程，呈现出三大特点：一是在规范对象方面，经历了关注信息载体到关注生产要素的过程；二是在立法内容方面，经历了从管理数据到释放数据资源的进步；三是在立法模式上，经历了从单项立法向综合立法的跨越。地方数据实践和数据立法的过程，是深化认识数据特征、数字经济规律及数据法律制度科学性的过程。地方数据立法由点到面，彰显了地方的法治自觉。认识到数据的要素价值之后，地方数据立法以释放数据价值为着力点，聚焦政府数据、政务数据和公共数据等重点问题，在一定程度上破解了数据制度的难点。此外，地方数据立法相互借鉴，一方面，各地数据立法的内容和结构呈现出大同小异的特点；另一方面，也反映了数字中国建设对于数据法治普遍的共同的制度需求，为中央的数据立法提供了实践准备。但是，受制于地方立法权限，绝大多数地方数据立法回避了诸如数据权属等立法难点。 CXO UNION-CXO联盟（cxounion.cn）

虽然已经有地方性立法，但我国数字经济高质量发展仍需要全国性立法来保障。第一，地方对数据立法的普遍需求，说明了全国性立法的必要性；第二，不同地方的差异化制度安排，影响了本应全国性统一的数字经济发展，甚至影响了新发展格局的构建；第三，数字经济是以网络作为载体，无疑应该是统一开放、竞争有序的，但是，如果全国性制度安排缺失，数字经济有可能变得封闭、分割和竞争失序；第四，地方立法回避了的数据权利应该属于民事基本制度，根据《中华人民共和国立法法》第十一条相关规定，应由法律予以规定。综上，应及时总结具有探索意义和价值的地方立法的得与失，科学地进行归纳、概括和提炼，转化为全国性法律规范。

数据基础制度建设事关国家发展和安全大局。我国高度重视网络及数据安全的制度建设，与数据利用有机衔接的数据安全法治体系——以《中华人民共和国国家安全法》为龙头，以《中华人民共和国网络安全法》《中华人民共和国数据安全法》和《中华人民共和国个人信息保护法》为骨干和主体的数据安全制度体系已经建成。下一步，数据开发利用的全国性法律制度亟待健全和完善。

为促进数据资源的开发和运用，一方面，需要健全数据要素权益保护制度，发挥数据要素对生产、分配、流通、消费和社会服务管理等各个环节的赋能作用；另一方面，需要完善数据要素市场化配置机制，发挥市场在数据资源配置中的决定性作用和更好发挥政府在数据要素收益分配中的引导调节作用，健全数据全流程监管规则体系，规范数据处理过程的各种行为，建立安全、公平、高效的数据要素流通、交易和收益分配制度，促进数字经济高质量发展。因此，制定“数据法”不仅必要、紧迫，而且可行。 CXO UNION-CXO联盟（cxounion.cn）

Q2：要对数据进行开发利用，必须确定数据权属，但目前在数据确权方面仍存在一些不明确之处，您认为，应从哪些方面去破解数据确权的难题？

时建中：数据确权无疑是数据法律制度构建的重点和难点。在此，我想重点探讨两个方面的问题。

一是三权分置的数据产权运行机制需要进一步完善。《意见》提出，“建立数据资源持有权、数据加工使用权、数据产品经营权等分置的产权运行机制”，然而，这“三权”之间的关系为何？各自有哪些具体的权能？例如，除非受制于法律和合同的限制性规定或者约定，数据资源持有权的权利主体，当然享有数据加工使用权和数据产品经营权。否则，数据资源既不能实现其使用价值又不能实现其交换价值，会导致数据资源持有权如同一纸空文，数据资源被迫与世隔绝。数据确权本身不是目的，而是为了促进数据的开发利用。因此，我们既要建立数据确权机制，又要健全数据权利之间的互动机制。同时，我们注意到，《意见》设计的持有权、加工使用权、经营权分别对应着数据资源、数据、数据产品，意味着《意见》关注数据资源、数据、数据产品有着质的差异。但是，未来的制度建设不能无视三者之间的高度关联，更不能将持有权、加工使用权、经营权仅仅限于分别对应数据资源、数据、数据产品。否则，数据资源、数据和数据产品就孤立地困在了持有权、加工使用权、经营权的制度笼子里，老死不相往来，卡住了数字中国建设的脖子。

二是政务数据所有权需要加以明确。作为信息载体的数据，一旦要素化和市场化，就由信息利益载体衍生为资源利益载体。数据种类、状态、行为的多样性和复杂性，决定了数据赋权的复杂性。目前，若干省级数据立法将政务数据规定为国家所有。这些省级数据立法，多是地方政府规章或地方规范性文件，文件效力层级较低。更重要的是，是否将政务数据规定为国家所有，不应属于地方立法权限的事项。我认为，即使是政务数据，同样存在着数据与所有权逻辑的内在冲突。与此同时，确认政务数据的权属，还需科学处理其与政府数据、公共数据、公共服务数据、个人数据以及企业数据甚至于社会数据的关系。数据确权的目的和效果是为了界定和保护不同数据利益主体的正当数据利益，规范数据行为，而不是适得其反。无论是数据的地方立法还是中央立法，均不能背离立法的科学性和合法性。

Q3：包括政务数据在内的公共数据是数据开发利用的重点，公共数据运营也必然涉及公共数据立法问题，对此，您有何见解？

时建中：总的来说，公共数据授权运营应当坚守公共数据的公共属性。

公共数据立法是地方数据立法的重点，对于公共数据内涵和外延的界定、授权运营机制的构建，一定程度上破解了公共数据制度的难点。但是，无论是针对公共数据的专门立法或者综合立法中有关公共数据的制度安排，地方立法自身的局限性以及对本地公共数据授权运营利益的过多关注，成为地方公共数据面向全国开放、普遍赋能全国数字经济发展的桎梏。 CXO UNION-CXO联盟（cxounion.cn）

对此，《意见》提出，“推进实施公共数据确权授权机制，对各级党政机关、企事业单位依法履职或提供公共服务过程中产生的公共数据，加强汇聚共享和开放开发，强化统筹授权使用和管理，推进互联互通，打破‘数据孤岛’……推动用于公共治理、公益事业的公共数据有条件无偿使用，探索用于产业发展、行业发展的公共数据有条件有偿使用”。

《意见》为公共数据授权运营提出了原则性举措，但要转化为具体的制度安排，尚有许多值得关注的理论问题。例如，公共数据授权运营机构可以被授予哪些权利？如何防止公共数据授权运营机构滥用权利？为了有效遏制公共数据授权运营过程中不合理的做法，必须坚持公共数据是数字化时代公共产品的属性，坚持公共数据“取之于民、用之于民”的基本原则，构建科学合理的公共数据控制者、处理者和运营者的义务规则体系。公共数据控制者、处理者和运营者有义务持续地、高质量地向公众和小微企业提供基于公共数据的免费基本数据服务；不提供免费基本数据服务者，不得提供基于公共数据的收费增值数据服务。公共数据的授权运营机制，应当坚持技术上便利小微企业、价格上让利小微企业。基于数据具有非竞争性、可复制性和非排他性的特征，公共数据的处理和运营，应当引入竞争机制，杜绝公共数据独家授权运营，谨防公共数据授权运营机制被运营机构“绑架”或者“钓鱼”的风险。对于公共数据授权运营中可能发生的行政性垄断和腐败问题，要依法予以预防和制止；对于地方有关公共数据授权运营机制的制度安排，要强化公平竞争审查和反垄断执法，防止公共数据授权运营演变为数据资源地方保护、垄断经营、索取不公平高价。

此外，需注意的是，以政务数据为主体的公共数据开放制度设计，应以“赋能”数字经济发展为出发点和落脚点，而不是以“变现”增加财政收入为动机。政务数据是公权力机构基于公共职责为了公共利益花纳税人的钱收集的数据，无疑属于公共产品，在维护国家安全、个人信息和企业秘密的前提下，应该加大开放范围和深度，提供免费的、基本的公共数据服务，放“数”养企，从而夯实数字经济发展的微观基础。

Q4：为促进数据流通，北京、上海、深圳等地建立了数据交易所，还有一些地方设立了数据交易中心，但很多企业对于入场交易并不积极，您认为，从法律制度上，要如何规范和促进企业数据流动？

时建中：促进企业数据流动应以保障企业数据权利为前提。考察地方数据立法，鲜有关于企业数据的相关规定，这也可以视为地方数据立法的一个特点。一个可能的原因是，企业的数据权利多数情况涉及民事基本权利，非地方立法事项。《意见》提出“推动建立企业数据确权授权机制”“市场主体享有依法依规持有、使用、获取收益的权益，保障其投入的劳动和其他要素贡献获得合理回报，加强数据要素供给激励”。这就意味着，规范和引导企业数据的开发和利用，不仅需要禁止性规范，而且需要授权性规范：承认并保护企业的正当数据利益，允许企业通过市场配置数据资源、交换数据利益。在数据为关键生产要素的数字经济活动中，数据法律制度应有助于促进各类数据的流动，以最大程度、最大范围、最高质量赋能数字经济发展。这就需要以保护企业数据利益相关者的正当利益为前提，化解而不是制造企业正当数据利益与数据流动之间可能引发的冲突。目前，有一种观点认为，可以将基础电信业务领域的互联互通义务照搬到增值电信业务。我认为，这种观点不符合数据的特征、不符合数字经济的规律、不符合法治精神。任何强制企业数据流动的制度安排，例如，强制企业数据互联互通、互操作，均需格外谨慎。这是因为，承载正当利益的数据被强制低成本甚至免费互操作，必将直接损害数据行为利益主体的正当利益，最终损害创新驱动的数字经济的健康发展。

此外，对于各地建立数据交易所也应加强规范。分析地方数据立法可以发现，各地设立数据交易所的愿望普遍迫切。而数据交易所的设立，同样需要适应数据特征、符合数字经济发展规律。数据的非竞争性、可复制性、非排他性及其与数据技术不可分离的特征，决定了数据交易所若地方化且遍地开花，必将违背数字经济规律、浪费建设资源、增加数据交易成本甚至扰乱数据交易秩序。《意见》第九条明确指出，“统筹构建规范高效的数据交易场所。加强数据交易场所体系设计，统筹优化数据交易场所的规划布局，严控交易场所数量”。可见，遏制地方设立数据交易所的冲动，规范数据交易所的行为，是数据法律制度的重要组成部分，亟待建立。 CXO UNION-CXO联盟（cxounion.cn）

翻译：

Shi Jianzhong, Vice President of China University of Political Science and Law and Dean of the Institute of Data Rule of Law: High-quality development of the digital economy needs national legislation

In recent years, China’s digital economy has developed vigorously and has become an important engine to promote national economic growth. As a basic resource, an important productive force and a key factor of production in the era of digital economy, data has been rapidly integrated into production, distribution, circulation, consumption and social service management, profoundly changing the mode of production, lifestyle and social governance. At present, China’s digital economy is moving from a high-quality development stage of “bigger” to “stronger and better”. Data, as a key factor, has not yet fully played its enabling role, and it is urgent to accelerate the construction of data infrastructure system. Among them, the data legal system is an important guarantee for the healthy and orderly development of the digital economy. So, what is the current situation of our data legal system construction? What difficulties and key issues need to be solved? Which aspects should be taken forward? With these questions, a reporter interviewed Shi Jianzhong, vice president of China University of Political Science and Law and dean of the Institute of Data Rule of Law, hoping that his insights can provide ideas for the construction of China’s data legal system. CXO UNION-CXO联盟（cxounion.cn）

Q1: In recent years, the state has vigorously promoted the construction of data infrastructure systems, in the data legal system, in addition to the local governments have issued relevant laws and regulations, the call for national legislation on data is also very high. What is your view on this?

Shi Jianzhong: The “Opinions of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and The State Council on Building a Data Basic System to Better Play the Role of Data Elements” (hereinafter referred to as the “Opinions”), issued on December 2, 2022, is the most comprehensive and authoritative data basic policy in China so far. It is clearly proposed to “build a data basic system that ADAPTS to data characteristics, conforms to the development law of the digital economy, guarantees national data security, and highlights the leadership of innovation.” At present, China’s data base system construction has a rich practice of local legislation, in addition to Tibet, other provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the central Government have provincial local data legislation, embodies the wisdom of China’s data legal system construction, become a valuable resource for the construction of national data base system, worthy of careful study and summary, refining and absorption.

Local data legislation has gone through the process of deepening and sublimating the understanding, showing three characteristics: First, in the aspect of regulating the object, it has gone through the process of focusing on the information carrier to focus on the production factors; Second, in terms of legislative content, it has experienced progress from managing data to releasing data resources; Third, in the legislative mode, it has experienced the leap from single legislation to comprehensive legislation. The process of local data practice and data legislation is the process of deepening the understanding of data characteristics, the law of digital economy and the scientificity of data legal system. Local data legislation from the point to the surface, highlighting the local consciousness of the rule of law. After recognizing the element value of data, local data legislation focuses on releasing the value of data, focusing on key issues such as government data, government data and public data, and cracking the difficulties of data system to a certain extent. In addition, local data legislation can learn from each other. On the one hand, the content and structure of local data legislation show similar characteristics; On the other hand, it also reflects the common institutional demand for data rule of law in the construction of digital China, and provides practical preparation for the central data legislation. However, subject to the authority of local legislation, most of the local data legislation avoids the legislative difficulties such as data ownership.

Although there is already local legislation, the high-quality development of China’s digital economy still needs national legislation to guarantee it. First, the widespread local demand for data legislation illustrates the need for national legislation. Second, the differentiated institutional arrangements in different places have affected the development of the digital economy, which should be unified across the country, and even affected the construction of a new development pattern. Third, the digital economy is based on the network as the carrier, undoubtedly should be unified, open, and orderly competition, but if the national institutional arrangement is missing, the digital economy may become closed, segmented and competition disorder; Fourth, the data rights evaded by local legislation should belong to the basic civil system, and should be stipulated by law according to the relevant provisions of Article 11 of the Legislation Law of the People’s Republic of China. To sum up, the gains and losses of local legislation with exploratory significance and value should be summarized in time, scientifically summarized, summarized and refined, and transformed into national legal norms.

The construction of data infrastructure systems bears on the overall situation of national development and security. China attaches great importance to the system construction of network and data security, and the data security rule of law system that organically links with data utilization – led by the National Security Law of the People’s Republic of China. A data security system with the Cybersecurity Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Data Security Law of the People’s Republic of China and the Personal Information Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China as the backbone and main body has been established. In the next step, the national legal system for data exploitation and utilization needs to be improved and perfected. CXO UNION-CXO联盟（cxounion.cn）

In order to promote the development and application of data resources, on the one hand, it is necessary to improve the protection system of the rights and interests of data elements, and give full play to the enabling role of data elements in production, distribution, circulation, consumption and social service management. On the other hand, it is necessary to improve the market-based allocation mechanism of data factors, give full play to the decisive role of the market in the allocation of data resources and better play the role of the government in guiding and regulating the income distribution of data factors, improve the supervisory rules system of the whole data process, standardize various behaviors in the data processing process, and establish a safe, fair and efficient data factor circulation, transaction and income distribution system. We will promote high-quality development of the digital economy. Therefore, the formulation of “data law” is not only necessary, urgent, and feasible.

Q2: In order to develop and utilize data, it is necessary to determine the ownership of data, but there are still some unclear points in the data right confirmation. In your opinion, what aspects should be solved to solve the problem of data right confirmation?

Shi Jianzhong: Data right confirmation is undoubtedly the key and difficult point of data legal system construction. Here, I would like to focus on two issues.

First, the operation mechanism of data property rights with the separation of three rights needs to be further improved. “Opinions” proposed to “establish a separate property rights operation mechanism for data resource holding rights, data processing rights, data product management rights, etc.”, however, what is the relationship between these “three rights”? What specific powers does each have? For example, unless subject to the restrictive provisions or agreements of laws and contracts, the right subject who holds the right to data resources will of course enjoy the right to use data processing and the right to operate data products. Otherwise, data resources can neither realize their use value nor exchange value, which will lead to the ownership of data resources as a piece of paper, and data resources are forced to isolate themselves. Data rights verification is not an end in itself, but to promote the development and utilization of data. Therefore, we should not only establish a data rights confirmation mechanism, but also improve the interaction mechanism between data rights. At the same time, we note that the ownership rights, processing rights, and management rights of the “Opinions” design correspond to data resources, data, and data products respectively, which means that the “Opinions” focus on data resources, data, and data products have qualitative differences. However, the future system construction can not ignore the high correlation between the three, and can not limit the holding right, processing right, and management right only to corresponding data resources, data, and data products respectively. Otherwise, data resources, data and data products will be isolated in the holding rights, processing rights, and management rights of the system cage, no contact, stuck in the neck of digital China construction.

Second, the ownership of government data needs to be clarified. As the carrier of information, once the data is factored and marketized, it will be derived from the carrier of information benefits to the carrier of resource benefits. The diversity and complexity of data types, states, and behaviors determine the complexity of data empowerment. Currently, several provincial data legislations make government data state ownership. These provincial data legislation are mostly local government regulations or local normative documents, and the effectiveness of the documents is low. More importantly, whether government data should be stipulated as national ownership should not be a matter within the jurisdiction of local legislation. In my opinion, even for government data, there is an inherent conflict between data and ownership logic. At the same time, to confirm the ownership of government data, it is also necessary to scientifically deal with its relationship with government data, public data, public service data, personal data, enterprise data and even social data. The purpose and effect of data confirmation is to define and protect the legitimate data interests of different data interest subjects and regulate data behavior, rather than backfiring. No matter the local legislation or the central legislation of data, it can not deviate from the scientificity and legitimacy of the legislation.

Q3: Public data, including government data, is the focus of data development and utilization, and public data operation will inevitably involve public data legislation. What is your opinion on this?

Shi Jianzhong: In general, public data authorization operations should adhere to the public attributes of public data. CXO UNION-CXO联盟（cxounion.cn）

Public data legislation is the focus of local data legislation. The definition of public data connotation and extension and the construction of authorization operation mechanism have cracked the difficulties of public data system to a certain extent. However, whether it is the institutional arrangement of public data in the special legislation for public data or the comprehensive legislation, the limitations of local legislation itself and the excessive attention to the interests of local public data authorization operation have become the shackles of local public data opening to the whole country and generally empowering the development of the national digital economy.

In this regard, the “Opinions” put forward, “promote the implementation of the public data authorization mechanism, the public data generated in the process of performing their duties or providing public services at all levels of Party and government organs, enterprises and institutions according to law, strengthen the pooling and sharing and open development, strengthen the overall authorized use and management, promote connectivity, and break the ‘data island’… Promote the conditional free use of public data for public governance and public welfare undertakings, and explore the conditional paid use of public data for industrial development and industry development.”

The “Opinions” put forward the principle measures for the operation of public data authorization, but there are still many theoretical issues worthy of attention before it is transformed into specific institutional arrangements. For example, what rights can public data authorization operators be granted? How to prevent abuse by public data authorization operators? In order to effectively curb unreasonable practices in the process of public data authorization operation, it is necessary to adhere to the attribute of public data as a public product in the digital era, adhere to the basic principle of “taking public data from the people and using it for the people”, and build a scientific and reasonable system of obligation rules for public data controllers, processors and operators. Public data controllers, processors and operators have the obligation to provide free basic data services based on public data to the public and small and micro enterprises on a continuous and high-quality basis; Those who do not provide free basic data services shall not provide chargeable value-added data services based on public data. The authorized operation mechanism of public data should adhere to the technical convenience of small and micro enterprises and the price of small and micro enterprises. Based on the non-competitive, replicable and non-exclusive characteristics of data, the processing and operation of public data should introduce a competitive mechanism, eliminate the exclusive authorization of public data operation, and guard against the risk of the public data authorization operation mechanism being “kidnapped” or “phishing” by the operating institutions. Administrative monopoly and corruption that may occur in the operation of public data authorization shall be prevented and stopped according to law; For the local institutional arrangements for the public data authorization operation mechanism, it is necessary to strengthen the review of fair competition and anti-monopoly law enforcement, and prevent the public data authorization operation from evolving into local protection of data resources, monopoly management, and unfair high prices.

In addition, it should be noted that the design of the public data opening system with government data as the main body should be based on the starting point and goal of “enabling” the development of the digital economy, rather than the motivation of “realizing” to increase fiscal revenue. Government data is the public authority based on public duties for the public interest to spend taxpayers’ money to collect data, undoubtedly belongs to the public goods, under the premise of maintaining national security, personal information and corporate secrets, should increase the scope and depth of openness, provide free, basic public data services, put “number” to support enterprises, so as to consolidate the micro foundation of digital economy development. CXO UNION-CXO联盟（cxounion.cn）

Q4: In order to promote the flow of data, Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen and other places have established data exchanges, and some places have set up data trading centers, but many enterprises are not active in entering the transaction. In your opinion, from the legal system, how to regulate and promote the flow of corporate data?

Shi Jianzhong: The promotion of enterprise data flow should be based on the protection of enterprise data rights. Examining local data legislation, there are few relevant provisions on enterprise data, which can also be regarded as a feature of local data legislation. One possible reason is that most cases of companies’ data rights involve civil fundamental rights, not matters of local legislation. “Opinions” proposed to “promote the establishment of enterprise data authorization mechanism” “market entities enjoy the rights and interests of holding, using, and obtaining income in accordance with law and regulations, ensure that their input labor and other factor contributions get reasonable returns, and strengthen the supply incentive of data factors.” This means that regulating and guiding the development and utilization of enterprise data requires not only prohibitive norms, but also enabling norms: recognizing and protecting legitimate data interests of enterprises, allowing enterprises to allocate data resources and exchange data interests through the market. In digital economic activities where data is a key factor of production, the data legal system should help facilitate the flow of all types of data to enable the development of the digital economy to the greatest extent, scope and quality. This requires that the legitimate interests of enterprise data stakeholders should be protected as the premise, and the possible conflicts between legitimate data interests and data flow should be resolved rather than created. At present, there is a view that it is possible to copy the connectivity obligations of basic telecommunications services to value-added telecommunications services. In my opinion, this view does not conform to the characteristics of data, the laws of the digital economy, and the spirit of the rule of law. Any institutional arrangements that force the flow of corporate data, such as the mandatory interconnection and interoperability of corporate data, need to be extremely cautious. This is because data carrying legitimate interests is forced to interoperate at low cost or even free, which will directly harm the legitimate interests of data behavior stakeholders, and ultimately harm the healthy development of the innovation-driven digital economy. CXO UNION-CXO联盟（cxounion.cn）

In addition, the establishment of data exchanges in various places should also be strengthened. An analysis of local data legislation shows that the desire to set up data exchanges is generally urgent. The establishment of data exchanges also needs to adapt to data characteristics and conform to the development law of the digital economy. The non-competitive, reproducible, non-exclusive and inseparable features of data technology determine that if data exchanges are localized and ubiquitous, they will violate the laws of digital economy, waste construction resources, increase data transaction costs and even disrupt the order of data transactions. Article 9 of the Opinions clearly states that “Overall construction of standardized and efficient data trading venues.” Strengthen the system design of data trading venues, overall optimize the planning and layout of data trading venues, and strictly control the number of trading venues.” It can be seen that curbing the local impulse to set up data exchanges and regulating the behavior of data exchanges are an important part of the data legal system and need to be established urgently. CXO UNION-CXO联盟（cxounion.cn）

由CXO UNION-CXO联盟（cxounion.cn）转载而成，来源于中国信息界杂志；编辑/翻译：CXO UNIONCXO联盟小U。

如需加入CXO UNION（CXO联盟）高管社群，请联系社群小伙伴哦~

免责声明: 本网站(http://www.cxounion.cn/)内容主要来自原创、合作媒体供稿和第三方投稿，凡在本网站出现的信息，均仅供参考。本网站将尽力确保所提供信息的准确性及可靠性，但不保证有关资料的准确性及可靠性，读者在使用前请进一步核实，并对任何自主决定的行为负责。本网站对有关资料所引致的错误、不确或遗漏，概不负任何法律责任。

本网站刊载的所有内容(包括但不仅限文字、图片、LOGO、音频、视频、软件、程序等) 版权归原作者所有。任何单位或个人认为本网站中的内容可能涉嫌侵犯其知识产权或存在不实内容时，请及时通知本站，予以删除。