On October 16, 2020, Robert Post, the Sterling Chair Professor and former Dean of Yale Law School, was invited by Law and Technology Institute of Renmin University of China to conduct an online academic exchange with the faculty and students of our school, and gave a lecture themed "Privacy with Ddignity and Data Privacy".

This lecture aims to take the landmark Google Spanish case as the entry point, to discuss the basic issues of distinguishing dignity privacy and data privacy in the field of privacy protection, and to help the relevant legislative activities of personal information security protection in China. Professor Robert Post has been engaged in constitutional law research for a long time. He has been concerned about privacy issues related to democracy, freedom and the construction of public space. He has written a lot in the field of privacy. Zhang Jiyu, associate professor of Renmin University of China Law School and executive director of Law and Technology Institute of Renmin University of China, Ding Xiaodong, associate professor of Renmin University of China Law School and deputy dean of Law and Technology Institute of Renmin University of China, Guo Rui, associate professor at Renmin University of China Law School and researcher of Law and Technology Institute of Renmin University of China, Wu Zhicheng, assistant professor of Renmin University of China Law School, Liu Han, associate professor at Tsinghua University Law School, Zuo Yilu, assistant professor of Peking University Law School, and Ying Hu, lecturer of the National University of Singapore attended the lecture.

The lecture began with a keynote speech by Professor Robert Post. He proposed that dignitary privacy and data privacy should be distinguished in the field of legal protection. Professor Robert Post believes that the main application scenario of data privacy is the threat to individuals posed by modern large-scale data collection and use. On the contrary, dignity privacy refers to the communication between people who violate civility rules in social practice. Such violation of civility rules is closely related to the protection of individual personality rights. The main problem of the Spanish Google right to be forgotten case lies in the confusion between data privacy and dignity privacy, and the lack of theoretical distinction between the two fields, which leads to the wrong application of the protection object and protection path.

In the comments and Q&A session，associate professor Zhang Jiyu,from Renmin University of China Law School, first of all thanked Professor Robert Post for his lecture. Afterwards, Associate Professor Zhang Jiyu expressed her affirmation of Professor Post's opinion, arguing that the legislative logic of China's Civil Code reflects to some extent the views of distinguishing dignity privacy from data privacy and their protection methods. At the same time, associate professor Zhang Jiyu and professor Post exchanged views on "public space".

Associate professor Guo Rui from Renmin University of China Law School, commented on the topic of Professor Post's lecture paper, "Digital Imagination". And he asked “Should legal regulation of privacy in the digital world be based on our understanding of technology and our vision of a democratic future society?” Robert Post responded to the question of how privacy norms should emerge in the digital world in the future and pointed out that people need to develop social practices adapted to the digital world in a wide range of online practices.

Assistant professor Wu Zhicheng from law school of renmin university of China made an analysis from the perspective of British tort law. He asked whether Professor Post's new term on dignity privacy would undermine the doctrine of the existing dictation between tort of defamation and tort of invasion of privacy. Professor Post replied that he was using the word dignity in a sociological sense, and that the law protects dignity by protecting the respect that an individual deserves in a community. Borrowing the opinion of sociologist Erving Goffman, he believes that for dignified privacy, there is an "information domain" around an individual that others should respect. Once violated, the dignity and privacy of an individual will be harmed.

Associate professor Liu Han from Tsinghua University Law School, raised questions mainly about the different understandings of the Google case in European and European legal cultures and the role of the Internet. Professor Post believes that the Google decision is not a cognitive difference caused by different legal cultures in Europe and the United States. It is correct to choose different governance methods according to different roles of the network, and the mistake of the Spanish Google case lies in the confusion of this logic.

The question posed by Zuo Yilu, an assistant professor at Peking University's law school, involves how to reimagine privacy and other individual rights in the post-New World era. Robert Post believes that the new epidemic has greatly changed our social practice, and the privacy from social practice will also be affected, but such privacy changes should be subject to the principle of minimization. We should make sure that changes in social practice preserve our original social values as much as possible.

Hu Ying, lecturer of the National University of Singapore, first made a brief comment on the lecture. Then she proposed from the perspective of social norms that there are different social norms in different countries, and these social norms determine whether privacy infringement exists or not. Professor Post argues that the increased intrusion of Google on privacy is essentially a quantitative problem, not a qualitative one. It is still illogical to simply ask Google to delete relevant information from the search engine and let the original site keep the information.

At the end of the lecture, Associate Professor Ding Xiaodong from Renmin University of China Law School once again thanked Professor Robert Post for his wonderful lecture. He points out that recent studies on data privacy have focused more on regulation than on empowering individuals. In addition to the tool of personal control, there are a series of other regulatory tools for data privacy protection, so whether these tools are compatible with the "public space" is also an important issue.

During the comments and discussion sessions, Professor Robert Post also responded to a number of questions raised by online listeners via chat dialogs. Finally, after more than two hours of lectures and discussions, the lecture was successfully concluded with the thanks and applause from the participants and the audience.