Core Viewpoint - The court ruling emphasizes the importance of consumer rights to access driving data from smart vehicles, marking a significant step in addressing data ownership and usage rights in the digital age [1][2][3][4] Group 1: Court Ruling and Implications - The Beijing Daxing District People's Court ruled that Tesla must provide complete driving data from 30 minutes prior to an accident, reinforcing the consumer's right to know [1] - The case highlights the shift from traditional vehicle accident analysis to the necessity of considering driving data, which is crucial for understanding accident causes in smart connected vehicles [1][2] - The ruling serves as a judicial correction to the "data asymmetry" issue, where companies previously withheld critical data from consumers, thus protecting consumer rights [3] Group 2: Data Ownership and Consumer Rights - The case raises broader questions about data ownership, specifically whether data generated by user behavior belongs to the consumer or the company [2][3] - Current laws in China do not clearly define data ownership for smart devices, but existing regulations like the Civil Code and Personal Information Protection Law provide a foundation for consumer rights to information [2] - The ruling establishes that consumers have the right to access their driving behavior data, which is essential for their safety and property rights [3] Group 3: Future Considerations and Legislative Needs - The case is seen as a starting point for discussions on data governance, emphasizing the need for clearer data property rights and classification of vehicle data [3][4] - There is a call for legislative action to explore data property systems and to establish a third-party data storage platform to ensure fair data management and compliance for companies [3][4] - The ruling is positioned as a critical judicial precedent that could influence future legislation and governance in the smart automotive industry [4]

Core Viewpoint - The ownership of patient medical records is a contentious issue, with hospitals, doctors, and patients each claiming rights over the data generated during medical treatment [1][2]. Group 1: Data Ownership and Privacy - Data is recognized as a new production factor, but its ownership remains disputed, particularly regarding patient medical records [1]. - Patients consider their medical records as personal privacy, while doctors argue that their expertise is necessary for data generation, and hospitals claim that without their equipment, data cannot exist [1]. - Ordinary outpatient medical records are typically owned or managed by patients, while inpatient records are managed or owned by hospitals [1]. Group 2: Challenges in Data Utilization - The complexity of data ownership leads to difficulties in data circulation and utilization, with concerns about data leakage and privacy infringement [2]. - The concept of "privacy computing" is proposed as a potential solution, allowing data value extraction without accessing original data, thus addressing ownership ambiguities [2]. - Privacy computing enables collaborative data use without transferring data outside its original domain, mitigating security and privacy risks [2]. Group 3: Technical Aspects of Privacy Computing - Privacy computing faces performance limitations, particularly in distributed models that rely on complex algorithms and frequent data transmission [3]. - New centralized privacy computing models have emerged to alleviate performance issues by encrypting data within a trusted execution environment [3]. - A hybrid approach combining centralized and distributed privacy computing is recommended based on specific needs, balancing data security and performance [3].