Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the conflict between legal protections of privacy and public sentiment regarding marital infidelity, highlighting the challenges faced by victims seeking justice in cases of marital betrayal [4][5][6]. Group 1: Legal Framework - The Civil Code Article 1032 prohibits any organization or individual from infringing on another's privacy through methods such as probing, invading, disclosing, or publicizing [4]. - Infringement of privacy rights requires clear identification of the individual's personal information, while vague disclosures often do not incur legal risks [4]. - The burden of proof for claiming damages against a spouse for marital misconduct is significantly higher than for privacy infringement, as outlined in Article 1091 of the Civil Code [5]. Group 2: Public Sentiment and Judicial Practice - There is a growing trend of individuals using social media to expose infidelity, reflecting a societal shift away from the traditional view of keeping family matters private [6]. - The legal system's protection of privacy and reputation can inadvertently shield wrongdoers, leading to public skepticism about whom the law truly protects [6]. - The article suggests that judicial authorities should consider severe marital misconduct as a mitigating factor in cases of privacy infringement, advocating for streamlined evidence collection processes to lower the burden on victims [6]. Group 3: Recommendations for Legal Reform - The article calls for collaboration among judicial, administrative, and women's organizations to promote online evidence notarization services for marital misconduct, aiming to simplify the evidence-gathering process [6]. - It emphasizes the need for a balance between protecting rights and ensuring social justice, advocating for legal reforms that allow for dynamic restoration of trust and ethical relationships in society [6].

2025年3月，一则"6人消费19元，顾客道歉称赔1元"的新闻在网络上引发热议。事件中，6名年轻顾客在一家自助小火锅店仅消费19元后离开，被 店家通过监控追讨费用。面对舆论压力，顾客公开道歉并表示愿赔偿1元，而店家则回应"要的不是钱，是态度"。这场看似荒诞的纠纷，实则折射 出当代消费社会中关于尊严、规则与商业伦理的深层矛盾。 据媒体报道，事件发生在某三线城市的一家自助小火锅店。该店主打"29元/人自助"，包含锅底、食材及饮料。6名顾客进店后，仅点了一份锅底 （19元），未取用任何食材，而是自带泡面、火腿肠等食物入座涮煮。店员发现后未及时制止，待顾客用餐完毕离开后，店家通过监控确认其未 消费自助食材，遂通过社交平台曝光此事，并附上监控截图，要求顾客补交费用或公开道歉。 面对舆论发酵，其中一名顾客在个人账号发布道歉声明，称"因经济拮据选择自带食物，未意识到此举违反规则，愿赔偿1元以表歉意"。店家则回 应："我们不是要这19元，而是希望顾客尊重规则，哪怕说一声'我们自带食物，只付锅底费'也行。" 这种行为虽情有可原，却隐含风险：若商家集体效仿"模糊规则"，最终可能导致整个行业提高基础费用或加强监管（如收取押金、限制 ...

Core Viewpoint - The phenomenon of consumers unknowingly becoming part of live broadcasts in commercial spaces reflects a conflict between business ethics, legal regulation, and privacy concepts in the digital age [1][2]. Group 1: Commercial Spaces and Consumer Rights - Traditional commercial spaces like restaurants, gyms, and barbershops are considered "semi-public spaces," where consumers have reasonable privacy rights [1]. - Many businesses broadcast live content without explicit consent, capturing consumers' private moments, which exceeds reasonable commercial display boundaries [1][2]. Group 2: Legal Implications - From a legal perspective, such actions may infringe on multiple consumer rights, including portrait rights and privacy rights, especially during private activities [2]. - Consumers often face significant challenges in protecting their rights, as they may only realize they were broadcasted after leaving the premises, making evidence collection difficult [2]. Group 3: Proposed Solutions - A systematic social adjustment is needed, including legislative measures to clarify filming regulations in commercial spaces, implementing "notice obligations" and "explicit consent principles" [2]. - Live streaming platforms should establish easy complaint channels for infringement and take action against repeat offenders, while also promoting industry self-regulation and ethical filming guidelines [2].

商家的行为，不仅侵犯了消费者的权益，也构成了违法。 北京嘉潍律师事务所合伙人赵占领表示，该做法侵犯了顾客的肖像权和隐私权。根据《民法典》第一千 零一十九条规定，未经肖像权人同意，任何组织或个人不得制作、使用、公开其肖像。商家为营销目的 进行直播，属于典型的"商业推广类"营利活动，未经许可将顾客摄入镜头并公开传播，已构成侵权。法 律保护的肖像不限于面部，具有可识别性的侧脸、体貌等均受保护。即使在餐厅等"公共区域"，也不能 成为商家侵权的借口。如果直播涉及泳池、更衣室等场所，或捕捉到顾客的私密活动，还可能侵犯隐私 权。 #多位消费者在外就餐被商家直播#【#律师称商家直播顾客吃饭构成侵权#】一位消费者在社交平台上表 示，近期在餐厅就餐时发现前台的手机一直对着自己，然后在抖音上通过商家账号看到了正在被直播的 自己，一下就懵了。 但更令消费者难以接受的是，当她和商家对峙时，商家仅用一句"已经关了"打发自己，全程没有一句道 歉。 这位消费者的体验并不是个例。近期在社交平台上，多位消费者分享了自己外出就餐时发现被商家直播 的情况。手机通常放在隐蔽的位置，多数消费者无法发现。即使被发现，商家敷衍的态度让消费者更加 生气。 ...

广州一餐厅鼎泰厨·泰国料理（万菱汇店）近日直播店内顾客吃饭，受到外界质疑。 截图。来源：网络 餐厅直播 2026年1月8日上午，该餐厅工作人员回复智通财经称，目前，顾客吃饭的直播已经取消了，"没有了"。 至于为何要直播顾客吃饭，该工作人员称"不清楚"。 相关直播截图显示，上述餐厅的直播镜头对准了正在饭桌上吃饭的顾客。智通财经查询该餐厅的抖音号 发现，账号的直播历史显示，2025年12月27日至2026年1月6日，该餐厅陆续有直播，其直播时间均为中 午、下午的饭点时间。 陈亮表示，餐厅私自直播顾客吃饭的行为，不仅侵犯了顾客的肖像权、隐私权，顾客可以向其民事索 赔，如果行为情节严重，拒不改正的，还可能会被予以行政处罚。 智通财经记者 陈绪厚 值得一提的是，近年来，全国多地的餐厅均出现直播顾客吃饭的行为，引发争议。 据上游新闻2024年8月报道，有网友在社交平台发帖爆料称其在陕西西安一家餐厅用餐时，店方未经消 费者同意进行直播导致自己入镜。记者致电涉事商家，其负责人表示，目前已收到市场监管局通知休业 整改，大约一周后恢复营业。当地市场监管部门也表示，已经派员前往该店责令整改。 据红星新闻2025年4月报道，有网友发 ...

转自：扬子晚报 1月7日，记者致电该门店，工作人员表示："目前没有直播，已经整改了。"但未回答为何会直播顾客用 餐的问题。记者随后联系该品牌公关负责人，对于直播是否为门店自主行为，她表示，"内部还在调查 当中"。 饭店在未提前告知的情况下，直播店内顾客用餐，是否涉嫌侵犯顾客个人隐私？ 对此，广东格林律师事务所律师陈铭希表示，根据《中华人民共和国民法典》（以下简称《民法典》） 第一千零一十九条规定，未经肖像权人同意，不得制作、使用、公开肖像权人的肖像，法律另有规定的 除外。此外，《民法典》第一千零三十二条还规定，隐私是自然人的私人生活安宁和不愿为他人知晓的 私密空间、私密活动、私密信息。任何组织或者个人不得以刺探、侵扰、泄露、公开等方式侵害他人的 隐私权。 近日，一网友发帖表示，广州一网红餐厅鼎泰厨·泰国料理（万菱汇店）直播店内顾客用餐，并质疑其 侵犯顾客的个人隐私，"谁吃饭的时候想被直播围观？"平台记录显示，涉事门店在2025年12月27日至 2026年1月6日期间，每天有1-2场店内直播。 此事引发广泛关注，有网友表示自己曾去该饭店吃饭但并没有工作人员告知正在直播。也有网友调侃： 为什么不直播后厨？ 据公开 ...

Core Viewpoint - The new "Management Measures for Customer Due Diligence and Customer Identity Information and Transaction Record Keeping" will take effect on January 1, 2026, eliminating the requirement for individuals to register the source of funds for cash withdrawals exceeding 50,000 yuan, thus balancing security and convenience [1][2]. Group 1 - The previous regulation requiring registration for cash withdrawals over 50,000 yuan was aimed at combating financial crimes such as telecom fraud and money laundering, but faced criticism for causing inconvenience and infringing on personal rights [1][2]. - The new measures allow banks to assess the risk level of transactions and decide whether to inquire further about the source of funds, rather than applying a blanket rule [1][2]. - Data from the central bank indicates that cash transactions over 50,000 yuan account for only 2% of total transactions, suggesting that the stringent measures had a limited impact on the majority of customers, but the psychological impact was significant [2][3]. Group 2 - The revision of the Commercial Banking Law is underway to better align with current needs and public concerns, emphasizing the protection of depositors' rights and the principles of voluntary deposits, freedom of withdrawal, interest on deposits, and confidentiality [3]. - The new management measures reflect a respect for personal dignity, which is considered equally important as security and convenience [2][3].

欧盟委员会对马斯克旗下社交网络X开出1.2亿欧元（约合1.4亿美元）罚单，这是《数字服务法案》 (DSA)生效以来的首例处罚，标志着欧美在科技监管和言论自由问题上的分歧进一步加深。 她补充称，这一先例将有助于加快未来的调查进程，"耗时较长是因为我们的团队希望确保拥有坚实的 法律基础。" 欧盟委员会确认，此次处罚基于"比例原则"而非X平台的收入规模。这一决定令市场意外，因为委员会 此前曾暗示可能以马斯克整个私营商业帝国的收入作为罚款基数。 SpaceX是马斯克私营业务中规模最大的部分，预计2025年收入达155亿美元。相比之下，根据eMarketer 数据，X平台今年广告收入预计约为23亿美元。根据DSA规定，欧盟可对未能打击非法内容和虚假信息 或违反透明度规则的在线平台处以最高达其全球年收入6%的罚款。 欧盟数字事务专员Henna Virkkunen在周五的记者会上表示： "这与审查无关，这关乎透明度。" 平台需在90天内完成整改 欧盟认定X平台的付费蓝标认证误导用户，阻碍研究人员获取数据，且未能正确建立广告信息库。这一 罚款金额低于市场预期，且未基于马斯克庞大商业帝国的总收入计算，后者涵盖航天、基础设施和神 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the legal implications and appropriate actions for individuals who suspect they are being secretly filmed in public spaces, emphasizing the importance of protecting personal rights and following legal procedures. Group 1: Legal Rights and Protections - Individuals have the right to protect their portrait and privacy rights, which are safeguarded under the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China [1] - Unauthorized filming or invasion of personal space constitutes an infringement of these rights [1] Group 2: Appropriate Actions in Case of Suspected Filming - Individuals cannot forcibly check another person's phone, as it is a private property containing personal information [2] - It is illegal to physically restrain someone suspected of filming, as this may lead to charges of unlawful detention [3] - The recommended approach includes loudly warning the individual about their suspected illegal actions and alerting nearby public attention [4] - Seeking assistance from venue management or security personnel is advised to maintain order until police arrive [5] - Promptly calling the police with clear information about the situation is crucial for effective intervention [6] - Noting the suspect's physical characteristics and escape route is important for aiding police investigations [7] Group 3: Consequences of Misidentification - If an individual wrongly accuses someone of filming without evidence, they may face civil liability for defamation and potential public order violations [10] - The article outlines a three-step method for handling suspected filming incidents, emphasizing the need for calmness, evidence collection, and immediate police notification [10]

被偷拍了，是否属于侵犯人格权？ IT之家附热点问题解答如下： IT之家 11 月 30 日消息，偷拍、被误会偷拍近日已成为讨论热点，央视新闻今日发文科普了怀疑自己被偷拍后合理合法地维护自身正当权益的方式，并详细 解答了能否直接要求或强行查看对方手机、能否强行留住对方等系列问题。 属于。法律保护公民的肖像权和隐私权。该项权利属于民法典中基本人格权范畴。 民法典规定，任何组织或者个人不得以丑化、污损，或者利用信息技术手段伪造等方式侵害他人的肖像 权。未经肖像权人同意，不得制作、使用、公开肖像权人的肖像，但是法律另有规定的除外。未经肖像 权人同意，肖像作品权利人不得以发表、复制、发行、出租、展览等方式使用或者公开肖像权人的肖 像。 手机是高度私密的个人物品，存储着大量的个人信息、通讯记录、照片视频等隐私数据。任何公民都无权强制查看他人手机内容。强行查看、抢 夺、翻查他人手机的行为可能侵犯他人隐私权。 此外，手机是个人财产，强行夺取或控制的行为侵犯他人财产所有权；若因争执行为发生肢体冲突可能违反治安管理处罚法，严重者甚至触犯刑 法中有关侮辱、诽谤、寻衅滋事、故意毁坏财物等法律规定。 按照我国刑法规定，以暴力或者其他方 ...