随着人工智能技术的飞速发展，人脸识别技术在给人们生活带来便利的同时，也引发了信息滥用和泄露的风险，由此导致的个人信息权益侵害问题日益凸显。如何在发挥人脸识别技术优势的同时，切实保障个人信息权益，是当今社会面临科技进步时亟需回答的问题。本文从人脸识别技术的应用原理出发，基于《民法典》和《个人信息保护法》两条保护路径的比较，对人脸识别信息的法律保护进行研究。

相比一般个人信息，人脸识别信息更具敏感性和唯一性。侵害人脸识别信息不仅会对个人人格尊严造成持续性伤害，还会冲击个人身份安全和财产安全。人脸识别信息的特殊性由此彰显，需要法律更为重视以回应社会关切。人脸识别信息的数字化特征使其有别于传统肖像权客体。目前，对人脸识别信息的法律保护主要依据《民法典》和《个人信息保护法》，但两部法律在保护角度、救济手段和方式上存在差异，导致现有保护路径难以完全适应人脸识别技术发展以及公民个人信息保护的实际需求。

从两条保护路径之间的规范盲区来看，当前对于人脸识别信息的概念界定缺失，相关规范仍不周延。对于人脸识别信息侵权的损害赔偿由于缺乏相应规则导致实践中较少得到支持，人脸识别技术的特殊性要求知情-同意规则需要进一步细化。相关规则的模糊也使得行政监管缺位。在责任认定和举证责任分配方面，两部法律规定存在交叉，导致具体适用上存在障碍。在事后救济上，两部法律衔接仍不顺畅，民事救济与行政监管如何选择和运转缺乏必要指引。

针对以上问题，本文从法律规范、救济机制、行政监管三个层面提出相应建议。首先应当明确人脸识别信息的概念界定，在特定目的和充分必要性的基础上明确人脸识别信息处理的法定事由，细化处理要求，针对知情同意规则作进一步规定明确其具体内容和要求，以及例外情形。在侵权救济机制方面，引入风险性损害的概念以回应对信息时代风险社会的担忧。科学建立损害赔偿规则，统一适用举证责任倒置，减轻权利人举证负担。对于主观恶性大的侵权行为人适用惩罚性赔偿机制。理顺民事救济与行政规制二者之间的关系。在诉讼程序上鼓励和支持公益诉讼和集体诉讼制度，试点建立个人信息侵权的三合一审判模式。最后在行政监管上加强各部门之间的协调配合，同时要建立常态化的备案审查和监督机制。在法治框架内平衡人脸识别技术创新应用与个人信息权益保护，顺应信息时代发展大势的同时，维护公民合法权益。

With the rapid development of technology, facial recognition technology has brought convenience to people's lives, but it has also triggered the risk of information abuse and leakage, resulting in the increasingly prominent issue of personal information rights. How to effectively protect personal information rights while harnessing the advantages of facial recognition technology is an urgent question that society needs to answer when facing technological progress. Starting from the application principles of facial recognition technology, this paper conducts research on the legal protection of facial recognition information based on a comparison of two protection paths: the Civil Code and the Personal Information Protection Law.

Compared with general personal information, facial recognition information is more sensitive and unique. Infringement of facial recognition information will not only cause lasting damage to personal dignity but also impact personal identity and property security. The particularity of facial recognition information is thus highlighted, requiring greater legal attention to respond to social concerns. The digitized characteristics of facial recognition information distinguish it from traditional portrait right objects. Currently, the legal protection of facial recognition information mainly relies on the Civil Code and the Personal Information Protection Law, but the two laws differ in terms of protection perspectives, relief measures, and methods, resulting in the existing protection paths being unable to fully adapt to the actual needs of technology development and information protection.

The current conceptual definition of facial recognition information is lacking, and relevant regulations are still incomplete. Due to the lack of corresponding rules, compensation for damages caused by facial recognition information infringement is rarely supported in practice. The particularity of facial recognition technology requires further refinement of the informed consent rule. The ambiguity of relevant rules also leads to the absence of administrative supervision. In terms of liability determination and burden of proof allocation, the two laws have overlapping provisions, resulting in obstacles to specific application. In addition, the coordination between the two laws is still not smooth, and there is a lack of necessary guidance on how to choose and operate between civil relief and administrative regulation.

In response to the above problems, this paper puts forward corresponding suggestions from three aspects: legal norms, relief mechanisms, and administrative supervision. First, the conceptual definition of facial recognition information should be clarified, the legal grounds for processing facial recognition information should be clarified based on specific purposes and sufficient necessity, processing requirements should be refined, and further provisions should be made for the informed consent rule. In terms of the tort relief mechanism, the concept of risk damage should be introduced. A scientific compensation rule for damages should be established, and punitive damages should be applied. The relationship between civil relief and administrative regulation should be streamlined. In litigation procedures, public interest litigation and class action systems should be encouraged and supported, and a pilot program for the “three-in-one” trial mode of personal information infringement should be established. Finally, in terms of administrative supervision, coordination and cooperation among various departments should be strengthened, and a normalized record-filing review and supervision mechanism should be established. Within the framework, a balance should be struck between the innovative application of facial recognition technology and the protection of personal information rights, while keeping pace with the development trend of the information age and safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of citizens.