摘要： 当前学界对于信息和数据的关系仍存在较大争议。混同论这一代表性观点认为个人信息与个人数据本质上具有一致性，但这种观点未能有效评估信息和数据在法益基础、权利属性及制度功能方面的差异，进而导致信息被误认作数据而遭到滥用，同时数据被误认作信息而引发数据垄断等问题。这种双向的结构性问题提示我们，对个人数据与个人信息应当明确区分。目前学界关于区分论的探讨大多集中于“为何需要区分”的问题，尚未构建起一个系统的“如何进行区分”的理论框架。数据作为一种新型的生产要素，其价值应被理解为大数据所特有的“计算价值”，这一价值与传统意义上信息的“识别价值” 存在显著差异。基于此理论，通过“事实、认识、功能”的综合判断路径，可以在制度层面实现对两者的明确区分。具体而言，应在事实层面，厘清本体差异；在认识层面，区分适用目的；在功能层面，明确制度差异。对数据与信息的区分，不仅有助于应对实践中数据利用与信息保护之间的矛盾，也可以为构建符合我国国情的数据治理体系提供更为精细且可行的理论支持。

关键词: 个人数据流通, 个人信息保护, 生产要素理论, 数据计算价值, 信息识别价值

Abstract: Currently, there is significant controversy in academia regarding the relationship between information and data, with representative views such as the theory of Confusion arguing that personal data and personal information are essentially identical. However, this view fails to adequately assess the differences between information and data in terms of legal interest basis, the nature of rights, and institutional functions. Thus leads to the misuse of information when it is mistaken for data, while data misidentified as information results in issues such as data monopoly. Such bidirectional structural issues suggest that personal data and personal information should be clearly distinguished. Currently, most academic research on differentiation theory focuses on exploring “why differentiation is necessary” and has yet to establish a systematic theoretical framework for “how to differentiate”. As a new factor of production, the value of data should be understood as the unique “computational value” inherent in big data, which significantly differs from the traditional “identificational value” of information. Based on this theory, a comprehensive judgment approach based on “factual, cognitive, and functional” dimensions can achieve a clear institutional distinction between the two. At the factual level, clarify ontological differences; at the cognitive level, distinguish applicable purposes; at the functional level, define institutional disparities. Distinguishing between data and information not only helps resolve the practical conflict between data utilization and information protection but also provides a more refined and feasible theoretical foundation for China to develop a data governance system tailored to its national context.

Key words: circulation of personal data, protection of personal information, theory of production factors, &computational value of data, identification value of information