English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 109948/140897 (78%)
Visitors : 46093370      Online Users : 1030
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    政大機構典藏 > 法學院 > 法律學系 > 學位論文 >  Item 140.119/32789
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/32789


    Title: 公權力利用衛星科技對隱私權的影響-以美國法為中心
    Authors: 蔡達智
    Contributors: 陳起行
    蔡達智
    Keywords: 公權力
    衛星科技
    隱私權
    privacy
    satellite surveillance
    Date: 2005
    Issue Date: 2009-09-17 14:27:22 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 國家為達成本身存在目的、實現各種公共任務而影響人民隱私權的程度,可分成國家安全、犯罪偵查與行政檢查等三個面向,又以實施的手段方法,可以分為對於個人表象事物與資訊的取得、入侵個人封閉事物與資訊,以此適用的法律原則,儘管有其例外,大致上可以分成封閉、開放;通訊內容與非通訊內容兩大原則,作為權衡國家公權力與個人隱私權保障與否及其程度範圍的判斷標準。此等原則仍適用於國家公權力利用衛星科技影響個人隱私權的情況,特別是利用衛星進行通訊監聽方面,與其他監聽工具方法並無明顯差異。利用衛星取得他人通訊內容,必須事先取得搜索票,如要取得非通訊內容,該資訊若有識別個人的成分,則應由法院為非搜索票的許可程序,以保障個人資料不受任意外洩或交付他人的風險。
    其次,國家公權力利用衛星進行穿透光波的遙感探測,除了以國家安全為目的使用之外,作為犯罪偵查仍需事先取得搜索票為宜。至於無票搜索的衛星穿透光波利用,由於衛星造價及營運成本昂貴,距離地表過於遙遠,無面對面武器檢查的明顯立即危險存在,仍採用衛星進行穿透光波探測,違反比例原則的可能性相當高。
    就有關開放空間中的衛星空照攝影或定位追蹤行為,即使是隱私權保障的程度較低,仍可能因為衛星高空、遠距、全球化且可為結合所有地面的個人資料庫形成全面監控的情況,難免使隱私權的保障略顯不足。對此,我國警察職權行使法對於開放空間中的監控行為限定在重罪與一年以下期限,足為開放空間原則的界限。至於有關公權力機關在私人財產外部裝設全球衛星定位系統作為監控個人行動的行為,美國國會趨於保障個人地理位置資訊的影響之下,可能不能再以開放空間原則作為身分確認與定位追蹤行為的合法基礎。全球衛星定位系統如有可能進入並探測他人封閉生活領域事物,或者如跟監時日過久,就有必要由法院審查。
    Reference: 壹 中文部分(依姓氏筆畫排序)
    一 書籍
    BRANSCOMB, ANNE WELLS,陳月霞(譯),出賣資訊,WHO OWNS INFORMATION?時報,初版,1996年。
    CALVERT, CLAY,林惠娸,陳雅汝(譯),偷窺狂國家,VOYEUR NATION,商周,2003年。
    GILDER, GEORGE,賴伯洲,戚瑞國(譯),電訊狂潮-無限頻寬如何改變世界,TELECOSM: HOW INFINITE BANDWIDTH WILL REVOLUTIONIZE OUR WORLD,先覺,2002年。
    LESSIG, LAWRENCE,劉靜怡(譯),網路自由與法律,CODE: AND OTHER LAWS OF CYBERSPACE,商周,初版,2002年。
    SHAPIRO, ANDREW L.,劉靜怡(譯), 控制權革命,THE CONTROL REVOLUTION,臉譜,初版,2001年。
    牛惠之(等),基因技術挑戰與法律回應-基因科技與法律研討會論文集,學林,初版,2003年。
    王兆鵬,刑事訴訟法講義(一),2003年。
    王郁琦,資訊、電信與法律,元照,初版,2004年。
    左宜有(主編),國際衛星通信電報電話技術辭典,五洲,1984年。
    甘大空,公眾人物隱私權與新聞採訪報導自由的衝突及其解決之研究,嘉義地方法院,初版,2004年11月。
    白中和(編譯),圖解通信原理與應用,建興,增訂版,2001年。
    朱瑞祥,美國聯邦最高法院判例史程,黎明,1990年。
    李震山,人性尊嚴與人權保障,元照,2001年。
    吳庚,憲法解釋與適用,初版,2003年。
    林子洋,太空情報與國家安全,幼獅,初版,2004年。
    林子儀,言論自由與新聞自由,元照,初版,1999年。
    林鈺雄,檢察官論,學林,1999年。
    法治斌,人權保障與釋憲法制,月旦,再版,1993年。
    法治斌,董保城,中華民國憲法,空中大學,初版,1996年。
    法務部法律事務司,電腦處理個人資料保護法問答手冊,再版,1997年6月。
    范建得(主編),電信法制新紀元-全國資訊通信法律研討會論文集,元照,初版,2003年。
    城仲模(編),行政法之一般法律原則(二),三民,初版,1997年。
    城仲模教授祝壽論文集編輯委員會,憲法體制與法治行政(一)憲法篇,城仲模教授六秩華誕祝壽論文集,三民,初版,1998年。
    翁岳生教授祝壽論文集編輯委員會(編),當代公法新論(上):翁岳生教授七秩誕辰祝壽論文集,元照,初版,2002年。
    袁國芳(編譯),資訊化社會與跨國資料流通,行政院經濟建設委員會健全經社法規工作小組,1989年。
    畢恆達,空間就是權力,心靈工坊,初版,2001年。
    許志雄,憲法之基礎理論,稻禾,初版,1992年。
    許志雄(等),現代憲法論,元照,初版,1999年。
    許宗力,法與國家權力,月旦,1993年。
    陳克任,衛星通訊(NII主角),儒林,初版,1999年。
    陳起行,法形成與法典化:法與資訊研究,學林,初版,1999年。
    陳銘祥,通信的規範結構與通信變革,韋伯,2002年。
    ______,美國電信規範體系,行政院經濟建設委員會健全經社法規工作小組,1990年。
    陳隆志,當代國際法引論,元照,初版,1999年。
    野牧,從烽火臺到電子信息,業強,1995年。
    楊日旭,國家安全與公眾知的權利,黎明,1988年。
    ______,美國憲政與民主自由,黎明,初版,1989年。
    鈴木實,通信法體系,行政院經濟建設委員會健全經社法規工作小組,1989年。
    詹文凱,隱私權之研究,台大法研所博士論文,1998年。
    臺灣行政法學會(編),行政法爭議問題研究(上)(下),五南,初版,2000年。
    葉俊榮,行政法案例解析與研究方法,三民,1999年。
    賈玉輝(主編),數據通信,交通部數據通信所,初版,1993年。
    蔡達智,生命科技的發展對基本人權的影響,興大法研所碩士論文,1997年。
    蔡敏舜,梁忠,黃麗欽(編),傳播時代的新興法律問題「傳播與法律系列研討會(一)」論文彙編,政大傳播學院,初版,1995年。
    廣磁資訊股份有限公司,通訊寶典(三)無線個人通信,自版,1994年。
    二 期刊
    王兆鵬,重新定義高科技時代下的搜索,月旦法學,93期,頁166-182,2003年2月。
    王郁琦,資訊時代隱私權理論基礎初探,世新法學,創刊號,頁283-305,2004年5月。
    王澤鑑,人格權保護的課題與展望(一)-人格權、人格尊嚴與私法上的保護,台灣本土法學雜誌,80期,頁105-120,2006年3月。
    ______,網路上的隱私權,資訊法務透析,頁37-38,1996年10月。
    石世豪,電信自由化之下通訊安全規範的轉型趨勢-通信秘密、個人資料保護與電信事業的管制變革,全國律師,9卷5期,頁32-51,2005年5月。
    ______,國家機密保護的立法政策考量-兼論媒體資訊獲取應有的配套機制,立法院院聞,3卷5期,頁25-35,2002年5月。
    ______,偷拍性愛光碟案有如雪球愈滾愈大-媒體競爭下的隱私權保障及其漏洞,月旦法學,81期,頁167-177,2002年2月。
    ______,無線電視臺公共化的法制規劃,傳播研究簡訊,24期,頁4-6,2000年12月。
    ______,當報業搖身變為「新聞」主角-臺灣媒體挑戰國家的資訊控制權,當代,159期,頁80-89,2000年11月。
    ______,釋字第五○九號解釋的法釋義分析,法令月刊,51卷10期,頁114-119,2000年10月。
    ______,探索「傳被媒體內容管制規範之價值體系」:法學方法與傳播研究接軌的問題,新聞學研究,58期,頁201-239,1999年1月。
    江耀國,周韻采,有線電視與電信產業匯流之法律問題研究,政大法學評論,70期,頁87-148,2002年6月。
    李惠宗,論新聞自由與隱私權的衝突-愛滋病學童案,台灣本土法學雜誌,3期,頁162-166,1999年8月。
    李錫棟,跟監對基本權利之干預,警察大學法學論集,9期,頁45-66,2004年3月。
    李震山,從公共場所或公眾得出入之場所普設監視錄影器論個人資料之保護,東吳大學法律學報,16卷2期,頁45-92,2004年12月。
    ______,「電腦處理個人資料保護法」之回顧與前瞻,中正大學法學集刊,14期,頁35-82,2004年1月。
    ______,人性尊嚴之憲法意義,律師通訊,150期,頁34-45,1992年3月。
    杜興炎,寬頻衛星通信系統技術及市場分析,電信研究,31卷4期,頁463-474,2001年8月。
    吳兆琰,論網路環境下的通訊監察法制,科技法律透析,17卷2期,頁36-62,2005年2月。
    吳信穎,論美國法院對於使用電子追蹤設備之若干判決,司法周刊,1168-1169期,頁3,2004年1月8日至15日。
    林雅惠,從犯罪偵察看面部辨識技術之隱私權爭議,萬國法律,133期,頁100-107,2004年2月。
    林鈺雄,對第三人之身體檢查處分-立法原則之形成,台大法學論叢,33卷4期,頁101-143,2004年7月。
    ______,從基本權體系論身體檢查處分,台大法學論叢,33卷3期,頁149-200,2004年5月。
    范姜真媺,監視攝影系統設置使用之法律問題,律師雜誌,307期,頁26-41,2005年4月。
    ______,企業內電子郵件之監看與員工隱私權,台灣本土法學雜誌,60期, 頁7-21,2004年7月。
    ______,日本個人資訊保護法之立法-基本原則之介紹,銘傳大學法學論叢,創刊號,頁45-74,2003年11月。
    ______,政府資訊公開與個人隱私之保障,法令月刊,52卷5期,頁29-42,2001年5月。
    周慧蓮,請勿來電-淺談美國Do Not Call機制,科技法律透析,16卷2期,頁16-19,2004年2月。
    ______,資訊隱私保護爭議之國際化,月旦法學,104期,頁112-132,2004年1月。
    周慧蓮,游尚儒(紀錄整理),RFID應用發展與相關法制座談會紀實,科技法律透析,16卷11期,頁28-37,2004年11月。
    洪光毅,淺析無線射頻辨識技術RFID在圖書館的應用,台灣圖書館管理季刊,1卷3期,頁17-28,2005年7月。
    洪聖濠,行動定位服務中的位置資訊隱私保護,科技法律透析,17卷1期,頁8-13,2005年1月。
    施俊堯,警察雷射測速證據(上),日新,第3期,頁30-42,2004年8月。
    ______,警察雷射測速證據(下),日新,第4期,頁40-52,2005年1月。
    湯德宗,資訊革命與正當行政程序,月旦法學,96期,頁278,2003年5月。
    許志雄,隱私權之保障,月旦法學雜誌,11期,頁39,1996年3月。
    ______,憲法上之個人尊嚴原理,東海大學法學研究,7期,頁27,1993年2月。
    許清琦、曾淑芬、劉靜怡、吳鴻煦,公元2010年台灣網路化社會發展策略,國家政策季刊,2卷1期,頁71-89,2003年3月。
    許義寶,論入出國境之查驗及檢查機關-警察與海岸巡防機關任務關係探討,國境警察學報,2期,頁173-193,2003年10月。
    張永健,資訊隱私之法律經濟分析,月旦法學,107期,頁166-183,2004年4月。
    張銘晃,論違法監聽資料之證據價值,法學叢刊,49卷3期,頁15-25,2004年7月。
    張國清,隱私權保護概念的比較探討,全國律師,5卷6期,頁4-20,2001年6月。
    黃子恬,從來電顯示論隱私權保護,月旦法學,101期,頁205-216,2003年10月。
    黃秀美,柯明宏,衛星TCP/IP技術探討,電信研究,31卷5期,頁575-590,2001年10月。
    黃富源,「科技設備監控」的省思,台灣本土法學雜誌,68期,頁1,2005年3月。
    ______,性侵害犯罪加害人登記與公告制度與其法律問題,月旦法學,96期,頁128-147,2003年5月。
    黃義豐,言論、出版自由不得侵害他人隱私權,法官協會雜誌,4卷1期,頁13-35,2002年6月。
    陳河泉,隱私權在我國法制之規範現況與未來展望,全國律師,5卷6期,頁21-33,2001年6月。
    陳秀峰,當愛情走樣時,有法度嗎?-以日本「癡纏行為等管制法律」為例(上)(下),司法周刊,1226-1227期,2005年3月10-17日。
    陳起行,由Reno v. ACLU一案論法院與網際網路之規範,歐美研究,33卷3期,頁599-628,2003年9月。
    ______,資訊隱私權法理探討-以美國法為中心,政大法學評論,64期,頁297-341,2000年12月。
    陳銘祥,建構網際網路的法律規範架構,月旦法學,87期,頁229-235,2002年8月。
    ______,虛擬色情,真實犯罪-網際網路上的色情相關活動與其法律規範上的問題,月旦法學,83期,頁210-217,2002年4月。
    ______,政府對網際網路的規範政策,月旦法學,76期,頁181-188,2001年9月。
    ______,綜論網際網路的法律規範,月旦法學,72期,頁148-161,2001年5月。
    ______,衛星通信法律規範之研究,經社法制論叢,26期,頁31-61,2000年7月。
    ______,網際網路之規範上定位,經社法制論叢,24期,頁73-93,1999年7月。
    ______,電信規範體制之探討,經社法制論叢,23期,頁61-81,1999年1月。
    ______,資訊與法律的過去、現在與未來,法政學報,7期,頁135-169,1997年1月。
    郭介恆,通訊監察與秘密通訊之自由,憲政時代,23卷2期, 頁26-44,1997年10月。
    喬治,史坦梅茲,小心!有人在看你,國家地理雜誌(National Geography:中文版),頁8-9,2003年11月。
    馮震宇,企業E化的新挑戰-企業權益與員工隱私權保護的兩難與調和,月旦法學,85期,頁85-104,2002年6月。
    楊雲驊,得一方同意之監聽,月旦法學教室,28期,頁22-23,2005年2月。
    詹鎮榮,居住自由,法學講座,30期,頁13-29,2004年11月。
    ______,無償性通訊監察設備設置義務之合憲性疑義,月旦法學,64期,頁101-114,2000年9月。
    廖淑君,淺談無線感測器網路之應用與隱私保護-以居家照護為例,科技法律透析,18卷1期,頁2-7,2004年1月。
    ______,行動位址行銷(Mobil-Phone Location Based Marketing)與隱私權之研究(上),萬國法律,136期,頁53-60,2004年7月。
    廖書賢,電信產業號碼資料庫之應用與法制議題-以個人隱私保護為中心,科技法律透析,17卷4期,頁23-44,2005年4月。
    廖緯民,論資訊時代的隱私權保護-以「資訊隱私權」為中心,資訊法務透析,頁20-21,1996年11月。
    鄭添成,科技設備監控運用於我國社區處遇可行性評述,犯罪與刑事司法研究,4期,頁167-207,2005年3月。
    劉靜怡,新聞採訪與新聞自由:發現真實抑或侵犯權利?國家發展研究,3卷2期,頁117-162,2004年6月。
    ______,網際網路時代的資訊使用與隱私權保護規範:個人、政府與市場的拔河,資訊管理研究,4卷3期,頁137-161,2002年11月。
    ______,美國1996年電子資訊自由法之分析與評論,月旦法學,87期,頁65-75,2002年8月。
    ______,網路共和國的民主前景,二十一世紀,69期,頁153-156,2002年2月。
    ______,從Cookies以及類似資訊科技的使用淺論網際網路上的個人資訊隱私保護問題,資訊法務透析,頁22-37,1997年10月。
    戴豪君,黃菁甯,淹沒稻穗的雜草-談垃圾郵件法律管制策略,研考雙月刊,29卷1期,頁80-90,2005年2月。
    蔡明誠,科技基本政策的法制化:以科技基本法為探討中心,法政學報,10期,頁171-201,2000年3月。
    蔡達智,隱私權初探,法學叢刊,50卷3期,頁77-99 ,2005年7月。
    ______,由美國判例法論電子偵查與隱私權之關係-以衛星偵查方法為例,政大法學評論,78期,頁37-78,2004年4月。
    ______,司法院釋字第五三五號解釋有關警察臨檢法制之評釋,中央警察大學法學論集,7期,頁171-179,2002年12月。
    ______,從自由時報控告臺北市政府有關色情廣告案-評釋最高行政法院九十一年度判字第五九九號及其相關判決,月旦法學,91期, 頁122-131,2002年12月。
    ______,行政資訊公開問題初探,經社法制論叢,30期,頁141-169,2002年7月。
    ______,宗教信仰自由之法制理論與實務,立法院院聞,29卷4期,頁79-101,2001年4月。
    ______,警察臨檢之正當法律程序,中央警察大學學報,36期,頁203-225,2000年3月。
    ______,基因資訊之隱私權保護,憲政時代,23卷4期,頁81-95,1998年4月。
    ______,特殊的行政行為-警察臨檢,立法院院聞,27卷10期,頁68-80,1999年10月。
    ______,基因研究與環境保育,律師雜誌,215期,頁34-48,1997年8月。
    ______,從學術自由與大學自治應有之取向評釋司法院釋字第三八O號解釋,憲政時代,第21卷第4期,頁46-67,1996年4月。
    蔡震榮,有關裝設監控設備之要件(上),警光,587期, 頁77-79,2005年6月。
    簡建章,入出國身分確認措施相關法律問題之研究,國境警察學報,2期,頁31-48,2003年10月。
    顧振豪,RFID電子式護照的應用與法律爭議,科技法律透析,17卷2期,頁8-12,2005年2月。
    貳 英文部分
    一 書籍
    BAKER, JOHN C. (et al.) MAPPING THE RISKS : ASSESSING HOMELAND SECURITY IMPLICATIONS OF PUBLICLY AVAILABLE GEOSPATIAL INFORMATION (RAND Corporation, 2004).
    BROTMAN, STUART N. COMMUNICATIONS LAW AND PRACTICE (Law Journal Press, 2001-2004).
    CHENG, BIN. STUDIES IN INTERNATIONAL SPACE LAW (New York : Oxford University Press, 1997).
    CHENG, CHIA-JUI AND DOO HWAN KIM, (eds.), THE UTILIZATION OF THE WORLD’S AIR SPACE AND FREE OUTER SPACE IN THE 21ST CENTURY : PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON AIR AND SPACE POLICY, LAW, AND INDUSTRY FOR THE 21ST CENTURY, HELD IN SEOUL FROM 23-25 JUNE 1997 (The Hague, The Netherlands ; Boston, Mass. : Kluwer Law International, 2000).
    COMMITTEE ON LICENSING GEOGRAPHIC DATA AND SERVICES, NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, BOARD ON EARTH SCIENCES AND RESOURCES, LICENSING GEOGRAPHIC DATA AND SERVICES, THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS (2004).
    DIEDERIKS-VERSCHOOR, I. H. PH. AN INTRODUCTION TO SPACE LAW (The Hague, The Netherlands ; Boston, Mass. : Kluwer Law International, 2nd ed. 1999).
    FINCH, EDWARD RIDLEY AND AMANDA LEE MOORE, ASTROBUSINESS: A GUIDE TO THE COMMERCE AND LAW OF OUTER SPACE (New York : Praeger, 1985).
    FISHER, DAVID I. PRIOR CONSENT TO INTERNATIONAL DIRECT SATELLITE BROADCASTING (Dordrecht ; Boston : Martinus Nijhoff Publishers ; Norwell, Mass. : Sold and distributed in the U.S.A. by Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1990).
    FOERSTEL, HERBERT N. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND THE RIGHT TO KNOW : THE ORIGINS AND APPLICATIONS OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (WESTPORT, CONN. : GREENWOOD PRESS, 1999).
    GEOFFREY, R. STONE. LOUIS M. SEIDMAN, CASS R. SUNSTEIN, MARK V TUSHNET, (et al.) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (West, 2nd ed. 1991).
    GINSBURG, DOUGLAS H. REGULATION OF BROADCASTING : LAW AND POLICY TOWARDS RADIO, TELEVISION, AND CABLE COMMUNICATIONS (St. Paul : West Pub., 1979).
    LIEBERMAN, JETHRO K. PRIVACY AND THE LAW (New York : Lothrop, Lee & Shepard Co., 1978).
    MEREDITH, PAMELA L. AND GEORGE S. ROBINSON, SPACE LAW: A CASE STUDY FOR THE PRACTITIONER : IMPLEMENTING A TELECOMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE BUSINESS CONCEPT (Dordrecht ; Boston : M. Nijhoff ; Norwell, MA, U.S.A. : Sold and distributed in the U.S.A. and Canada by Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1992).
    MONMONIER, MARK S. SPYING WITH MAPS : SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGIES AND THE FUTURE OF PRIVACY (CHICAGO : UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS, 2002).
    PAGLIN, MAX D. (ed.) A LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNICATION ACT OF 1934 (New York : Oxford University Press, 1989).
    BHAVANI THURAISINGHAM, R. VAN DE RIET, K. R. DITTRICH AND Z. TARI, (eds.) DATA AND APPLICATION SECURITY: DEVELOPMENTS AND DIRECTIONS (Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001).
    SOLOVE, DANIEL J. THE DIGITAL PERSON: TECHNOLOGY AND PRIVACY IN THE INFORMATION AGE (New York University Press, 2004).
    TRAA-ENGELMAN, HANNEKE LOUISE VAN, COMMERCIAL UTILIZATION OF OUTER SPACE : LAW AND PRACTICE (Dordrecht, Netherland ; Boston : M. Nijhoff ; Norwell, Mass. : Sold and distributed in the U.S.A. and Canada by Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993).
    二 期刊
    Abdurrasyid, H Priyatna. The Application of Remote Sensing in Indonesia, 5 SINGAPORE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW 139 (2001).
    Baird, Douglas G. Robert K. Rasmussen, The End of Bankruptcy, 55 STANFORD LAW REVIEW 767 (2002).
    Blitz, Marc Jonathan. Video Surveillance and the Constitution of Public Space: Fitting the Fourth Amendment to A World that Tracks Image and Identity, 82 TEXAS LAW REVIEW 1349 (2004).
    Boren, David L. The Winds of Change at the CIA, 101 YALE LAW JOURNAL 860 (1992).
    Cinquegrana, Americo R. The Walls (and Wires) Have Ears: The Background and First Ten Years of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, 137 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW 814 (1989).
    Cockfield, Arthur J. Who Watches the Watchers? A Law and Technology Perspective on Government and Private Sector Surveillance, 29 QUEEN`S LAW JOURNAL 364 (2003).
    Codding, George A. Jr. The International Telecommunications Union: 130 Years of Telecommunications Regulation, 23 DENVER JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLICY 501 (1995).
    Colb, Sherry F. What Is A Search? Two Conceptual Flaws in Fourth Amendment Doctrine and Some Hints of A Remedy, 55 STANFORD LAW REVIEW 134-36 (2002).
    Cole, David. The New Mccarthyism: Repeating History in the War On Terrorism, 38 HARVARD CIVIL RIGHTS- CIVIL LIBERTIES LAW REVIEW 1 (2003).
    Comment, A Space Legislation Odyssey - A Proposed Model for Reforming the Intergovernmental Satellite Organizations, 48 AMERICAN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 553 (1998).
    Comment, Airport Security Technology: Is the Use of Biometric Identification Technology Valid under the Fourth Amendment? 20 TEMPLE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND TECHNOLOGY JOURNAL 251 (2002).
    Comment, Concealed Weapon Detectors and the Fourth Amendment: The Constitutionality of Remote-Enhanced Searches, 45 UCLA LAW REVIEW 281 (1997).
    Comment, Echelon: The National Security Agency`s Compliance with Applicable Legal Guidelines in Light of the Need for Tighter National Security, 11 JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATIONS LAW AND POLICY 185 (2003).
    Comment, Global Positioning System (GPS): Defining the Legal Issues of Its Expanding Civil Use, 61 JOURNAL OF AIR LAW AND COMMERCE 243 (1994).
    Comment, How the USA Patriot Act Will Permit Governmental Infringement upon the Privacy of Americans in the Name of `Intelligence` Investigations, 150 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW 1661 (2002).
    Comment, Legal Aspects of the Commercialization of Space Transportation Systems, 3 BERKELEY TECHNOLOGY LAW JOURNAL 99 (1988).
    Comment, Picture Perfect? X-ray Searches at the United States Border Require Guidance, 35 UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI INTER-AMERICAN LAW REVIEW 577 (2004).
    Comment, Post-Sept. 11th International Surveillance Activity-A Failure of Intelligence: The Echelon Interception System & The Fundamental Right to Privacy in Europe, 14 PACE INTERNATIONAL LAW REVIEW 435 (2002).
    Comment, Regulating International Trade in Launch Services, 6 HIGH TECHNOLOGY LAW JOURNAL 60 (1991).
    Comment, Regulating Commercial Remote Sensing Satellites Over Israel: A Black Hole in the Open Skies Doctrine? 52 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEW 429 (2000).
    Comment, Reviving Trespass-Based Search Analysis Under the Open View Doctrine: Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, 63 NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 191 (1988).
    Comment, Space Station Alpha: International Shining Star or Legal Black Hole, 9 TEMPLE INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW JOURNAL 336 (1995).
    Comment, The Implications of National Security Safeguards on the Commercialization of Remote Sensing Imagery, 19 SEATTLE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 539 (1996).
    Comment, The Legal Implications of Geographical Information Systems, 11 ALBANY LAW JOURNAL OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 360 (2001).
    Comment, The View from on High: Satellite Remote Sensing Technology and the Fourth Amendment, 6 BERKELEY TECHNOLOGY LAW JOURNAL 317 (1991).
    Comment, Virtual Strip Searches at Airports: Are Border Searches Seeing Through the Fourth Amendment? 8 TEXAS WESLEYAN LAW REVIEW 417 (2002).
    Copiz, Adrian. Scarcity in Space: The International Regulation of Satellites, 10 JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATIONS LAW AND POLICY 213 (2002).
    Cotlar, Andrew D. A Subsidy by Any Other Name: First Amendment Implications of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999, 53 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS LAW JOURNAL 380 (2001).
    Davies, Charles. Susan Hoban, Braden Penhoet, Moving Pictures: How Satellites, the Internet, and International Environmental Law Can Help Promote Sustainable Development, 28 STETSON LAW REVIEW 1091 (1999).
    DeSaussure, Hamilton. Remote Sensing Satellite Regulation, 15 RUTGERS COMPUTER AND TECHNOLOGY LAW JOURNAL 351 (1989).
    Epstein, Jonathan M. Exporting Commercial Satellite Technology: Coping in The Current Regulatory Environment, 16 AIR AND SPACE LAW 17 (2001).
    Erskine, Daniel. Satellite Digital Radio Searching for Novel Theories of Action, 1 JOURNAL OF HIGH TECHNOLOGY LAW 135 (2002).
    Eschet, Gal. FIPs and PETs for RFID: Protecting Privacy in the Web of Radio Frequency Identification, 45 JURIMETRICS JOURNAL 301 (2005).
    Fredman, Jonathan M. Intelligence Agencies, Law Enforcement, and the Prosecution Team , 16 YALE LAW AND POLICY REVIEW 334(1998).
    Frieden, Luc. News Gathering by Satellites: A New Challenge to International and National Law at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century, 25 STANFORD JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 103 (1988).
    Frieden, Rob. Balancing Equity and Efficiency Issues in the Management of Shared Global Radiocommunication Resources, 24 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW 296 (2003).
    Freiwald, Susan. Uncertain Privacy: Communication Attributes after the Digital Telephony Act, 69 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW 957 (1996).
    Froomkin, A. Michael. The Death of Privacy, 52 STANFORD LAW REVIEW 1461 (2000).
    ________, The Metaphor is the Key: Cryptography, the Clipper Chip, and the Constitution, 143 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW 709 (1995).
    Gardner, Allison F. Environmental Monitoring’s Undiscovered Country: Developing A Satellite Remote Monitoring System to Implement the Kyoto Protocol’s Global Emission-Trading Program, 9 NEW YORK UNIVERSITY ENVIRONMENTAL LAW JOURNAL 152 (2000).
    Graham, Bob. The Impact of September 11th on America`s Intelligence Community, 7 JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY LAW AND POLICY 1 (2002).
    Gregory, Alison Mylander. Smugglers Who Swallow: The Constitutional Issues Posed by Drug Swallowers and Their Treatment, 56 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH LAW REVIEW 323 (1994).
    Glanncy, Dorothy J. Privacy on the Open Road, 30 OHIO NORTHERN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 295 (2004).
    Goldsmith, Jack L. The Internet and the Legitimacy of Remote Cross-Border Search, 2001 UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LEGAL FORUM 114 (2001).
    Hahn, Robert W. Patrick M. Dudley, The Disconnect Between Law and Policy Analysis: A Case Study of Drivers and Cell Phones, 55 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEW 181 (2003).
    Heymann, Philip B. Civil Liberties and Human Rights in the Aftermath of September 11, 25 HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY 440 (2002).
    Hoversten, Michael R. U.S. National Security and Government Regulation of Commercial Remote Sensing from Outer Space, 50 AIR FORCE LAW REVIEW 261 (2001).
    Jennison, Michael. Satellite Navigation: The Dubious Quest for A Legal Framework, 16 AIR AND SPACE LAW 10 (2002).
    Kamin, Sam. Law and Technology: The Case for A Smart Gun Detector, 59 LAW AND CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS 221 (1996).
    Kanuck, Sean P. Information Warfare: New Challenges for Public International Law, 37 HARVARD INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL 272 (1996).
    Katkin, Kenneth. Cable Open Access and Direct Access to INTELSAT, 53 CASE WESTERN RESERVE LAW REVIEW 77 (2002).
    Kerr, Orin S. Internet Surveillance Law after the USA PATRIOT ACT: The Big Brother That Isn`t, 97 NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 621 (2003).
    Kevles, Daniel J. Vital Essences and Human Wholeness: The Social Readings of Biological Information, 65 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW 263 (1991).
    Kobelev, Oleg. Big Brother on A Tiny Chip: Ushering in the Age of Global Surveillance Through the Use of Radio Frequency Identification Technology and the Need for Legislative Response, 6 NORTH CAROLINA JOURNAL OF LAW AND TECHNOLOGY 325 (2005).
    Ku, Raymond Shih Ray. The Founders` Privacy: The Fourth Amendment and the Power of Technological Surveillance, 86 MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW 1325 (2002).
    Markowitz, Kenneth J. Legal Challenges and Market Rewards to the Use and Acceptance of Remote Sensing and Digital Information as Evidence, 12 DUKE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY FORUM 219 (2002).
    Morgan, Richard A. Military Use of Commercial Communication Satellites: A New Look at the Outer Space Treaty and “ Peaceful Purpose, ” 60 JOURNAL OF AIR LAW AND COMMERCE 237 (1994).
    Murthi, KR Sridhara. Commercial Availability of High Quality Remote Sensing Imageries: Legal Issues, 5 SINGAPORE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW 149 (2001).
    Note, A Bright Line in the Sky? Toward A New Fourth Amendment Search Standard for Advancing Surveillance Technology, 44 ARIZONA LAW REVIEW 967 (2002).
    Note, A Satellite Dish or A Birdbath: The Efforts of the 106th Congress to Revise the Satellite Viewer Act, 8 JOURNAL OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW 85 (2000).
    Note, Analysis of the Technical and Economic Issues Raised in the Consideration of International Telecommunications Satellite Systems Separate from INTELSAT, 46 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS LAW JOURNAL 329 (1994).
    Note, Can Corporate America Secure Our Nation? An Analysis of the Identix Framework for the Regulation and Use of Facial Recognition Technology, 9 BOSTON UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY LAW 128 (2003).
    Note, Carnivore, The FBI’s E-Mail Surveillance System: Devouring Criminals, Not Privacy, 54 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS LAW JOURNAL 543 (2002).
    Note, Cultural Lag and the International Law of Remote Sensing, 23 BROOKLYN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 1876 (1998).
    Note, Commercialization of Space Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004, 17 HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW AND TECHNOLOGY 619 (2004).
    Note, Echelon and the Legal Restraints on Signals Intelligence: A Need for Reevaluation, 50 DUKE LAW JOURNAL 1467 (2001).
    Note, Fourth Amendment Searches-With Liberty and Justice for All …Unless You Choose to Fly: Torbet v. United Airlines, Inc. 68 JOURNAL OF AIR LAW AND COMMERCE 647 (2003).
    Note, Give Me My Space: Implications for Permitting National Appropriation of the Geostationary Orbit, 19 WISCONSIN INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL 231 (2001).
    Note, Global Positioning System Implants: Must Consumer Privacy Be Lost in Order for People to Be Found? 38 INDIANA LAW REVIEW 207 (2005).
    Note, GPS Tracking Technology: The Case for Revisiting Knotts and Shifting the Supreme Court’s Theory of the Public Space under the Fourth Amendment, 46 BOSTON COLLEGE LAW REVIEW 661 (2005).
    Note, Infrared Imaging Technology: Treating to See Through the Fourth Amendment, 29 INDIANA LAW REVIEW 231 (1995).
    Note, Proposed Legal Structure for the Silksat Satellite Consortium: A Regional Intergovernmental Organization to Improve Telecommunications Infrastructure in Central Asia and the Trans-Caucasus Region, 33 LAW AND POLICY IN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS 99 (2001).
    Note, Satellite Surveillance within U.S. Borders, 65 OHIO STATE LAW JOURNAL 1627 (2004).
    Note, Satellite Tracking and the Right to Privacy, 53 HASTINGS LAW JOURNAL 549 (2002).
    Note, The Constitutionality of Remote Sensing Satellite Surveillance in Warrantless Environmental Inspections, 3 FORDHAM ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORT 43 (1991).
    Note, The Commercialization of Space: A Regulatory Scheme that Promotes Commercial Ventures and International Responsibility, 61 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW 1055 (1998).
    Note, The Privacy Implications of Personal Locators: Why You Should Think Twice before Voluntarily Availing Yourself to GPS Monitoring, 14 WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF LAW AND POLICY 485 (2004).
    Note, Warrantless Satellite Surveillance: Will Our 4th Amendment Privacy Rights Be Lost in Space? 13 THE JOHN MARSHALL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER AND INFORMATION LAW 729 (1995).
    Philips, David J. Beyond Privacy: Confronting Locational Surveillance in Wireless Communication, 8 COMMERCIAL LAW AND POLICY 18 (2003).
    Purdy, Ray. Legal and Privacy Implications of “Spy in the Sky” Satellite, 3 MOUNTBATTEN JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES 63 (UK, 1999).
    Roberts, Lawrence D. A Lost Connection: Geostationary Satellite Networks and the International Telecommunication Union, 15 BERKELEY TECHNOLOGY LAW JOURNAL 1091 (2000).
    Rotenberg, Marc. Privacy and Secrecy after September 11, 86 MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW 1117 (2002).
    Ryabinkin, Charity Trelease. It’s Time to Reform the Regulation of Commercial Space Travel, 69 JOURNAL OF AIR LAW AND COMMERCE 101 (2004).
    Simmons, Ric. From Katz to Kyllo: A Blueprint for Adapting the Fourth Amendment to Twenty-First Century Technologies, 53 HASTINGS LAW JOURNAL 1303 (2002).
    ________, Technology-Enhanced Surveillance by Law Enforcement Officials, 60 NEW YORK UNIVERSITY ANNUAL SURVEY OF AMERICAN LAW 711 (2005).
    Slobogin, Christopher. Peeping Techno-Toms and the Fourth Amendment: Seeing Through Kyllo`s Rules Governing Technological Surveillance, 86 MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW 1393 (2002).
    Solove, Daniel J. Digital Dossiers and the Dissipation of Fourth Amendment Privacy, 75 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW 1121 (2002).
    ______, The Virtues of Knowing Less: Justifying Privacy Protections Against Disclosure, 53 DUKE LAW JOURNAL 967 (2003).
    Spencer, Shaun B. Reasonable Expectations and the Erosion of Privacy, 39 SAN DIEGO LAW REVIEW 882 (2002).
    Straubel, Michael S. Telecommunication Satellites and Market Forces: How Should the Geostationary Orbit Be Regulated by the F.C.C.? 17 NORTH CAROLINA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND COMMERCIAL REGULATION 217 (1992).
    Super, Stephen. Congress Gives Satellite Viewers Local Station Option, 6 BOSTON UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY LAW 14 (2000).
    Taipale, K. A. Technology Security and Privacy: The Fear of Frankenstein, the Mythology of Privacy and the Lessons of King Ludd, 7 YALE JOURNAL OF LAW AND TECHNOLOGY 124 (2005).
    Tan, David. Towards A New Regime for the Protection of Outer Space as the "Province of All Mankind, " 25 YALE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 145 (2000).
    Tannenwald, Nina. Law Versus Power on the High Frontier: The Case for A Rule-Based Regime for Outer Space, 29 YALE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 363 (2004).
    Warren, Samuel D. & Louis Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 HARVARD LAW REVIEW 193 (1890).
    Willson, David L. An Army View of Neutrality in Space: Legal Options for Space Negation, 50 AIR FORCE LAW REVIEW 177 (2001).
    Woo, Christopher &Miranda So, The Case for Magic Lantern: September 11 Highlights the Need for Increased Surveillance, 15 HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW AND TECHNOLOGY 521 (2002).
    三 美國法院判決
    (一)聯邦最高法院
    Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919).
    Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (1967).
    Bond v. United States, 529 U.S. 334 (2000).
    California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 209 (1986).
    California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988).
    Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967).
    Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925).
    CBS v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94 (1973).
    Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942).
    Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610 (1961).
    CIA v. Sim, 471 U.S. 159 (1985).
    Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).
    Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 (1969).
    Department of Defense v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 510 U.S. 487 (1994).
    Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, 476 U.S. 227 (1986).
    EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73 (1973).
    Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989).
    Frohwerk v. United States, 249 U.S. 204 (1919).
    Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 (1967).
    Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925).
    Goldman v. United States, 316 U.S. 129 (1942).
    Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 484 (1965).
    Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57 (1924).
    Holt v. United States, 218 U.S. 245 (1910).
    Hustler Magazine v. Fawell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988).
    Illinois v. Caballes, 125 S. Ct. 834 (2005).
    Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
    Kovacas v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77 (1949).
    Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001).
    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995).
    Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
    Nardone v. United States, 302 U.S. 379 (1937).
    National Archives and Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (2004).
    New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
    Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928).
    Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984).
    Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92 (1972).
    Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969).
    Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997).
    Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. 141 (2000).
    Renton v. Playtime Theatres, 475 U.S. 41 (1986).
    Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 152 (1973).
    Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
    Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
    See v. City of Seattle, 387 U.S. 541 (1967).
    Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966).
    Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147 (1939).
    Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 (1968).
    Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 537 (1942).
    Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives` Association, 489 U.S. 602 (1988).
    Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979).
    Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969).
    Stenburg v. Carhart, 120 S. Ct. 2597 (2000).
    Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483 (1964).
    Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
    Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 (1983).
    Time v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374 (1967).
    United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1 (1973).
    United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987).
    United States v. Mara, 410 U.S. 19 (1973).
    United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976).
    United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985).
    United States v. Karo, 468 U.S.705 (1984).
    United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1982).
    United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982).
    United States v. Silverman, 365 U.S. 505 (1961).
    United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 318 (1972).
    United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967).
    United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745 (1971).
    Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 (2002).
    Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603 (1999).
    Young v. American Mini-Theatres, 427 U.S. 50 (1976).
    (二)聯邦上訴法院
    ABC v. Primetime 24, 184 F.3d 348 (4th Cir. 1999).
    Aeronautical Radio v. FCC, 928 F.2d 428 (DC Cir. 1991).
    Alpha Lyracom Space Communications v. COMSAT, 946 F.2d 168 (2d Cir. 1991).
    Building Owners and Managers Association International v. FCC, 254 F.3d 89 (DC Cir. 2001).
    Caldarola v. County of Westchester, 343 F.3d 570 (2d Cir. 2003).
    CBS v. Echostar, 265 F.3d 1193 (11th Cir. 2001).
    Columbia Communications v. FCC, 832 F.2d 189 (DC Cir. 1987).
    Communications Satellite Co. v. FCC, 836 F.2d 623 (DC Cir. 1988).
    McMorris v. Alioto, 567 F.2d 897 (9th Cir. 1978).
    Network Project v. FCC, 511 F.2d 786 (DC Cir. 1975).
    Primetime 24 v. NBC, 219 F.3d 97 (8th Cir. 2000).
    Satellite Communication v. FCC, 275 F.3d 337 (4th Cir. 2001).
    Schiavo v. Schiavo, 2005 WL 648897 (11th Cir. Mar. 23, 2005).
    Torbet v. United Airlines, Inc., 298 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2002).
    United States v. $124,570 U.S. Currency, 873 F.2d 1240 (9th Cir.1989).
    United States v. Epperson, 454 F.2d 769 (4th Cir. 1972).
    United States v. Ek, 676 F.2d 379 (9th Cir. 1982).
    United States v. FCC, 652 F.2d 72 (DC Cir. 1980).
    United States v. Forest, 355 F.3d 942 (6th Cir. 2004).
    United States v. Lifshitz, 369 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 2004).
    United States v. Maldonado-Espinosa, 968 F. 2d 101 (1st Cir. 1992).
    United States v. Mejia, 720 F.2d 1378 (5th Cir. 1983).
    United States v. McIver, 186 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 1999).
    United States v. Odofin, 929 F.2d 29 (2d Cir. 1991).
    United States v. Penny-Fenny, 984 F.2d 1053 (9th Cir. 1993).
    United States v. Taborda, 635 F.2d 131 (2d Cir. 1980).
    United States v. Vega-Barvo, 729 F.2d 1341 (11th Cir. 1984).
    United States v. Whaley, 779 F.2d 585 (11th Cir. 1986).
    United States Telecom Association v. FCC, 227 F.3d 450 (DC Cir. 2000).
    United States West v. FCC, 182 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir. 1999).
    World Communications v. FCC, 735 F.2d 1465 (DC Cir. 1984).
    (三)其他法院判決
    Chism v. State, 824 N.E.2d 334 (Ind. 2005).
    Conboy v. ATandT, 84 F. Supp. 2d 492 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
    Home Box Office v. Pay TV of Greater New York, 467 F. Supp. 525 (E.D.N.Y. 1979).
    Nader v. General Motors, 25 N.Y. 2d 560 (1970).
    Orth-O-Vision v. Home Box Office, 474 F. Supp. 672 (S.D.N.Y. 1979).
    People v. Lacey, 2004 WL 1040676 (N.Y. Nassau County Ct. May 6, 2004).
    State v. Jackson, 76 P.3d 217 (Wash. 2003).
    State v. Young, 867 P.2d 593 (Wash. 1994).
    United States v. Berry, 300 F. Supp.2d 366 (D. Md. 2004).
    United States v. Mack, 272 F.Supp.2d 1174 (D. Colo. 2003).
    United States v. Moran, 349 F. Supp. 2d 425 (N.D.N.Y. 2005).
    United States v. Onyema, 766 F. Supp. 79 (E.D.N.Y. 1991).
    United States v. Penny-Feeney, 773 F. Supp. 220 (DC Hawaii 1991).
    Description: 博士
    國立政治大學
    法律學研究所
    89651503
    94
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0089651503
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[法律學系] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    65150301.pdf59KbAdobe PDF21247View/Open
    65150302.pdf163KbAdobe PDF21063View/Open
    65150303.pdf226KbAdobe PDF21193View/Open
    65150304.pdf589KbAdobe PDF21806View/Open
    65150305.pdf620KbAdobe PDF22317View/Open
    65150306.pdf579KbAdobe PDF22603View/Open
    65150307.pdf642KbAdobe PDF22887View/Open
    65150308.pdf700KbAdobe PDF22451View/Open
    65150309.pdf682KbAdobe PDF22608View/Open
    65150310.pdf289KbAdobe PDF21447View/Open
    65150311.pdf234KbAdobe PDF21911View/Open
    65150312.pdf499KbAdobe PDF22391View/Open
    65150313.pdf153KbAdobe PDF21293View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback