English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 91913/122132 (75%)
Visitors : 25724731      Online Users : 243
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
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/96752


    Title: 論偵查機關對通信紀錄的調取
    Other Titles: The Law Enforcement's Acquisition of Call Detail Records
    Authors: 李榮耕
    Li, Rong-Geng
    Keywords: 隱私;通訊隱私;通訊保障及監察法;釋字第603號解釋;釋字第631號解釋;非內容性通訊資料;通信紀錄;隱私的合理期待;第三人理論;風險承擔理論
    Privacy;Communication Privacy;the Communication Protection and Surveillance Law;J.Y. Interpretation No. 603;J.Y. Interpretation No. 631;non-content Communication Data;Call Detail Records;Reasonable Expectation of Privacy;the Third Party Doctrine;the Assumption of Risk Rule
    Date: 2010-06
    Issue Date: 2016-05-20 14:18:08 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 在美國,Katz v. United States案認為,美國聯邦憲法第四修正案的保護範圍涵蓋了人民的電話通訊內容。但是,美國聯邦最高法院於Smith v. Maryland案中則判定,依據風險承擔理論及隱私的合理期待理論,人民對於其通信紀錄並不能主張憲法上的隱私權。不過,美國聯邦國會仍制定了一連串的法案,用以規範偵查機關對通信紀錄的調取行為,以更有效地保障人民的隱私權。 司法院大法官會議第六三一號解釋明白表示,關於通訊的有無、對象、時間、方式及內容等事項,均受有憲法第二十二條的保護。分析後可知,相關法規並未能符合本號解釋的意旨,使得偵查機關可以恣意調取通信紀錄,而有不當侵害人民通訊隱私之嫌。是故,本文建議,我國的相關法律應予修正,於調取較為私密的通信紀錄時,應採行法院審查的機制,以更為有效地保障人民的基本權利。
    In the U.S., Katz v. United States held that the contents of telephone conversations are protected by the Fourth Amendment. However, in Smith v. Maryland, the Supreme Court, referring to the reasonable expectation of privacy rule and the assumption of risk rule, held that call detail records (CDRs) are not guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. In order to protect people's communication privacy, Congress enacted several acts to govern the police's obtainment of CDRs. J.Y. Interpretation No. 631 stated that our constitution article 22 protects information about the existence, target, time, method and contents of communications. Nevertheless, our law and regulations do not comply with this interpretation. Therefore, law enforcement may arbitrarily obtain CDRs and improperly intrude upon people's privacy. This article suggests that our relevantlaw should be amended. In addition, in order to better protect people's communication privacy, when police request CDRs of a more private nature, court authorization should be obtained in advance.
    Relation: 法學評論115,115-147頁
    Data Type: article
    Appears in Collections:[法學評論 TSSCI] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    115(115-147).pdf578KbAdobe PDF535View/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
    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。
    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。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback