學術產出-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 刑事偵查「第三人原則」與「隱私之合理期待」─以偵查機關向網路服務提供者調取非內容性通訊資料為例
‘’Third Party Doctrine’’and ‘’Reasonable Expectation of Privacy’’ ─ The Law Enforcement`s Acquisition of Non-Content Communication from Internet Service Providers.作者 陳妏瑄
Chen, Wun-Syuan貢獻者 何賴傑
He, Lai-Jier
陳妏瑄
Chen,Wun-Syuan關鍵詞 非內容性通訊資料
第三人原則
合理隱私期待
同意原則
自願性揭露
使用限制
定量隱私權
馬賽克理論
執法機關取得第三人紀錄標準
人際交往隱私權
Non-content communication
Third-Party doctrine
Reasonable eXpectation of privacy
Consent
Voluntary disclosure of information
Use restrictions
Quantitative privacy
The Mosaic theory
LEATPR standards
Interpersonal privacy日期 2018 上傳時間 3-Sep-2018 15:53:36 (UTC+8) 摘要 隨著資訊科技設備彙整、分析數據的能力逐漸成形，「非內容性通訊資料」的使用價值逐步提升，足以描繪個人完整生活圖像而成為偵查取證的指向，反映在取證問題上，如何平衡犯罪訴追與被告、犯罪嫌疑人隱私權保障，即是法律所面臨的極大挑戰。本文為了釐清我國通保法規範通信紀錄內涵的妥適性，由通保法所保障之「合理隱私期待」角度切入，就偵查機關向網路服務提供者調取非內容性通訊資料的議題，納入「網路服務提供者」與「非內容性通訊資料」元素後，刑事偵查中被告「合理隱私期待」之保障範圍應透過哪些「要素」作為判準。基此，「合理隱私期待」既為我國繼受美國法制觀點所生概念，故借助美國法院實務與學理之發展，作為議題討論之方向。以第三人為平台取證的案件中，受美國第三人原則影響甚深，本文考察該原則歷史生成與理論適用之困境，透過學理與實務所提出的各種方法論，試圖修正該原則，分由「合理隱私期待」之「主觀」、「客觀」面相，重新剖析、檢討其內涵，並提出可供參考之指標性要素，藉此反思台灣通信紀錄法制規範。
Nowadays, science and technology are making huge strides every day. The ability of collecting and analyzing data is taking shape. The value of "non-content communication " has gradually increased, which is enough to depict a complete life image of a person. Finally, it becomes the target of the law enforcement agency to collect evidence. How to balance the goal of chasing crime and defending the defendant’s privacy is the great challenge. In order to clarify the appropriateness of the Taiwan’s Communication Security and Surveillance Act about regulating non-content communication, this article discussed from the perspective of "reasonable expectation of privacy " guaranteed by Communication Security and Surveillance Act. After joining ‘’internet service providers’’ and ‘’non-content communication’’ in the issue of the law enforcement`s acquisition of non-content communication from internet service providers, what new elements would be in the reasonable expectation of privacy in criminal investigation is really a difficult question. In the view of the "reasonable expectation of privacy " is not only the concept of Taiwan`s legal system, but also the development of the US court practice and academics. Therefore, this article based on the foundation of American law perspective.In the case of collecting evidence through a third party, deeply influenced by the Third-Party Doctrine of the United States. This article examined the historical contex and dilemma of theoretical application of Third-Party Doctrine. Trying to correct this principle through various methodologies proposed by theory and practice. Reanalyzing and reviewing the "subjective" and "objective" aspects of "reasonable expectation of privacy " and proposing new elements for reference, thereby rethinking the legal norms of Taiwan`s Communication Security and Surveillance Act about regulating non-content communication.參考文獻 參考文獻英文一、 專書1. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. 1881. The Common Law.2. Cooley, Thomas M. 1888. The Law Of Torts 29(2d Ed.).3. Simmel, Arnold.1971. Privacy Is Not An Isolated Freedom, In PRIVACY. Nomos XIII 71 .J. Penncok & J. Chapman.4. Solove, Daniel J.2010. Understanding Privacy, Harvard University Press.5. Solove, Daniel J.2004. The Digital Person: Technology And Privacy In The Information Age. New York University.6. Slobogin, Christopher. 2007. Privacy At Risk: The New Government Surveillance And The Fourth Amendment. University Of Chicago Press.二、 期刊1. A Reconsideration of the Katz Expectation of Privacy Test. 1977. Michigan Law Review 76: 154-183.2. Amsterdam, Anthony G. 1974. Perspectives On The Fourth Amendment. Minnesota Law Review 58: 349-478.3. Burger, Warren E. 1974. The ABA Standards For Criminal Justice. American Criminal Law Review 12: 251-254.4. Balkin, Jack M. 2008. The Constitution In The National Surveillance State.Minnesota Law Review 93: 1-25.5. Blumenthal, Jeremy A. & Adya, Meera & Mogle, Jacqueline. 2009. The Multiple Dimensions Of Privacy: Testing Lay Expectations Of Privacy. University Of Pennsylvania Journal Of Constitutional Law 11: 331-374.6. Bedi, Monu. 2013. Facebook and Interpersonal Privacy: Why the Third Party Doctrine Should Not Apply.Boston College Law Review 54: 1-72.7. Brennan-Marquez, Kiel & Henderson, Stephen E. 2018. Fourth Amendment Anxiety. American Criminal Law Review 55: 1-36.8. Coombs, Mary I. 1987. Shared Privacy And The Fourth Amendment, Or The Right Of Relationships. California Law Review 75: 1593-1664.9. Cloud, Morgan. 2002. Rube Goldberg Meets The Constitution: The Supreme Court, Technology And The Fourth Amendment. Mississippi Law Journal 72: 5-50.10. Colb, Sherry F. 2002.What Is A Search ? Two Conceptual Flaws In Fourth Amendment Doctrine And Some Hints Of A Remedy. Stanford Law Review 55: 119 -190.11. Crocker, Thomas P. 2009. From Privacy To Liberty: The Fourth Amendment After Lawrence. UCLA Law Review 57: 1-70.12. Citron, Danielle Keats & Pasquale, Frank. 2010. Network Accountability For The Domestic Intelligence Apparatus.Hastings Law Journal 62: 1441-1494.13. Citron, Danielle Keats. 2010. Mainstreaming Privacy Torts. California Law Review 98:1805-1852.14. Covey, Russell D. 2011. Pervasive Surveillance And The Future Of The Fourth Amendment. Mississippi Law Journal 80: 1289-1318.15. Crowther, Brandon T. 2012. (Un)Reasonable Expectation Of Digital Privacy. Brigham Young University Law Review 2012: 343-370.16. Cukier, Kenneth & Mayer-Schoenberger, Viktor. 2013. The Rise Of Big Data: How It`s Changing The Way We Think About The World, Foreign Affairs 92: 28-40.17. Conley, Chris. 2014. Non-Content Is Not Non-Sensitive: Moving Beyond The Content/Non-Content Distinction. Santa Clara Law Review 54: 821-842.18. Cuellar, Mariano-Florentino. 2018. Adaptation Nation: Three Pivotal Transitions In American Law & Society Since 1886. Oklahoma Law Review 70: 321-358.19. Diez, Eric R. 2006. "One Click, You`re Guilty": A Troubling Precedent For Internet Child Pornography And The Fourth Amendment. Catholic University Law Review 55: 759-794.20. Dennis, Erin Smith. 2011. A Mosaic Shield: Maynard, The Fourth Amendment, And Privacy Rights In The Digital Age. Cardozo Law Review 33: 737-772.21. Dixon, Herbert B. Jr. 2012. Cloud Computing. Judges` Journal 51: 36-39.22. Erickson, William H. & Jameson, William J. 1974. Monitoring And Updating The Standards. American Criminal Law Review 12: 469-476.23. Epstein, Richard A. 2009. Privacy And The Third Hand: Lessons From The Common Law Of Reasonable Expectations. Berkeley Technology Law Journal 24: 1199-1228.24. Freiwald, Susan. 1996. Uncertain Privacy: Communication Attributes After The Digital Telephony Act. Southern California Law Review 69: 949-1020.25. Freiwald, Susan. 2007. First Principles Of Communications Privacy. Stanford Technology Law Review 2007: 3-2.26. Ferguson, Andrew Guthrie. 2017. The Smart Fourth Amendment. Cornell Law Review 102: 547-632.27. Gerber, D. 1976. Types Of Property Seizable Under The Fourth Amendment. UCLA Law Review 23: 963-987.28. George, B. J. Jr. 1985. American Bar Association`s Mental Health Standards: An Overview. George Washington Law Review 53: 338-374.29. Grimmelmann, James. 2009. Saving Facebook. Iowa Law Review 94:1137-1206.30. Gray, David& Citron, Danielle. 2013. The Right To Quantitative Privacy. Minnesota Law Review 98: 62-144.31. Hodson, Kenneth J. 1981. The American Bar Association Standards For Cirminal Justice: Their Development, Evolution And Future. Denver Law Journal 59: 3-24.32. Haynes, Allyson W. 2012. Virtual Blinds:Finding Online Privacy In Offline Precedents. Vanderbilt Journal Of Entertainment And Technology Law 14: 603-648.33. Harris, David A. 2016. Riley v. California and the Beginning of the End for the Third-Party Search Doctrine. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 18: 895-932.34. Hosein, Gus & Palow, Caroline Wilson. 2013. Modern Safeguards For Modern Surveillance: An Analysis Of Innovations In Communications Surveillance Techniques. Ohio State Law Journal 74 : 1071-1104.35. Henderson, Stephen E. 2006. Learning From All Fifty States: How To Apply The Fourth Amendment And Its State Analogs To Protect Third Party Information From Unreasonable Search. Catholic University Law Review 55: 373-438.36. Henderson, Stephen E. 2013. After United States v. Jones, after the Fourth Amendment Third Party Doctrine. North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology 14: 431-460.37. Henderson, Stephen E. 2014. Our Records Panopticon And The American Bar Association Standards For Criminal Justice. Oklahoma Law Review 66: 699-724.38. Joh, Elizabeth E. 2014. Policing By Numbers: Big Data And The Fourth Amendment. Washington Law Review 89: 35-68.39. Krent, Harold J. 1995. Of Diaries And Data Banks: Use Restrictions Under The Fourth Amendment. Texas Law Review 74: 49-100.40. Kerr, Orin S. 2002. Internet Surveillance Law After The USA Patriot Act: The Big Brother That Isn`t. Northwestern University Law Review 97: 607-674.41. Kerr, Orin S. 2002. Lifting The Fog Of Internet Surveillance: How A Suppression Remedy Would Change Computer Crime Law.Hastings Law Journal 54: 805-846.42. Kerr, Orin S. 2004.A User`s Guide To The Stored Communications Act, And A Legislator`s Guide To Amending It. George Washington Law Review 72: 1208-1243.43. Kerr, Orin S. 2004. The Fourth Amendment And New Technologies: Constitutional Myths And The Case For Caution. Michigan Law Review 102: 801-888.44. Kerr, Orin S. 2007. Four Models Of Fourth Amendment Protection. Stanford Law Review 60: 503-552.45. Kerr, Orin S. 2009. The Case For The Third-Party Doctrine. Michigan Law Review 107: 561-602.46. Kerr, Orin S.2009. Defending The Third-Party Doctrine: A Response To Epstein And Murphy. Berkeley Technology Law Journal 24: 1229-1238.47. Kerr, Orin S. 2010. Applying The Fourth Amendment To The Internet: A General Approach. Stanford Law Review 62: 1005-1050.48. Kerr, Orin S. 2010.Ex Ante Regulation Of Computer Search And Seizure. Virginia Law Review 96: 1241-1294.49. Kerr, Orin S. 2012. The Mosaic Theory Of The Fourth Amendment. Michigan Law Review 111: 311-354.50. Kerr, Orin S. 2014. The Next Generation Communications Privacy Act. University Of Pennsylvania Law Review 162: 373-420.51. Kerr, Orin S. 2015. Executing Warrants For Digital Evidence: The Case For Use Restrictions On Nonresponsive Data. Texas Tech Law Review 48: 1-36.52. Kerr, Orin S. 2015. Katz Has Only One Step: The Irrelevance Of Subjective Expectations University Of Chicago Law Review 82: 113-134.53. Logan, Wayne A. 2012. Policing Identity. Boston University Law Review 92: 1561-1612.54. Mulligan, Deirdre K. 2004. Reasonable Expectations In Electronic Communications: A Critical Perspective On The Electronic Communications Privacy Act. George Washington Law Review 72: 1557-1598.55. Murphy, Erin. 2009. The Case Against The Case For Third-Party Doctrine: A Response To Epstein And Kerr. Berkeley Technology Law Journal 24: 1241-1254.56. Marcus, Martin. 2009. The Making Of The ABA Criminal Justice Standards - Forty Years Of Excellence. Criminal Justice 23: 10-15.57. O`Brien, David M. 1978. Reasonable Expectations Of Privacy: Principles And Policies Of Fourth Amendment-Protected Privacy. New England Law Review 13: 662-738.58. Oza, Achal. 2008. Amend The ECPA: Fourth Amendment Protection Erodes As E-Mails Get Dusty. Boston University Law Review 88: 1043-1074.59. Ohm, Paul. 2011. Massive Hard Drives, General Warrants, And The Power Of Magistrate Judges. Virginia Law Review In Brief 97: 1-12.60. Posner, Richard A. 2006. Not A Suicide Pact: The Constitution In A Time Of National Emergency. Oxford University Press.61. Palmer, Vernon Valentine. 2011. Three Milestones In The History Of Privacy In The United States. Tulane European And Civil Law Forum 26: 67-98.62. Price, Michael M. 2016. Rethinking Privacy: Fourth Amendment Papers And The Third-Party Doctrine. Journal Of National Security Law And Policy 8: 247-300.63. Rubinstein, Ira S. 2013. Big Data: The End Of Privacy Or A New Beginning? International Data Privacy Law 3: 74-87.64. Richard, Neil M. 2013. The Dangers Of Surveillance. Harvard Law Review 126: 1934-1965.65. Richards, Neil M. & King, Jonathan H. 2014. Big Data Ethics. Wake Forest Law Review 49: 393-432.66. Reid, Blake Ellis. 2010. Substitution Effects: A Problematic Justification for the Third-Party Doctrine of the Fourth Amendment. Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law 8: 613-630.67. Serr, Brian J. 1988. Great Expectations of Privacy: A New Model for Fourth Amendment Protection.Minnesota Law Review 73: 583-642.68. Slobogin, Christopher & Schumacher, Joseph E. 1993. Reasonable Expectations of Privacy and Autonomy in Fourth Amendment Cases: An Empirical Look at Understandings Recognized and Permitted by Society. Duke Law Journal 42: 727-775.69. Slobogin, Christopher. 2012. Making The Most Of United States V. Jones In A Surveillance Society: A Statutory Implementation Of Mosaic Theory. Duke Journal Of Constitutional Law & Public Policy 8: 1-38.70. Solove, Daniel J. 2002. Conceptualizing Privacy. California Law Review 90: 1087-1156.71. Solove, Daniel J. 2002. Digital Dossiers And The Dissipation Of Fourth Amendment Privacy. Southern California Law Review 75: 1083-1168.72. Solove, Daniel J. 2004. Reconstructing Electronic Surveillance Law. George Washington Law Review 72: 1264-1305.73. Solove, Daniel J. 2005. A Taxonomy Of Privacy.University Of Pennsylvania Law Review 154: 477-564.74. Solove, Daniel J. 2005. Fourth Amendment Codification And Professor Kerr`s Misguided Call For Judicial Deference. Fordham Law Review 74: 747-778.75. Solove, Daniel J. & Richards, Neil M. 2007. Privacy`s Other Path: Recovering The Law Of Confidentiality. Georgetown Law Journal 96: 123-182.76. Solove, Daniel J. 2013. Introduction: Privacy Self-Management And The Consent Dilemma. Harvard Law Review 126: 1880-1903.77. Solove, Daniel J. & Citron, Danielle Keats. 2018. Risk And Anxiety: A Theory Of Data-Breach Harms. Texas Law Review 96: 737-786.78. Sommer, Kyle. 2009. Riding The Wave: The Uncertain Future Of RFID Legislation. Journal Of Legislation 35: 48-75.79. Soghoian, Christopher. 2010. Caught In The Cloud: Privacy, Encryption, And Government Backdoors On The Web 2.0 Era. Journal On Telecommunications And High Technology Law 8: 359-424.80. Semitsu, Junichi P. 2011. From Facebook To Mug Shot: How The Dearth Of Social Networking Privacy Rights Revolutionized Online Government Surveillance. Pace Law Review 31: 291-381.81. Schwartz, Paul M. & Solove, Daniel J. 2011. The P1 Problem: Privacy And A New Concept Of Personally Identifiable Information. New York University Law Review 86: 1814-1894.82. Swan, Melanie. 2012.Sensor Mania! The Internet Of Things, Wearable Computing, Objective Metrics, And The Quantified Self 2.0.J. SENSOR & ACTUATOR NETWORKS 1: 217-253.83. Simmons, Ric. 2014. The Missed Opportunity Of Riley V. California. Ohio State Journal Of Criminal Law 12: 253-266.84. Simmons, Ric. 2018. The Mirage Of Use Restrictions. North Carolina Law Review 96: 133-199.85. Sheehan, Tim. 2015. Taking The Third-Party Doctrine Too Far: Why Cell Phone Tracking Data Deserves Fourth Amendment Protection. Georgetown Journal Of Law & Public Policy 13: 181-202.86. Strandburg, Katherine J. 2011. Home, Home On The Web And Other Fourth Amendment Implications Of Technosocial Change. Maryland Law Review 70: 614-680.87. Tomkovicz, James J. 1985. Beyond Secrecy for Secrecy`s Sake: Toward an Expanded Vision of the Fourth Amendment Privacy Province.Hastings Law Journal 36: 645-738.88. Tokson, Matthew. 2011. Automation And The Fourth Amendment. Iowa Law Review 96: 581-648.89. Tene, Omer & Polonetsky, Jules. 2013. Big Data For All: Privacy And User Control In The Age Of Analytics. Northwestern Journal Of Technology And Intellectual Property 11: 239-274.90. Thierer, Adam D. 2015. The Internet Of Things And Wearable Technology: Addressing Privacy And Security Concerns Without Derailing Innovation. Richmond Journal Of Law & Technology 21: 1-118.91. Warren, Samuel D. & Brandeis, Louis D. 1890. Right To Privacy, Harvard Law Review 4: 193-220.92. Winn, Peter. 2009. Katz And The Origins Of The Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy Test. Mcgeorge Law Review 40: 1-12.三、 其他資料1. ABA Standards For Criminal Justice: Law Enforcement Access To Third Party Records(3d Ed. 2013). https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/criminal_justice_standards/third_party_access.authcheckdam.pdf2. Acessnow,Transparency Reporting Index, https://www.accessnow.org/transparency-reporting-index/3. Airbnbcitizen：https://www.airbnbcitizen.com/transparency/4. Apple：https://www.apple.com/privacy/transparency-reports/5. Dreamhost,We Fight For The Users,August 14, 2017：https://www.dreamhost.com/blog/we-fight-for-the-users/6. EDD DUMBILL, What Is Big Data?: An Introduction To The Big Data Landscape, O`REILLY (Jan. 11, 2012), https://www.oreilly.com/ideas/what-is-big-data7. Facebook：https://govtrequests.facebook.com/country/Taiwan/2016-H2/8. Google：https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/TW/9. ITU Internet Reports 2005: The Internet Of Things : https://www.itu.int/pub/S-POL-IR.IT-2005/e10. 國際電信聯盟(ITU)官方網站： http://life.itu.int/radioclub/rr/art1.pdf11. In Re Application Of The FBI For An Order Requiring The Production Of Tangible Things From Verizon Bus. Network Svcs., Secondary Order, BR 13-80, At 2 (FISA Ct. Apr. 25, 2013), https://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order?guni=Article:in%20body%201ink12. John Markoff. Mar. 3, 1999. Growing Compatibility Issue: Computers And User Privacy, New York Times.13. Kerr, Orin S. Amicus Brief In The Fourth Amendment Cell-Site Case, WHASHINGTON POST,Oct.5, 2017 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/10/05/amicus-brief-in-the-fourth-amendment-cell-site-case/?utm_term=.e2d8a029eb4b14. Kerr, Orin S. Use Restrictions And The Future Of Surveillance Law, FUTURE OF THE CONST., Apr. 2011, https://www.brookings.edu/research/use-restrictions-and-the-future-of-surveillance-law/15. Kerr, Orin S. A Closer Look At DOJ’s Warrant To Collect Website Records,WASHINGTON POST, August 15, 2017：https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/08/15/a-closer-look-at-dojs-warrant-to-collect-website-records/?utm_term=.62de3a48751816. Line：https://linecorp.com/en/security/tr_report_2016_217. Microsoft：https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/about/corporate-responsibility/lerr/18. NET MARKETSHARE：http://bit.ly/2Mc1Hqy19. Peter Mell & Timothy Grance, The NIST Definition Of Cloud Computing, NIST.GOV(Sep. 2011). http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/SP/nistspecialpublication800-145.pdf.20. Richard M. Thompson II,Cong. Research Serv., R43586,The Fourth Amendment Third-Party Doctrine 12,15(June 5,2014), http://bit.ly/2K7GxgW21. Statcounter： http://gs.statcounter.com/22. Siobhan Gorman Et Al., U.S. Collects Vast Data Trove, WALL ST. J., June 7, 2013, https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1000142412788732429910457852911228929892223. Schneier, Bruce. How The Supreme Court Could Keep Police From Using Your Cellphone To Spy On You, WHASHINGTON POST, Nov.27, 2017 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/11/27/how-the-supreme-court-could-keep-police-from-using-your-cellphone-to-spy-on-you/?utm_term=.fd4065484ce524. Sullivan, Margaret. If Cops Can Get Phone Data Without A Warrant, It Could Be A Nightmare For Journalists — And Sources,WHASHINGTON POST, Nov.26, 2017 https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/if-cops-can-get-phone-data-without-a-warrant-confidential-newsgathering-becomes-mission-impossible/2017/11/24/eaf83e7a-cedd-11e7-81bc-c55a220c8cbe_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7c3a81aabd6a25. Standard For Criminal Justice:Law Enforcement Access To Third Party Records §1.1(E)(3d Ed.2013), http://bit.ly/2KaS4vR26. White House官網，https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/02/23/we-can-t-wait-obama-administration-unveils-blueprint-privacy-bill-rights27. Understanding Road Usage Patterns In Urban Areas. Nature Scientific Reports 2: 1-6.( December 20, 2012) http://www.nature.com/articles/srep0100128. Yahoo：https://transparency.yahoo.com/government-data-requests中文一、 書籍1. Frank Pasquale著，趙亞男譯(2015)，黑箱社會(The Black Box Society)─控制金錢和信息的數據法則，北京：中信出版社。﹝Pasquale ,Frank . 2015.The Black Box Society: the secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press.﹞2. Glenn Greenwald著，林添貴譯(2014)，政府正在監控你，台北：時報。﹝Greenwald,Glenn. 2014. No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State. Picador; Reprint edition.﹞3. Jeremy Rifkin著，陳儀、陳琇玲譯(2014)，物聯網革命：改寫市場經濟，顛覆產業運行，你我的生活即將面臨巨變，台北：商周。〔Rifkin,Jeremy .2015.The Zero Marginal Cost Society: The Internet of Things, the Collaborative Commons, and the Eclipse of Capitalism. St. Martin`s Griffin; Reprint edition〕4. Viktor Mayer-Schönberger&Kenneth Cukier著，林俊宏譯(2013)，大數據─「數位革命」之後，「資料革命」登場：巨量資料掀起生活、工作和思考方式的全面革新，台北：天下文化。﹝Schonberger, Viktor Mayer&Cukier,Kenneth.2014.Big Data: A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work, and Think. Mariner Books.﹞5. 王澤鑑(2012)，人格權法，台北：自版。6. 王兆鵬，重新定義高科技時代下的搜索，收於：王兆鵬著(2007)，美國刑事訴訟法，台北：元照。7. 林子儀，公共隱私權，收於：國立臺灣大學法律學院、財團法人馬氏思上文教基金會編(2015)，第五屆馬漢寶講座論文彚編，台北：臺灣大學。8. 江耀國等(2017)，電信法，台北：新學林。9. 林建廷、李元生(2012)，行動商務概論實務與應用 : 無所不在的雲端運算、行動裝置、RFID與物聯網，台北：碁峰。10. 河村雅人等著；吳嘉芳譯(2015)，圖解物聯網 : 感測器的架構與運用，台北：碁峰。11. 周洪波、李吉生、趙曉波(2010)，輕鬆讀懂物聯網技術、應用、標準和商業模式，台北：博碩。12. 財團法人資訊工業策進會科技法律研究所編著(2013)，走入生活的智慧聯網─匯流科技、政策與產業，台北：五南。13. 孫駿榮、蘇海永著(2015)，用Arduino全面打造物聯網，台北：碁峰。14. 連孟琦譯(2016)，德國刑事訴訟法附德國法院組織法選譯，臺北：元照。15. 張尼、張雲勇等著(2015)，雲端運算安全技術與應用，台北：博碩文化。16. 張尼、張雲勇等著(2015)，巨量資料安全技術與應用，台北：博碩文化。17. 黃朝義(2017)，刑事訴訟法，5版，臺北：新學林。18. 臺灣網路資訊中心(TWNIC)編著(2016)，2016台灣ISP年鑑，臺北：財團法人台灣網路資訊中心出版。19. 趙國棟、易歡歡、糜萬軍、鄂維南(2014)，大數據時代，台北：五南圖書出版有限公司。二、 期刊1. 王士帆(2015)，偵查機關木馬程式：秘密線上搜索─德國聯邦最高法院刑事裁判BGHSt 51,211譯介，司法周刊，1779期，頁2-3。2. 王士帆(2016)，網路之刑事追訴─科技與法律的較勁，政大法學評論，145期，頁339-390。3. 朱志平(2017)，GPS定位追蹤於刑事偵查程序之運用及其授權基礎－－從臺灣高等法院高雄分院105年度上易字第604號刑事判決出發，法令月刊，68卷，9期，頁93-133。4. 何賴傑(2012)，論德國刑事程序「線上搜索」與涉及電子郵件之強制處分，月旦法學雜誌，208期，頁230-244。5. 何信慶(2014)，從立法審議過程談新修正通訊保障及監察法，司法新聲，第111期，頁27-50。6. 李榮耕(2010)，論偵查機關對通信紀錄的調取，政大法學評論，115卷，頁115-147。7. 李榮耕(2012)，電磁紀錄的搜索及扣押，國立臺灣大學法學論叢，41卷，3期，頁1055-1116。8. 李榮耕(2014)，簡評二○一四新修正的通訊保障及監察法─一次不知所為何來的修法，月旦法學雜誌，227期，頁148-174。9. 李榮耕(2015)，科技定位監控與犯罪偵查─兼論美國近年GPS追蹤法制及實務之發展，臺大法學論叢，44卷，3期，頁871-969。10. 李榮耕(2016)，電信事業對於通訊監察的協助義務，月旦刑事法評論，1期，頁29-46。11. 李榮耕(2016)，數位資料及附帶搜索－以行動電話內的資訊為例，臺北大學法學論叢，100 期，頁245-322。12. 李震山(2007)，挪動通訊保障與通訊監察天平上的法碼─釋字第六三一號解釋評析，臺灣本土法學雜誌，98卷，頁283-291。13. 李萬明(2008)，昨日法制與今日科技─通訊保障及監察法於網路監察客體適用之探討，法學新論，2期，頁87-117。14. 李惠宗(2008)，裁判書上網公開與個人資訊自決權的衝突，月旦法學雜誌，第154期，頁21-34。15. 李惠宗(2013)，個人資料保護法上的帝王條款─目的拘束原則，法令月刊，64卷，1期，頁37-61。16. 李治安(2010)，當法律漫步在雲端，法學新論，25期，頁49-65。17. 李寧修(2015)，防性通信資料存取之憲法界限─以歐盟儲備性資料存取指令(2006/24/EG)之發展為借鏡，興大法學17卷，頁87-140。18. 法思齊(2011)，美國法上數位證據之取得與保存，東吳法律學報，22 卷，3 期，頁95-147。19. 林鈺雄(2004)，從基本權體系論身體檢查處分，臺大法學論叢，33，卷3期，頁149-200。20. 林鈺雄(2007)，干預保留與門檻理論─司法警察(官)一般調查權限之理論檢討，政大法學評論，96期，頁189-232。21. 林鈺雄(2008)，論通訊之監察─評析歐洲人權法院相關裁判之發展與影響，東吳法律學報，19卷，4 期，頁109 - 152。22. 林鈺雄(2013)，通訊監察之修法芻議——通訊保障及監察法之部分修正條文一，萬國法律，192卷，頁25-39。23. 林裕順(2018)，GPS 偵查法治化研究，月旦裁判時報，68 期，頁12-23。24. 吳志強(2013)，全面鎖定之監聽偵蒐─從制度面尋求犯罪偵查與維護秘密通信、隱私權平衡，萬國法律，192期，頁2-24。25. 邱文聰(2009)，從資訊自決與資訊隱私的概念區分─評「電腦處理個人資料保護法修正草案的結構性問題」，月旦法學雜誌，168期，頁172-189。26. 施育傑(2017)，強制處分庭的若干問題──兼論將來修正建議，月旦裁判時報，55期，頁47-58。27. 許恒達(2013)，GPS抓姦與行動隱私的保護界限──評臺灣高等法院一○○年度上易字第二四○七號刑事判決，月旦裁判時報，24卷，頁59-78。28. 莊佳瑋(2014)，含基地台地址之通聯紀錄是否屬於合理隱私之期待？─美國第五巡迴上訴法院裁定(724 F.3d 600)，檢察新論，16卷，頁190-202。29. 張麗卿(2014)，通訊保障及監察法之修正與評析，月旦法學雜誌，229期，頁25-45。30. 張陳弘(2016)，已公開個人資料之隱私保護可能─司法陽光網引發的隱私保護爭議，法令月刊，67卷，9期，頁143-164。31. 張陳弘(2018)，新興科技下的資訊隱私保護：「告知後同意」原則的侷限性與修正方法之提出，臺大法學論叢，47卷，1期，頁201-297。32. 溫祖德(2015)，行動電話內數位資訊與附帶搜索－以美國聯邦最高法院見解之變遷為主，月旦法學雜誌，239期，頁198-220。33. 楊雲驊(2007)，二十四小時之計算，月旦法學教室，53期，頁22-23。34. 劉定基(2014)，雲端運算與個人資料保護─以台灣個人資料保護法與歐盟個人資料保護指令的比較為中心，東海大學法學研究，42期，頁53-106。35. 劉靜怡(2010)，雲端運算趨勢與個人資訊隱私保護，全國律師，14卷，2期，頁39-52。36. 劉靜怡(2012)，政府長期追蹤與隱私保障，月旦法學教室，116期，頁9-11。37. 劉靜怡(2013)，通保法究竟保護了誰？司法改革雜誌，99卷，頁30-33。38. 劉靜怡(2014)，只是勉強及格而已─二○一四年通保法修正評析，月旦法學雜誌，232期，頁5-17。39. 劉靜怡(2015)，違規取締與個人資訊自決權─桃園地方法院行政訴訟一○三年度交字第五四號判決，月旦裁判時報，37期，頁5-12。40. 劉靜怡(2000)，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。41. 劉靜怡(2017)，通訊監察與民主監督：歐美爭議發展趨勢之反思，《歐美研究》47卷，1期，頁43-106。42. 劉芳伶(2016)，遠距搜索扣押與令狀之明示特定，東海大學法學研究，49期，頁45-96。43. 劉孔中；趙晞華(2014)，通訊保障及監察法修正意旨之辯證與再修正方向之檢視，軍法專刊，60卷，3期，頁37-48。44. 鄭逸哲、黃沛文(2014)，動機雖屬正當，立法未免粗糙─簡評通保法關於「調取行為」之修正，月旦法學雜誌，232期，頁18-27。45. 蔡彩貞( 2017)，定位科技在刑事司法程序之運用與人權保障─以利用GPS追蹤為中心，月旦裁判時報，65卷，頁62-78。46. 鍾安(2015)，美國法對網路匿名表意者的身分揭露程序，憲政時代，41卷，1期，頁 103-144。47. 陳運財(2014)，偵查法體系的基礎理論，月旦法學雜誌，229期，頁5-24。48. 陳重言(2014)，刑事追訴目的之通信(通聯)紀錄調取與使用─兼評2014年初通保修法，檢察新論，16期，頁40-59。49. 陳起行，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299(2000年)。50. 謝碩駿(2012)，論私人參與國家機關之資訊蒐集活動─以線民之遴選應用及電信業者之協力義務為中心，高大法學論叢，7卷，2期，頁145-204.51. 謝志明(2014)，從美國法觀點看通聯記錄的調閱─兼評我國新修正通訊保障及監察法第11條之1，檢協會訊，99期，頁9-12。52. 蕭奕弘(2012)，論個人資料保護法的法制性問題，成大法學，23期，頁141-191。三、 碩論1. 鍾孝宇(2017)，巨量資料與隱私權─個人資料保護機制的再思考，國立政治大學法律學系碩士班論文。2. 錢世傑(2002)，網路通訊監察法制與相關問題研究，中原大學財經法律學系碩士學位論文。3. 張本立(2012)，資訊時代下個人資料保護法益之研究─以我國個人資料保護法為中心，台灣大學科際整合法律學研究所碩士論文。四、 其他資料 Dr. J，頻寬的定義，科技台灣，2012年09月30日，http://hightech.nccu.edu.tw/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=304:access-network&catid=20:2010-06-13-14-30-05&Itemid=13 FBI為調查斯諾登 曾迫加密電郵公司交出密鑰，關鍵評論網，2016年03月21日，https://www.thenewslens.com/article/38598 司法院官網，http://www.judicial.gov.tw/juds/ 余至浩，邊緣運算會顛覆雲端運算嗎？，iThome，2017年06月08日，http://www.ithome.com.tw/news/114625 行政院官網，智慧聯網https://www.bost.ey.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=FDCD0AE1B7596F11&sms=8470D4E99B0FB08E&s=E20C76D2B1B65345 薛智仁(2018)，GPS跟監、隱私權與刑事法─評最高法院106年度台上字第3788號刑事判決，第二屆《公法學與刑事法學之交錯》研討會，中原大學財經法律學系主辦，2018年03月16日。 黃哲翰，數位利維坦君臨的前夕，端傳媒，2016年06月17日：https://theinitium.com/article/20160617-opinion-huangdschergan-digital/ 關貿第46期電子報，巨量資料新生活：http://www.tradevan.com.tw/wpm/DownloadFiles/07-Finance/report/1400205067726.pdf 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
法律學系
1036510581資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1036510581 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 何賴傑 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor He, Lai-Jier en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 陳妏瑄 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Chen,Wun-Syuan en_US dc.creator (作者) 陳妏瑄 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Chen, Wun-Syuan en_US dc.date (日期) 2018 en_US dc.date.accessioned 3-Sep-2018 15:53:36 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 3-Sep-2018 15:53:36 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 3-Sep-2018 15:53:36 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G1036510581 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/119919 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 法律學系 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 1036510581 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 隨著資訊科技設備彙整、分析數據的能力逐漸成形，「非內容性通訊資料」的使用價值逐步提升，足以描繪個人完整生活圖像而成為偵查取證的指向，反映在取證問題上，如何平衡犯罪訴追與被告、犯罪嫌疑人隱私權保障，即是法律所面臨的極大挑戰。本文為了釐清我國通保法規範通信紀錄內涵的妥適性，由通保法所保障之「合理隱私期待」角度切入，就偵查機關向網路服務提供者調取非內容性通訊資料的議題，納入「網路服務提供者」與「非內容性通訊資料」元素後，刑事偵查中被告「合理隱私期待」之保障範圍應透過哪些「要素」作為判準。基此，「合理隱私期待」既為我國繼受美國法制觀點所生概念，故借助美國法院實務與學理之發展，作為議題討論之方向。以第三人為平台取證的案件中，受美國第三人原則影響甚深，本文考察該原則歷史生成與理論適用之困境，透過學理與實務所提出的各種方法論，試圖修正該原則，分由「合理隱私期待」之「主觀」、「客觀」面相，重新剖析、檢討其內涵，並提出可供參考之指標性要素，藉此反思台灣通信紀錄法制規範。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) Nowadays, science and technology are making huge strides every day. The ability of collecting and analyzing data is taking shape. The value of "non-content communication " has gradually increased, which is enough to depict a complete life image of a person. Finally, it becomes the target of the law enforcement agency to collect evidence. How to balance the goal of chasing crime and defending the defendant’s privacy is the great challenge. In order to clarify the appropriateness of the Taiwan’s Communication Security and Surveillance Act about regulating non-content communication, this article discussed from the perspective of "reasonable expectation of privacy " guaranteed by Communication Security and Surveillance Act. After joining ‘’internet service providers’’ and ‘’non-content communication’’ in the issue of the law enforcement`s acquisition of non-content communication from internet service providers, what new elements would be in the reasonable expectation of privacy in criminal investigation is really a difficult question. In the view of the "reasonable expectation of privacy " is not only the concept of Taiwan`s legal system, but also the development of the US court practice and academics. Therefore, this article based on the foundation of American law perspective.In the case of collecting evidence through a third party, deeply influenced by the Third-Party Doctrine of the United States. This article examined the historical contex and dilemma of theoretical application of Third-Party Doctrine. Trying to correct this principle through various methodologies proposed by theory and practice. Reanalyzing and reviewing the "subjective" and "objective" aspects of "reasonable expectation of privacy " and proposing new elements for reference, thereby rethinking the legal norms of Taiwan`s Communication Security and Surveillance Act about regulating non-content communication. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第壹章 緒 論 - 1 -第一節 研究動機與目的 - 2 -第一項 從數位指紋(digital fingerprint)時代下的無所遁形談起 - 2 -第二項 刑事訴訟程序必須面對的課題 - 4 -第三項 隱私權內涵再探的必要 - 8 -第二節 問題意識與用語說明 - 9 -第一項 問題意識 - 9 -第二項 用語說明 - 10 -第一款 網路服務提供者 - 10 -第二款 非內容性通訊資料 - 13 -第三節 研究方法與限制 - 13 -第四節 研究架構 - 17 -第貳章 資訊社會國家調取非內容性通訊資料的隱憂 - 20 -第一節 巨量資料技術啟動隱私危機 - 21 -第一項 巨量資料的發展背景 - 22 -第一款 電信通訊技術的進步 - 22 -第二款 雲端運算技術興起 - 23 -第三款 物聯網創造大量數據資料 - 25 -第二項 巨量資料的意義與內涵 - 26 -第一款 從技術層面理解 - 26 -第二款 從社會意義理解 - 28 -第二節 美國偵查實務蒐集「非內容性通訊資料」的趨勢 - 30 -第一項 強制網路服務提供者參與國家資料蒐集的趨勢 - 31 -第一款 網路服務提供者與國家合謀 - 31 -第二款 網路服務提供者與國家抗衡 - 33 -第一目 Lavabit事件─Snowden案的延燒 - 33 -第二目 Microsoft與美國政府的數據保衛戰 - 34 -第三目 Google案何去何從 - 35 -第四目 Dreamhost─反川普事件熱議 - 36 -第三款 前述案例觀察 - 36 -第一目 強制網路服務提供者參與刑事偵查 - 36 -第二目 調取非內容性通訊資料的趨勢 - 38 -第二項 美國法觀點發展「非內容性通訊資料」概念 - 39 -第一款 從內部性、外部性至內容性、非內容性 - 39 -第二款 法院實務的演變 - 40 -第三節 美國通信紀錄法制力有未逮 - 41 -第一項 美國通信紀錄監察法制規範 - 41 -第一款 美國電子監察法制歷史沿革 - 41 -第二款 通信紀錄監察法制 - 43 -第一目 監聽法案 - 44 -第二目 儲存通訊法案 - 45 -第三目 電話撥號記錄器法和捕捉與追蹤裝置 - 48 -第二項 現行法未竟之功 - 49 -第參章 美國第三人原則的歷史生成與困境 - 56 -第一節 回歸美國憲法增修條文第4條詮釋 - 57 -第一項 從早期隱私權發展的三個里程碑談起 - 57 -第一款 Warren與Brandeis—Right to Privacy - 58 -第二款 隱私權規範發酵於侵權行為法 - 59 -第三款 提升至憲法層次的隱私權概念 - 60 -第一目 暈影理論型塑隱私權保障 - 60 -第二目 延展至資訊隱私權保障 - 61 -第二項 傳統學理詮釋憲法增修條文第4條 - 62 -第一款 從財產權基準轉向隱私權基準 - 63 -第一目 物理性入侵判準 - 63 -第二目 從財產權轉向隱私權基準 - 64 -第二款 合理隱私期待判準 - 65 -第三款 第三人原則的緣起與發展 - 66 -第一目 臥底偵查 - 66 -第二目 擴至商業紀錄 (Business Record) - 68 -第三目 適用於基地台位址(cell-site location data, CSLI) - 69 -第四目 電子郵件紀錄、瀏覽器歷史紀錄 - 71 -第五目 非內容性通訊資料與第三人原則的互動 - 72 -第二節 美國第三人原則的困境與拉扯 - 72 -第一項 第三人原則具兩大功能 - 73 -第一款 替代效果與技術中立功能 - 73 -第一目 替代效果 - 73 -第二目 技術中立 - 74 -第三目 質疑與回應 - 75 -第二款 事前澄清的功能 - 77 -第一目 可能性措施 - 77 -第二目 政策基礎的措施 - 78 -第三目 第三人原則 - 78 -第三款 其他配套措施的補充 - 79 -第二項 第三人原則的疑慮 - 80 -第一款 昧於現實的學理說法 - 81 -第二款 自動化原理的反思 - 82 -第三款 根基於隱私公私二分法的謬誤 - 82 -第四款 與工具性理論悖離 - 84 -第五款 小結：「風險承擔」為討論核心 - 85 -第三項 自願性揭露與主觀隱私期待─提出同意原則 - 86 -第一款 主觀合理隱私期待相當於同意原則 - 87 -第二款 法院實務操作同意原則 - 91 -第三款 學理提出同意機制 - 92 -第一目 默示同意原則 - 93 -第二目 限縮同意原則 - 93 -第四款 同意機制檢驗 - 94 -第一目 同意機制的困境 - 94 -第二目 普遍且必要的使用習慣 - 96 -第肆章 突破美國第三人原則的理論發展 - 98 -第一節 從資訊蒐集衍生至資訊使用階段 - 99 -第一項 正當化「資訊使用」階段規範基礎 - 100 -第一款 正在進行中的扣押原則(Ongoing Seizures) - 101 -第二款 連結證據排除法則至搜索目的 - 101 -第三款 憲法增修條文第4條的搜索意義擴及資訊處理 - 102 -第四款 根據未來數據利用情況評估搜索 - 102 -第五款 隔離資訊至特定政府機構 - 103 -第二項 定量隱私權(Quantitative Privacy) - 103 -第一款 United States v. Jones - 103 -第一目 本案事實 - 104 -第二目 法院判決 - 104 -第二款 Riley v. California - 105 -第一目 案件經過 - 105 -第二目 納入數據因素判斷搜索行為 - 106 -第三款 馬賽克理論 - 107 -第一目 馬賽克理論的誕生 - 107 -第二目 馬賽克理論之疑慮 - 108 -第三目 捍衛馬賽克理論 - 110 -第三項 「焦慮」為隱私權保障內涵 - 113 -第一款 Birchfield v. North Dakota - 114 -第一目 案件經過 - 114 -第二目 法院判決 - 115 -第二款 學說上的討論 - 116 -第一目 「焦慮」為隱私權保障之一環 - 116 -第二目 其他創設Birchfield令狀的理由 - 118 -第二節 提出「執法機關取得第三人紀錄標準」 - 120 -第一項 ABA刑事司法標準的重要性 - 120 -第一款 ABA刑事司法標準具影響力 - 120 -第二款 ABA刑事司法標準具權威性 - 121 -第二項 執法機關取得第三人紀錄標準(LEATPR Standards) - 122 -第一款 範圍限制 - 122 -第二款 判斷因素─資訊私密性程度 - 123 -第三項 小結 - 125 -第三節 自由權為基礎的人際交往隱私權 - 125 -第一項 人際交往隱私權內涵 - 126 -第一款 緣起與擴張 - 127 -第一目 父母子女關係 - 127 -第二目 親密關係 - 127 -第三目 公民社團參與之社會連結關係 - 128 -第二款 人際交往隱私權之重要價值 - 129 -第一目 自主 - 130 -第二目 親密關係 - 130 -第三目 尊嚴 - 131 -第二項 與美國憲法增修條文第4條之互動 - 131 -第一款 與第三人原則之互動 - 131 -第二款 美國憲法增修條文第4條下的自由權 - 132 -第三項 虛擬世界之中的人際交往隱私權 - 133 -第伍章 台灣法制現況與未來 - 135 -第一節 台灣現行法制與困境 - 135 -第一項 法制沿革 - 136 -第一款 2014年通保法修法前依據 - 136 -第二款 2014年修法後納入非內容性通訊資料 - 137 -第一目 通訊使用者資料 - 138 -第二目 通信紀錄 - 138 -第三款 聚焦於「相對法官保留原則」門檻的爭論 - 140 -第一目 非屬隱私權核心領域 - 141 -第二目 量變導致質變的隱憂 - 142 -第二項 繼受美國合理隱私期待的刑事偵查實務 - 143 -第一款 司法釋憲實務揭示合理隱私期待判準 - 143 -第二款 刑事偵查實務中「合理隱私期待」 - 145 -第一目 主、客觀理論應用 - 145 -第二目 馬賽克理論的引進 - 146 -第三目 以第三方為平台進行取證─自願性揭露 - 147 -第三項 解構刑事偵查合理隱私期待的必要 - 148 -第二節 美國法觀點帶來的啟示 - 150 -第一項 客觀要件 - 151 -第一款 比例原則運用 - 151 -第二款 擴及至「資料使用」階段限制 - 152 -第三款 資料私密性程度 - 153 -第一目 資料規模 - 154 -第二目 社會科學數據分析 - 155 -第二項 主觀要件弱化─同意原則 - 156 -第一款 同意原則具體操作 - 156 -第二款 人際交往形式 - 160 -第陸章 結論 - 162 -第一節 本文回顧 - 162 -第二節 未來展望 - 163 -參考文獻 - 165 - zh_TW dc.format.extent 15679841 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1036510581 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 非內容性通訊資料 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 第三人原則 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 合理隱私期待 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 同意原則 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 自願性揭露 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 使用限制 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 定量隱私權 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 馬賽克理論 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 執法機關取得第三人紀錄標準 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 人際交往隱私權 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Non-content communication en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Third-Party doctrine en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Reasonable eXpectation of privacy en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Consent en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Voluntary disclosure of information en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Use restrictions en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Quantitative privacy en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) The Mosaic theory en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) LEATPR standards en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Interpersonal privacy en_US dc.title (題名) 刑事偵查「第三人原則」與「隱私之合理期待」─以偵查機關向網路服務提供者調取非內容性通訊資料為例 zh_TW dc.title (題名) ‘’Third Party Doctrine’’and ‘’Reasonable Expectation of Privacy’’ ─ The Law Enforcement`s Acquisition of Non-Content Communication from Internet Service Providers. en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 參考文獻英文一、 專書1. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. 1881. The Common Law.2. Cooley, Thomas M. 1888. The Law Of Torts 29(2d Ed.).3. Simmel, Arnold.1971. Privacy Is Not An Isolated Freedom, In PRIVACY. Nomos XIII 71 .J. Penncok & J. Chapman.4. Solove, Daniel J.2010. Understanding Privacy, Harvard University Press.5. Solove, Daniel J.2004. The Digital Person: Technology And Privacy In The Information Age. New York University.6. Slobogin, Christopher. 2007. Privacy At Risk: The New Government Surveillance And The Fourth Amendment. University Of Chicago Press.二、 期刊1. A Reconsideration of the Katz Expectation of Privacy Test. 1977. Michigan Law Review 76: 154-183.2. Amsterdam, Anthony G. 1974. Perspectives On The Fourth Amendment. Minnesota Law Review 58: 349-478.3. Burger, Warren E. 1974. The ABA Standards For Criminal Justice. American Criminal Law Review 12: 251-254.4. Balkin, Jack M. 2008. The Constitution In The National Surveillance State.Minnesota Law Review 93: 1-25.5. Blumenthal, Jeremy A. & Adya, Meera & Mogle, Jacqueline. 2009. The Multiple Dimensions Of Privacy: Testing Lay Expectations Of Privacy. University Of Pennsylvania Journal Of Constitutional Law 11: 331-374.6. Bedi, Monu. 2013. Facebook and Interpersonal Privacy: Why the Third Party Doctrine Should Not Apply.Boston College Law Review 54: 1-72.7. Brennan-Marquez, Kiel & Henderson, Stephen E. 2018. Fourth Amendment Anxiety. American Criminal Law Review 55: 1-36.8. Coombs, Mary I. 1987. Shared Privacy And The Fourth Amendment, Or The Right Of Relationships. California Law Review 75: 1593-1664.9. Cloud, Morgan. 2002. Rube Goldberg Meets The Constitution: The Supreme Court, Technology And The Fourth Amendment. Mississippi Law Journal 72: 5-50.10. Colb, Sherry F. 2002.What Is A Search ? Two Conceptual Flaws In Fourth Amendment Doctrine And Some Hints Of A Remedy. Stanford Law Review 55: 119 -190.11. Crocker, Thomas P. 2009. From Privacy To Liberty: The Fourth Amendment After Lawrence. UCLA Law Review 57: 1-70.12. Citron, Danielle Keats & Pasquale, Frank. 2010. Network Accountability For The Domestic Intelligence Apparatus.Hastings Law Journal 62: 1441-1494.13. Citron, Danielle Keats. 2010. Mainstreaming Privacy Torts. California Law Review 98:1805-1852.14. Covey, Russell D. 2011. Pervasive Surveillance And The Future Of The Fourth Amendment. Mississippi Law Journal 80: 1289-1318.15. Crowther, Brandon T. 2012. (Un)Reasonable Expectation Of Digital Privacy. Brigham Young University Law Review 2012: 343-370.16. Cukier, Kenneth & Mayer-Schoenberger, Viktor. 2013. The Rise Of Big Data: How It`s Changing The Way We Think About The World, Foreign Affairs 92: 28-40.17. Conley, Chris. 2014. Non-Content Is Not Non-Sensitive: Moving Beyond The Content/Non-Content Distinction. Santa Clara Law Review 54: 821-842.18. Cuellar, Mariano-Florentino. 2018. Adaptation Nation: Three Pivotal Transitions In American Law & Society Since 1886. Oklahoma Law Review 70: 321-358.19. Diez, Eric R. 2006. "One Click, You`re Guilty": A Troubling Precedent For Internet Child Pornography And The Fourth Amendment. Catholic University Law Review 55: 759-794.20. Dennis, Erin Smith. 2011. A Mosaic Shield: Maynard, The Fourth Amendment, And Privacy Rights In The Digital Age. Cardozo Law Review 33: 737-772.21. Dixon, Herbert B. Jr. 2012. Cloud Computing. Judges` Journal 51: 36-39.22. Erickson, William H. & Jameson, William J. 1974. Monitoring And Updating The Standards. American Criminal Law Review 12: 469-476.23. Epstein, Richard A. 2009. Privacy And The Third Hand: Lessons From The Common Law Of Reasonable Expectations. Berkeley Technology Law Journal 24: 1199-1228.24. Freiwald, Susan. 1996. Uncertain Privacy: Communication Attributes After The Digital Telephony Act. Southern California Law Review 69: 949-1020.25. Freiwald, Susan. 2007. First Principles Of Communications Privacy. Stanford Technology Law Review 2007: 3-2.26. Ferguson, Andrew Guthrie. 2017. The Smart Fourth Amendment. Cornell Law Review 102: 547-632.27. Gerber, D. 1976. Types Of Property Seizable Under The Fourth Amendment. UCLA Law Review 23: 963-987.28. George, B. J. Jr. 1985. American Bar Association`s Mental Health Standards: An Overview. George Washington Law Review 53: 338-374.29. Grimmelmann, James. 2009. Saving Facebook. Iowa Law Review 94:1137-1206.30. Gray, David& Citron, Danielle. 2013. The Right To Quantitative Privacy. Minnesota Law Review 98: 62-144.31. Hodson, Kenneth J. 1981. The American Bar Association Standards For Cirminal Justice: Their Development, Evolution And Future. Denver Law Journal 59: 3-24.32. Haynes, Allyson W. 2012. Virtual Blinds:Finding Online Privacy In Offline Precedents. Vanderbilt Journal Of Entertainment And Technology Law 14: 603-648.33. Harris, David A. 2016. Riley v. California and the Beginning of the End for the Third-Party Search Doctrine. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 18: 895-932.34. Hosein, Gus & Palow, Caroline Wilson. 2013. Modern Safeguards For Modern Surveillance: An Analysis Of Innovations In Communications Surveillance Techniques. Ohio State Law Journal 74 : 1071-1104.35. Henderson, Stephen E. 2006. Learning From All Fifty States: How To Apply The Fourth Amendment And Its State Analogs To Protect Third Party Information From Unreasonable Search. Catholic University Law Review 55: 373-438.36. Henderson, Stephen E. 2013. After United States v. Jones, after the Fourth Amendment Third Party Doctrine. North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology 14: 431-460.37. Henderson, Stephen E. 2014. Our Records Panopticon And The American Bar Association Standards For Criminal Justice. Oklahoma Law Review 66: 699-724.38. Joh, Elizabeth E. 2014. Policing By Numbers: Big Data And The Fourth Amendment. Washington Law Review 89: 35-68.39. Krent, Harold J. 1995. Of Diaries And Data Banks: Use Restrictions Under The Fourth Amendment. Texas Law Review 74: 49-100.40. Kerr, Orin S. 2002. Internet Surveillance Law After The USA Patriot Act: The Big Brother That Isn`t. Northwestern University Law Review 97: 607-674.41. Kerr, Orin S. 2002. Lifting The Fog Of Internet Surveillance: How A Suppression Remedy Would Change Computer Crime Law.Hastings Law Journal 54: 805-846.42. Kerr, Orin S. 2004.A User`s Guide To The Stored Communications Act, And A Legislator`s Guide To Amending It. George Washington Law Review 72: 1208-1243.43. Kerr, Orin S. 2004. The Fourth Amendment And New Technologies: Constitutional Myths And The Case For Caution. Michigan Law Review 102: 801-888.44. Kerr, Orin S. 2007. Four Models Of Fourth Amendment Protection. Stanford Law Review 60: 503-552.45. Kerr, Orin S. 2009. The Case For The Third-Party Doctrine. Michigan Law Review 107: 561-602.46. Kerr, Orin S.2009. Defending The Third-Party Doctrine: A Response To Epstein And Murphy. Berkeley Technology Law Journal 24: 1229-1238.47. Kerr, Orin S. 2010. Applying The Fourth Amendment To The Internet: A General Approach. Stanford Law Review 62: 1005-1050.48. Kerr, Orin S. 2010.Ex Ante Regulation Of Computer Search And Seizure. Virginia Law Review 96: 1241-1294.49. Kerr, Orin S. 2012. The Mosaic Theory Of The Fourth Amendment. Michigan Law Review 111: 311-354.50. Kerr, Orin S. 2014. The Next Generation Communications Privacy Act. University Of Pennsylvania Law Review 162: 373-420.51. Kerr, Orin S. 2015. Executing Warrants For Digital Evidence: The Case For Use Restrictions On Nonresponsive Data. Texas Tech Law Review 48: 1-36.52. Kerr, Orin S. 2015. Katz Has Only One Step: The Irrelevance Of Subjective Expectations University Of Chicago Law Review 82: 113-134.53. Logan, Wayne A. 2012. Policing Identity. Boston University Law Review 92: 1561-1612.54. Mulligan, Deirdre K. 2004. Reasonable Expectations In Electronic Communications: A Critical Perspective On The Electronic Communications Privacy Act. George Washington Law Review 72: 1557-1598.55. Murphy, Erin. 2009. The Case Against The Case For Third-Party Doctrine: A Response To Epstein And Kerr. Berkeley Technology Law Journal 24: 1241-1254.56. Marcus, Martin. 2009. The Making Of The ABA Criminal Justice Standards - Forty Years Of Excellence. Criminal Justice 23: 10-15.57. O`Brien, David M. 1978. Reasonable Expectations Of Privacy: Principles And Policies Of Fourth Amendment-Protected Privacy. New England Law Review 13: 662-738.58. Oza, Achal. 2008. Amend The ECPA: Fourth Amendment Protection Erodes As E-Mails Get Dusty. Boston University Law Review 88: 1043-1074.59. Ohm, Paul. 2011. Massive Hard Drives, General Warrants, And The Power Of Magistrate Judges. Virginia Law Review In Brief 97: 1-12.60. Posner, Richard A. 2006. Not A Suicide Pact: The Constitution In A Time Of National Emergency. Oxford University Press.61. Palmer, Vernon Valentine. 2011. Three Milestones In The History Of Privacy In The United States. Tulane European And Civil Law Forum 26: 67-98.62. Price, Michael M. 2016. Rethinking Privacy: Fourth Amendment Papers And The Third-Party Doctrine. Journal Of National Security Law And Policy 8: 247-300.63. Rubinstein, Ira S. 2013. Big Data: The End Of Privacy Or A New Beginning? International Data Privacy Law 3: 74-87.64. Richard, Neil M. 2013. The Dangers Of Surveillance. Harvard Law Review 126: 1934-1965.65. Richards, Neil M. & King, Jonathan H. 2014. Big Data Ethics. Wake Forest Law Review 49: 393-432.66. Reid, Blake Ellis. 2010. Substitution Effects: A Problematic Justification for the Third-Party Doctrine of the Fourth Amendment. Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law 8: 613-630.67. Serr, Brian J. 1988. Great Expectations of Privacy: A New Model for Fourth Amendment Protection.Minnesota Law Review 73: 583-642.68. Slobogin, Christopher & Schumacher, Joseph E. 1993. Reasonable Expectations of Privacy and Autonomy in Fourth Amendment Cases: An Empirical Look at Understandings Recognized and Permitted by Society. Duke Law Journal 42: 727-775.69. Slobogin, Christopher. 2012. Making The Most Of United States V. Jones In A Surveillance Society: A Statutory Implementation Of Mosaic Theory. Duke Journal Of Constitutional Law & Public Policy 8: 1-38.70. Solove, Daniel J. 2002. Conceptualizing Privacy. California Law Review 90: 1087-1156.71. Solove, Daniel J. 2002. Digital Dossiers And The Dissipation Of Fourth Amendment Privacy. Southern California Law Review 75: 1083-1168.72. Solove, Daniel J. 2004. Reconstructing Electronic Surveillance Law. George Washington Law Review 72: 1264-1305.73. Solove, Daniel J. 2005. A Taxonomy Of Privacy.University Of Pennsylvania Law Review 154: 477-564.74. Solove, Daniel J. 2005. Fourth Amendment Codification And Professor Kerr`s Misguided Call For Judicial Deference. Fordham Law Review 74: 747-778.75. Solove, Daniel J. & Richards, Neil M. 2007. Privacy`s Other Path: Recovering The Law Of Confidentiality. Georgetown Law Journal 96: 123-182.76. Solove, Daniel J. 2013. Introduction: Privacy Self-Management And The Consent Dilemma. Harvard Law Review 126: 1880-1903.77. Solove, Daniel J. & Citron, Danielle Keats. 2018. Risk And Anxiety: A Theory Of Data-Breach Harms. Texas Law Review 96: 737-786.78. Sommer, Kyle. 2009. Riding The Wave: The Uncertain Future Of RFID Legislation. Journal Of Legislation 35: 48-75.79. Soghoian, Christopher. 2010. Caught In The Cloud: Privacy, Encryption, And Government Backdoors On The Web 2.0 Era. Journal On Telecommunications And High Technology Law 8: 359-424.80. Semitsu, Junichi P. 2011. From Facebook To Mug Shot: How The Dearth Of Social Networking Privacy Rights Revolutionized Online Government Surveillance. Pace Law Review 31: 291-381.81. Schwartz, Paul M. & Solove, Daniel J. 2011. The P1 Problem: Privacy And A New Concept Of Personally Identifiable Information. New York University Law Review 86: 1814-1894.82. Swan, Melanie. 2012.Sensor Mania! The Internet Of Things, Wearable Computing, Objective Metrics, And The Quantified Self 2.0.J. SENSOR & ACTUATOR NETWORKS 1: 217-253.83. Simmons, Ric. 2014. The Missed Opportunity Of Riley V. California. Ohio State Journal Of Criminal Law 12: 253-266.84. Simmons, Ric. 2018. The Mirage Of Use Restrictions. North Carolina Law Review 96: 133-199.85. Sheehan, Tim. 2015. Taking The Third-Party Doctrine Too Far: Why Cell Phone Tracking Data Deserves Fourth Amendment Protection. Georgetown Journal Of Law & Public Policy 13: 181-202.86. Strandburg, Katherine J. 2011. Home, Home On The Web And Other Fourth Amendment Implications Of Technosocial Change. Maryland Law Review 70: 614-680.87. Tomkovicz, James J. 1985. Beyond Secrecy for Secrecy`s Sake: Toward an Expanded Vision of the Fourth Amendment Privacy Province.Hastings Law Journal 36: 645-738.88. Tokson, Matthew. 2011. Automation And The Fourth Amendment. Iowa Law Review 96: 581-648.89. Tene, Omer & Polonetsky, Jules. 2013. Big Data For All: Privacy And User Control In The Age Of Analytics. Northwestern Journal Of Technology And Intellectual Property 11: 239-274.90. Thierer, Adam D. 2015. The Internet Of Things And Wearable Technology: Addressing Privacy And Security Concerns Without Derailing Innovation. Richmond Journal Of Law & Technology 21: 1-118.91. Warren, Samuel D. & Brandeis, Louis D. 1890. Right To Privacy, Harvard Law Review 4: 193-220.92. Winn, Peter. 2009. Katz And The Origins Of The Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy Test. Mcgeorge Law Review 40: 1-12.三、 其他資料1. ABA Standards For Criminal Justice: Law Enforcement Access To Third Party Records(3d Ed. 2013). https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/criminal_justice_standards/third_party_access.authcheckdam.pdf2. Acessnow,Transparency Reporting Index, https://www.accessnow.org/transparency-reporting-index/3. Airbnbcitizen：https://www.airbnbcitizen.com/transparency/4. Apple：https://www.apple.com/privacy/transparency-reports/5. Dreamhost,We Fight For The Users,August 14, 2017：https://www.dreamhost.com/blog/we-fight-for-the-users/6. EDD DUMBILL, What Is Big Data?: An Introduction To The Big Data Landscape, O`REILLY (Jan. 11, 2012), https://www.oreilly.com/ideas/what-is-big-data7. Facebook：https://govtrequests.facebook.com/country/Taiwan/2016-H2/8. Google：https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/TW/9. ITU Internet Reports 2005: The Internet Of Things : https://www.itu.int/pub/S-POL-IR.IT-2005/e10. 國際電信聯盟(ITU)官方網站： http://life.itu.int/radioclub/rr/art1.pdf11. In Re Application Of The FBI For An Order Requiring The Production Of Tangible Things From Verizon Bus. Network Svcs., Secondary Order, BR 13-80, At 2 (FISA Ct. Apr. 25, 2013), https://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order?guni=Article:in%20body%201ink12. John Markoff. Mar. 3, 1999. Growing Compatibility Issue: Computers And User Privacy, New York Times.13. Kerr, Orin S. Amicus Brief In The Fourth Amendment Cell-Site Case, WHASHINGTON POST,Oct.5, 2017 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/10/05/amicus-brief-in-the-fourth-amendment-cell-site-case/?utm_term=.e2d8a029eb4b14. Kerr, Orin S. Use Restrictions And The Future Of Surveillance Law, FUTURE OF THE CONST., Apr. 2011, https://www.brookings.edu/research/use-restrictions-and-the-future-of-surveillance-law/15. Kerr, Orin S. A Closer Look At DOJ’s Warrant To Collect Website Records,WASHINGTON POST, August 15, 2017：https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/08/15/a-closer-look-at-dojs-warrant-to-collect-website-records/?utm_term=.62de3a48751816. Line：https://linecorp.com/en/security/tr_report_2016_217. Microsoft：https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/about/corporate-responsibility/lerr/18. NET MARKETSHARE：http://bit.ly/2Mc1Hqy19. Peter Mell & Timothy Grance, The NIST Definition Of Cloud Computing, NIST.GOV(Sep. 2011). http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/SP/nistspecialpublication800-145.pdf.20. Richard M. Thompson II,Cong. Research Serv., R43586,The Fourth Amendment Third-Party Doctrine 12,15(June 5,2014), http://bit.ly/2K7GxgW21. Statcounter： http://gs.statcounter.com/22. Siobhan Gorman Et Al., U.S. Collects Vast Data Trove, WALL ST. J., June 7, 2013, https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1000142412788732429910457852911228929892223. Schneier, Bruce. How The Supreme Court Could Keep Police From Using Your Cellphone To Spy On You, WHASHINGTON POST, Nov.27, 2017 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/11/27/how-the-supreme-court-could-keep-police-from-using-your-cellphone-to-spy-on-you/?utm_term=.fd4065484ce524. Sullivan, Margaret. If Cops Can Get Phone Data Without A Warrant, It Could Be A Nightmare For Journalists — And Sources,WHASHINGTON POST, Nov.26, 2017 https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/if-cops-can-get-phone-data-without-a-warrant-confidential-newsgathering-becomes-mission-impossible/2017/11/24/eaf83e7a-cedd-11e7-81bc-c55a220c8cbe_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7c3a81aabd6a25. Standard For Criminal Justice:Law Enforcement Access To Third Party Records §1.1(E)(3d Ed.2013), http://bit.ly/2KaS4vR26. White House官網，https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/02/23/we-can-t-wait-obama-administration-unveils-blueprint-privacy-bill-rights27. Understanding Road Usage Patterns In Urban Areas. Nature Scientific Reports 2: 1-6.( December 20, 2012) http://www.nature.com/articles/srep0100128. Yahoo：https://transparency.yahoo.com/government-data-requests中文一、 書籍1. Frank Pasquale著，趙亞男譯(2015)，黑箱社會(The Black Box Society)─控制金錢和信息的數據法則，北京：中信出版社。﹝Pasquale ,Frank . 2015.The Black Box Society: the secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press.﹞2. Glenn Greenwald著，林添貴譯(2014)，政府正在監控你，台北：時報。﹝Greenwald,Glenn. 2014. No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State. Picador; Reprint edition.﹞3. Jeremy Rifkin著，陳儀、陳琇玲譯(2014)，物聯網革命：改寫市場經濟，顛覆產業運行，你我的生活即將面臨巨變，台北：商周。〔Rifkin,Jeremy .2015.The Zero Marginal Cost Society: The Internet of Things, the Collaborative Commons, and the Eclipse of Capitalism. St. Martin`s Griffin; Reprint edition〕4. Viktor Mayer-Schönberger&Kenneth Cukier著，林俊宏譯(2013)，大數據─「數位革命」之後，「資料革命」登場：巨量資料掀起生活、工作和思考方式的全面革新，台北：天下文化。﹝Schonberger, Viktor Mayer&Cukier,Kenneth.2014.Big Data: A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work, and Think. Mariner Books.﹞5. 王澤鑑(2012)，人格權法，台北：自版。6. 王兆鵬，重新定義高科技時代下的搜索，收於：王兆鵬著(2007)，美國刑事訴訟法，台北：元照。7. 林子儀，公共隱私權，收於：國立臺灣大學法律學院、財團法人馬氏思上文教基金會編(2015)，第五屆馬漢寶講座論文彚編，台北：臺灣大學。8. 江耀國等(2017)，電信法，台北：新學林。9. 林建廷、李元生(2012)，行動商務概論實務與應用 : 無所不在的雲端運算、行動裝置、RFID與物聯網，台北：碁峰。10. 河村雅人等著；吳嘉芳譯(2015)，圖解物聯網 : 感測器的架構與運用，台北：碁峰。11. 周洪波、李吉生、趙曉波(2010)，輕鬆讀懂物聯網技術、應用、標準和商業模式，台北：博碩。12. 財團法人資訊工業策進會科技法律研究所編著(2013)，走入生活的智慧聯網─匯流科技、政策與產業，台北：五南。13. 孫駿榮、蘇海永著(2015)，用Arduino全面打造物聯網，台北：碁峰。14. 連孟琦譯(2016)，德國刑事訴訟法附德國法院組織法選譯，臺北：元照。15. 張尼、張雲勇等著(2015)，雲端運算安全技術與應用，台北：博碩文化。16. 張尼、張雲勇等著(2015)，巨量資料安全技術與應用，台北：博碩文化。17. 黃朝義(2017)，刑事訴訟法，5版，臺北：新學林。18. 臺灣網路資訊中心(TWNIC)編著(2016)，2016台灣ISP年鑑，臺北：財團法人台灣網路資訊中心出版。19. 趙國棟、易歡歡、糜萬軍、鄂維南(2014)，大數據時代，台北：五南圖書出版有限公司。二、 期刊1. 王士帆(2015)，偵查機關木馬程式：秘密線上搜索─德國聯邦最高法院刑事裁判BGHSt 51,211譯介，司法周刊，1779期，頁2-3。2. 王士帆(2016)，網路之刑事追訴─科技與法律的較勁，政大法學評論，145期，頁339-390。3. 朱志平(2017)，GPS定位追蹤於刑事偵查程序之運用及其授權基礎－－從臺灣高等法院高雄分院105年度上易字第604號刑事判決出發，法令月刊，68卷，9期，頁93-133。4. 何賴傑(2012)，論德國刑事程序「線上搜索」與涉及電子郵件之強制處分，月旦法學雜誌，208期，頁230-244。5. 何信慶(2014)，從立法審議過程談新修正通訊保障及監察法，司法新聲，第111期，頁27-50。6. 李榮耕(2010)，論偵查機關對通信紀錄的調取，政大法學評論，115卷，頁115-147。7. 李榮耕(2012)，電磁紀錄的搜索及扣押，國立臺灣大學法學論叢，41卷，3期，頁1055-1116。8. 李榮耕(2014)，簡評二○一四新修正的通訊保障及監察法─一次不知所為何來的修法，月旦法學雜誌，227期，頁148-174。9. 李榮耕(2015)，科技定位監控與犯罪偵查─兼論美國近年GPS追蹤法制及實務之發展，臺大法學論叢，44卷，3期，頁871-969。10. 李榮耕(2016)，電信事業對於通訊監察的協助義務，月旦刑事法評論，1期，頁29-46。11. 李榮耕(2016)，數位資料及附帶搜索－以行動電話內的資訊為例，臺北大學法學論叢，100 期，頁245-322。12. 李震山(2007)，挪動通訊保障與通訊監察天平上的法碼─釋字第六三一號解釋評析，臺灣本土法學雜誌，98卷，頁283-291。13. 李萬明(2008)，昨日法制與今日科技─通訊保障及監察法於網路監察客體適用之探討，法學新論，2期，頁87-117。14. 李惠宗(2008)，裁判書上網公開與個人資訊自決權的衝突，月旦法學雜誌，第154期，頁21-34。15. 李惠宗(2013)，個人資料保護法上的帝王條款─目的拘束原則，法令月刊，64卷，1期，頁37-61。16. 李治安(2010)，當法律漫步在雲端，法學新論，25期，頁49-65。17. 李寧修(2015)，防性通信資料存取之憲法界限─以歐盟儲備性資料存取指令(2006/24/EG)之發展為借鏡，興大法學17卷，頁87-140。18. 法思齊(2011)，美國法上數位證據之取得與保存，東吳法律學報，22 卷，3 期，頁95-147。19. 林鈺雄(2004)，從基本權體系論身體檢查處分，臺大法學論叢，33，卷3期，頁149-200。20. 林鈺雄(2007)，干預保留與門檻理論─司法警察(官)一般調查權限之理論檢討，政大法學評論，96期，頁189-232。21. 林鈺雄(2008)，論通訊之監察─評析歐洲人權法院相關裁判之發展與影響，東吳法律學報，19卷，4 期，頁109 - 152。22. 林鈺雄(2013)，通訊監察之修法芻議——通訊保障及監察法之部分修正條文一，萬國法律，192卷，頁25-39。23. 林裕順(2018)，GPS 偵查法治化研究，月旦裁判時報，68 期，頁12-23。24. 吳志強(2013)，全面鎖定之監聽偵蒐─從制度面尋求犯罪偵查與維護秘密通信、隱私權平衡，萬國法律，192期，頁2-24。25. 邱文聰(2009)，從資訊自決與資訊隱私的概念區分─評「電腦處理個人資料保護法修正草案的結構性問題」，月旦法學雜誌，168期，頁172-189。26. 施育傑(2017)，強制處分庭的若干問題──兼論將來修正建議，月旦裁判時報，55期，頁47-58。27. 許恒達(2013)，GPS抓姦與行動隱私的保護界限──評臺灣高等法院一○○年度上易字第二四○七號刑事判決，月旦裁判時報，24卷，頁59-78。28. 莊佳瑋(2014)，含基地台地址之通聯紀錄是否屬於合理隱私之期待？─美國第五巡迴上訴法院裁定(724 F.3d 600)，檢察新論，16卷，頁190-202。29. 張麗卿(2014)，通訊保障及監察法之修正與評析，月旦法學雜誌，229期，頁25-45。30. 張陳弘(2016)，已公開個人資料之隱私保護可能─司法陽光網引發的隱私保護爭議，法令月刊，67卷，9期，頁143-164。31. 張陳弘(2018)，新興科技下的資訊隱私保護：「告知後同意」原則的侷限性與修正方法之提出，臺大法學論叢，47卷，1期，頁201-297。32. 溫祖德(2015)，行動電話內數位資訊與附帶搜索－以美國聯邦最高法院見解之變遷為主，月旦法學雜誌，239期，頁198-220。33. 楊雲驊(2007)，二十四小時之計算，月旦法學教室，53期，頁22-23。34. 劉定基(2014)，雲端運算與個人資料保護─以台灣個人資料保護法與歐盟個人資料保護指令的比較為中心，東海大學法學研究，42期，頁53-106。35. 劉靜怡(2010)，雲端運算趨勢與個人資訊隱私保護，全國律師，14卷，2期，頁39-52。36. 劉靜怡(2012)，政府長期追蹤與隱私保障，月旦法學教室，116期，頁9-11。37. 劉靜怡(2013)，通保法究竟保護了誰？司法改革雜誌，99卷，頁30-33。38. 劉靜怡(2014)，只是勉強及格而已─二○一四年通保法修正評析，月旦法學雜誌，232期，頁5-17。39. 劉靜怡(2015)，違規取締與個人資訊自決權─桃園地方法院行政訴訟一○三年度交字第五四號判決，月旦裁判時報，37期，頁5-12。40. 劉靜怡(2000)，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。41. 劉靜怡(2017)，通訊監察與民主監督：歐美爭議發展趨勢之反思，《歐美研究》47卷，1期，頁43-106。42. 劉芳伶(2016)，遠距搜索扣押與令狀之明示特定，東海大學法學研究，49期，頁45-96。43. 劉孔中；趙晞華(2014)，通訊保障及監察法修正意旨之辯證與再修正方向之檢視，軍法專刊，60卷，3期，頁37-48。44. 鄭逸哲、黃沛文(2014)，動機雖屬正當，立法未免粗糙─簡評通保法關於「調取行為」之修正，月旦法學雜誌，232期，頁18-27。45. 蔡彩貞( 2017)，定位科技在刑事司法程序之運用與人權保障─以利用GPS追蹤為中心，月旦裁判時報，65卷，頁62-78。46. 鍾安(2015)，美國法對網路匿名表意者的身分揭露程序，憲政時代，41卷，1期，頁 103-144。47. 陳運財(2014)，偵查法體系的基礎理論，月旦法學雜誌，229期，頁5-24。48. 陳重言(2014)，刑事追訴目的之通信(通聯)紀錄調取與使用─兼評2014年初通保修法，檢察新論，16期，頁40-59。49. 陳起行，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299(2000年)。50. 謝碩駿(2012)，論私人參與國家機關之資訊蒐集活動─以線民之遴選應用及電信業者之協力義務為中心，高大法學論叢，7卷，2期，頁145-204.51. 謝志明(2014)，從美國法觀點看通聯記錄的調閱─兼評我國新修正通訊保障及監察法第11條之1，檢協會訊，99期，頁9-12。52. 蕭奕弘(2012)，論個人資料保護法的法制性問題，成大法學，23期，頁141-191。三、 碩論1. 鍾孝宇(2017)，巨量資料與隱私權─個人資料保護機制的再思考，國立政治大學法律學系碩士班論文。2. 錢世傑(2002)，網路通訊監察法制與相關問題研究，中原大學財經法律學系碩士學位論文。3. 張本立(2012)，資訊時代下個人資料保護法益之研究─以我國個人資料保護法為中心，台灣大學科際整合法律學研究所碩士論文。四、 其他資料 Dr. J，頻寬的定義，科技台灣，2012年09月30日，http://hightech.nccu.edu.tw/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=304:access-network&catid=20:2010-06-13-14-30-05&Itemid=13 FBI為調查斯諾登 曾迫加密電郵公司交出密鑰，關鍵評論網，2016年03月21日，https://www.thenewslens.com/article/38598 司法院官網，http://www.judicial.gov.tw/juds/ 余至浩，邊緣運算會顛覆雲端運算嗎？，iThome，2017年06月08日，http://www.ithome.com.tw/news/114625 行政院官網，智慧聯網https://www.bost.ey.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=FDCD0AE1B7596F11&sms=8470D4E99B0FB08E&s=E20C76D2B1B65345 薛智仁(2018)，GPS跟監、隱私權與刑事法─評最高法院106年度台上字第3788號刑事判決，第二屆《公法學與刑事法學之交錯》研討會，中原大學財經法律學系主辦，2018年03月16日。 黃哲翰，數位利維坦君臨的前夕，端傳媒，2016年06月17日：https://theinitium.com/article/20160617-opinion-huangdschergan-digital/ 關貿第46期電子報，巨量資料新生活：http://www.tradevan.com.tw/wpm/DownloadFiles/07-Finance/report/1400205067726.pdf zh_TW dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAW.027.2018.F10 -
