| 關 鍵 詞： |
網路犯罪；調取票；法官保留原則；秘密通訊之自由；隱私權 |
| 中文摘要： |
資訊科技的發達，以網路所為犯罪隨之增加，著作權侵權案件更是如此。偵查此類犯罪，檢警往往須調取IP 位址資料，以特定侵權行為之網路使用者身分，方能繼續偵查。過往，承辦人多依電信法等相關規定，自行函詢網路連線資料，然在 2014 年通訊保障及監察法增訂第 11-1 條要求調取通信紀錄或使用者資料，除採重罪原則外，亦須法官核發調取票。近來著作權侵權個案中，即有違反令狀原則，直接調取之網路連線資料，遭法院認定無證據能力者。法務部與部分學者雖認為，調取之資料，對於人民基本權影響較小，且其他如金融、醫療等資料，立法者並未要求法官保留，主張應廢除此制度。但就大數據時代來說，即使是不涉通信內容之資料，在調取數量龐大而經分析後，於人民隱私之侵害亦屬可觀，如美國聯邦最高法院近來見解，即有認為大量調取資料之行為，等同搜索，應以法院令狀為之。在著作權法涉及之個案，多屬於非營利之小規模重製行為，法益侵害非屬重大，動輒繩以刑法，本有疑義，法院於個案上自宜嚴格限制未調取票，而逕行調取網路連線資料之證據能力，若常以刑事訴訟法第 158-4 條權衡而有證據能力，將架空通訊保障及監察法第 11-1 條採取法官保留之立法意旨，亦不合憲法對人民基本權保障之精神。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
Internet crimes；access warrant；the principle of judge reservation；freedom to secrecy of correspondence；right of privacy |
| 英文摘要： |
The burgeoning development of information technology has led to the increase of Internet crimes, and so to copyrights infringements. To investigate this kind of crime, law enforcement agencies have to retrieve IP address in order to identify Internet users. In the past, police usually officially request Internet connection information, in pursuant to the Telecommunication Act. After the Communication Security and Surveillance Act was revised in 2014, according to its revised Article 11-1, except for serious crimes, a written application should be filed with the court for an access warrant to retrieve communication record or users’ information. In several recent copyright infringement cases, the court found the evidence inadmissible, for the Internet connection information was retrieved without warrants. The Ministry of Justice, as well as some scholars, argues that, since the information retrieved have only minor impacts to basic human rights and retrieving financial and medical information does not require warrants, warrants should not be required thereof. However, in the time of big data, retrieving and analyzing tremendous data that does not involve communication content can also be perilous to privacy. In the recent opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court, retrieving numerous data amounts to search, and thus requires a warrant. For cases concerning copyrights, where small scale of non-commercial reproduction is involved and thus infringement of legal interest is minor, it is improper to easily refer to criminal law. To adjudicate cases as such, the court must scrutinize the admissibility of Internet connection information retrieved without access warrant. If the judges in such cases usually refer to Article 158-4 of the Criminal Procedural Law to determine and maintain the admissibility of evidence, it would be deviating from the purpose of Article 11-1 of the Communication Security and Surveillance Act that stipulates the principle of judge reservation, and defying the Constitution’s tenets of protecting basic human rights.
|
| 目 次： |
壹、前言
貳、網路連線資料在偵查著作權侵權案件之重要性
一、網路侵權比例的增加
二、從代號到真實姓名
三、IP 位址不等於實名制、使用者資料也不等於被告
四、小結
參、調取網路連線資料的法律依據
一、刑事訴訟法第 135 條與第 133 條
二、電信法第 7 條第 2 項
三、通訊保障及監察法第 11-1 條
四、最高法院 106 年度台非字第 259 號刑事判決
肆、網路連線資料採取法官保留原則的適當性
一、網路連線資料與秘密通訊之自由的關聯
二、秘密通訊之自由可否以法律限制
三、不應採取調取票制度之理由
伍、著作權法不應允許無令狀調取網路連線紀錄
一、著作權法侵權多屬於小規模重製
二、著作權法刑責無抑制小規模侵權犯罪之效果
三、結語：非屬重罪的著作權法不應容許無令狀之調取
陸、參考文獻
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|