論秘密通訊與若干科技偵查措施之區辨

On the Right to Privacy in Communications and the Application of Differences in Several Technological Investigative Measures

遠端通訊，使得人們更容易在過程中訴說不為他人所知的事情，同時也成為偵查機關亟欲獲得的資訊。為了保護通訊過程易受國家或他人介入的脆弱與危險，秘密通訊成為需要高度保障的基本權利。據此，本文以秘密通訊為出發點，首先闡述秘密通訊的基本構造，並指出在科技時代，具體事物納入保護與否及其判斷方式。其次，面對越趨新穎的科技偵查手法，本文以秘密通訊作為主軸，參照德國法關於電子郵件扣押、來源端監察、線上搜索、IMSI-Catcher、靜默簡訊及IP-Tracking的類型，並對照我國現行法制及司法實務的案例。此外，本文主張，通訊監察應適用刑訴法第135條第1項第2款但書之限制，且應解釋為辯護人參與犯罪或滅證、勾串或逃亡之情形，方可為之；而我國刑事訴訟法存在「一般偵查條款」，且可適用在IP-Tracking類型。除此之外，我國司法實務出現的電子郵件扣押、M化車的終審見解，均值得贊成。面對日新月異的科技偵查手法，最佳的方式，應該是檢視秘密通訊、資訊自決或隱私及其等干預程度，層級化立法授權，並一併檢討通訊保障與監察法。

Remote communication has made it easier for individuals to share undisclosed information and has also become highly sought-after by investigative agencies. To safeguard against the vulnerability and risk of interference in communication processes by the state or unauthorized individuals/entities, the right to Privacy in Communications has emerged as a fundamental right requiring significant protection. Based on this premise, this article takes Privacy in Communications as its starting point.
Initially, it explains the basic structure of the right to Privacy in Communications and how to decide what should be protected in today’s digital age. Furthermore, in response to the emergence of new technological surveillance methods, this article focuses on Privacy in Communications as its central theme, referencing types of surveillance such as email seizures, source telecommunications surveillance (Quellen-TKÜ), online searches (Online-Durchsuchung), IMSI catchers, silent SMS, and IP tracking in German law, and contrasting them with current legal frameworks and judicial practices in Taiwan.
Additionally, this article suggests that applying the proviso in Subparagraph 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 135, of the Code of Criminal Procedure to communication surveillance, allowing surveillance only in cases where defense counsel is involved in criminal activities, evidence destruction, conspiracy, or the defendant has already fled. The article also recommends introducing a“general investigation clause”in the Code of Criminal Procedure, which could be used for IP tracking cases. This article also supports the Supreme Court rulings regarding“email seizures”and the“M-Car”cases.
Given rapidly advancing surveillance technology, the most effective approach to address these challenges should encompass an examination of Privacy in Communications, information self-determination, privacy, and the level of intervention, implementing hierarchical legislative authorization, and a full review of The Communication Security and Surveillance Act.