|
| 引用本文: | 谢登科：电子数据搜查的两种模式，载《交大法学》2025年第2期，第117~134页。 |
| Xie Dengke, Two Models of Search and Seizure of Electronic Evidence, (2) SJTU LAW REVIEW 117-134 (2025). |
|
| |
|
|
| 本文已被：浏览 55次 下载 34次 |
码上扫一扫！ |
|
|
| 电子数据搜查的两种模式 |
|
谢登科1
|
|
吉林大学理论法学研究中心
|
|
| 摘要: |
| 如何在刑事诉讼中实现对数字权利的程序保护和救济，是数字时代不可回避的理论问题。我国现有搜查扣押制度主要是以现实物理空间中的人身、物品、住宅等有形物为基础建立的，而电子数据具有虚拟性、无形性、载体依附性等特征，其所处的虚拟网络空间能否作为搜查扣押的直接适用对象存在较大理论争议。我国刑事司法实践中存在对电子数据的“间接搜查”模式，侦查机关在搜查扣押原始存储介质过程中间接实现对其中存储涉案电子数据的搜查扣押，电子数据依附于其原始存储介质被侦查机关予以间接搜查扣押。电子数据的“间接搜查”模式具有依附性、不完整性、范围限定性、救济间接性等特点；其诞生和兴起既源于我国现有刑事诉讼制度对数字权利保障重视不够，也与电子数据的双关联性、原件认定标准等不无关系。电子数据“间接搜查”模式存在数据权利保障不足、基本权利概括干预、强制解码程序缺失、二次取证程序滥用等内在缺陷。因此，有必要在刑事诉讼中确立尊重和保障“数字人权”的基本理念，将其贯彻于搜查扣押等具体程序的制度设计和司法适用之中，确立以“直接搜查”模式为核心内容的电子数据搜查扣押制度体系。 |
| 关键词: 电子数据 数字权利 直接搜查 间接搜查 两步式搜查 数字人权 |
| DOI： |
| 分类号: |
| 基金项目:国家社会科学基金一般项目“电子数据区块链存证研究”（项目编号： 21BFX014）和证据科学教育部重点实验室（中国政法大学）开放基金资助课题“人工智能问题的证据法研究”（项目编号： 2022KFKT04） |
|
| Two Models of Search and Seizure of Electronic Evidence |
|
Xie Dengke
|
|
|
| Abstract: |
| How to realize the procedural protection and relief of digital rights in criminal proceedings is an unavoidable theoretical issue in the digital age. China's existing search and seizure system is based mainly on the basis of tangible objects such as persons, items, and residences in real physical space. Electronic data has the characteristics of virtuality, intangibility, and carrier dependence. There is a great theoretical controversy as to whether the virtual network space it is located in can be directly applicable to search and seizure. In China's criminal judicial practice, there is an “indirect search” mode for electronic data. During the process of searching and seizing the original storage medium, the investigative agency indirectly realizes the search and seizure of the electronic data stored in the case, and the electronic data is attached to its original storage medium to be searched and seized indirectly. The “indirect search” mode of electronic data has the characteristics of dependence, incompleteness, limited scope and indirect relief. It is not unrelated to the double-association rules of data and the criteria for identifying originals. The “indirect search” mode of electronic data has inherent defects, such as insufficient protection of data rights, general intervention of basic rights, lack of compulsory decoding procedures, and abuse of secondary evidence collection procedures. Therefore, it is necessary to establish the basic concept of respecting and guaranteeing “digital human rights” in criminal proceedings, implement it in the system design and judicial application of specific procedures such as search and seizure, and establish a digital electronic system with the “direct search” mode as the core content of the data search and seizure system. |
| Key words: Electronic Evidence, Digital Right, Indirect Search, Direct Search, Double-Stage Search, Digital Human Rights |
|
|
|
|