立法者基於比例原則之考量，設定實施犯罪監聽之嚴格要件，以兼顧犯罪偵查目的與人民基本權保障。監聽案件數自2000年3051件，2003年達最高峰13834件，2006年則計有8761件，呈現逐年攀高之現象，令人憂心我國是否治安惡化，抑或兼聽之審查控制機制失靈，致生檢警機關浮濫監聽之疑慮。 2007年7月11日通訊保障及監察法修正公布，並自公布後5個月施行。本次修法計修正10個條文，修法重點中之重點為監聽核准權移由法院行使。適值本法修正之時機，本文試圖透過檢視本法原始設計之研究方法，重新申論立法者制定本法第5條規定「限制監聽罪名」與「不能或難以其他方法」之雙重要件，以防止浮濫監聽之重要立法目的。 作者基於實務面向之觀察，認知目前實務作法似完全忽視「不能或難以其他方法」之必要性要件，本文認應透過具體釋明義務之程序要求，課以檢警機關說明採行監聽手段必要性之義務，並應以書面附具理由，具體指出其他相同有效之可能替代手段不存在，或已採取其他調查方法而無效果，或難以其他手段達成尋找人犯或發現犯罪證據之偵查目的，以有效防止浮濫聲請或核准監聽之情事。 針對新法施行後，基於兼顧偵查犯罪與人權保障之考量，本文嘗試提出法院審查決定准否監聽之標準，以及檢警機關如何因應之道，希能有助於未來實務運作之參考。

Under the principle of proportionality consideration, the legislative purpose of Communication Security and Surveillance Act is to balance the interest of crime investigation and civil rights protection. However, after the legislation passed, the case number of electronic surveillance grew up – 3051 in 2000, 13834 in 2003, 8761 in 2006. This reveals a reconsideration of whether the social order is getting worse or the review mechanism of the surveillance has problems before law revision. After 5 month transition period, the revised Communication Security and Surveillance Act was renounced in July and was in force in December of 2007 which requires the court to have the approval rights for the surveillance request application. This article plans to analyze and discuss that the purpose of this Act is to prevent abusive surveillance and monitoring and can be achieved by strictly apply the double review elements in Article 5 – "the crime categories of the surveillance" and "cannot achieve the crime investigation without other alternatives." The author thinks recent monitoring & surveillance practices ignored the principle of necessity element in considering "cannot achieve the crime investigation without other alternatives" and suggest the future practices shall emphasize the due process and require the police and the prosecutors detailed explanation in their electronic surveillance application with substantive reason why the crime investigation cannot by achieved without other alternatives in their written affidavit to further ensure the individuals' rights. In addition, this article will also discuss the standard of review for a court in deciding the monitoring application and how the police and prosecutors should adjust to follow the new Act.