臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：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
書刊名：國立臺灣大學法學論叢
作者：李榮耕 引用關係
作者(外文)：Li, Rong-geng
出版日期：2015
卷期：44:3
頁次：頁871-969
主題關鍵詞：隱私；合理隱私期待；GPS追蹤器；行動電話位址資訊；跟蹤；Privacy；Reasonable expectation of privacy；GPS tracking device；Cellphone location information；Tracking
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(27) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:26
  • 共同引用共同引用:246
  • 點閱點閱:287
由於科學技術的進步，警察機關可以藉由各樣的科技定位技術或設備有效地掌握犯罪嫌疑人的去向。其中典型的例子，便是以GPS追蹤器祕密地知悉特定人的行蹤。這樣的偵查方式固然大幅地提昇了執法官員犯罪偵查能力，降低了人力支出，不過，其同時也引起了不當侵害被追蹤人隱私權的質疑。這裡會存有的難題是，固然科技定位技術可以長時間、不間斷地監控特定人所在，但是其所蒐集取得的都是該特定人於公開場所或公共道路上的活動資訊，何以還會存有隱私侵害？這一篇論文，擬就搜索觀念的流變出發，討論科技定位監控所可能帶來的隱私侵害，並借鏡美國法制的發展，分析我國相關法制，並提出建議。本文認為，人民不會僅因位處於公開場所便完全地失去了其隱私權益，也因為科技定位監控是極為強大的偵查利器，必須要遵循妥適的法定程序，方可發動執行。
Due to rapid development of technology, law enforcement is able to efficiently track suspects with kinds of location technology or equipment. GPS tracking devices are one of them. Location technology or devices significantly enhances the police's ability of investigation and greatly lower their burden. However, the location technology also raises concerns about undue intrusions to those who are targeted. The difficult question is: law enforcement, through location technology, is able to long-term and continuously collect the information about where certain targets are, and the information is all about people's information in public places or roads. How collection of the location constitute intrusions of people's privacy? This article discusses the change of the concepts of search, and privacy intrusions caused by location technology tracking. In addition, we also analyzes the current legal framework with respect to location technology from the lesson learned from the United States. We argue that people do not forfeit their privacy rights merely because they are in public places. In addition, technology tracking should be regulated by strict rules because it is a very powerful investigation tool which may be abused and cause improper intrusions to people's privacy.
期刊論文
1.Lee, Laurie Thomas(2003)。CAN POLICE TRACK YOUR WIRELESS CALLS? CALL LOCATION INFORMATION AND PRIVACY LAW。Cardozo Arts & Ent L.J.，21，381-406。  new window
2.李震山(20060100)。監視錄影器設置的合法性--對「電眼」的恐懼vs.還好老天有「眼」！。臺灣本土法學雜誌，78，153-157。  延伸查詢new window
3.林鈺雄(20140101)。通聯紀錄之調取--從幾則基地臺相關判決談起。臺灣法學雜誌，239，49-61。  延伸查詢new window
4.許恒達(20100100)。通訊隱私與刑法規制--論「通訊保障及監察法」的刑事責任。東吳法律學報，21(3)，109-159。new window  延伸查詢new window
5.蔡蕙芳(20100400)。刑法第三一五條之一「非公開」與「無故」要件--臺灣士林地方法院九十六年自字第三一號刑事判決。月旦裁判時報，2，138-144。  延伸查詢new window
6.劉定基(20120900)。個人資料的定義、保護原則與個人資料保護法適用的例外--以監視錄影為例。月旦法學教室，119，39-53。  延伸查詢new window
7.劉靜怡(2012)。政府長期追蹤與隱私保障。月旦法學教室，116，9-11。  延伸查詢new window
8.李榮耕(20100600)。論偵查機關對通信紀錄的調取。政大法學評論，115，115-147。new window  延伸查詢new window
9.李榮耕(20080300)。I am Listening to You--釋字第六三一號解釋、令狀原則及修正後通訊保障及監察法。臺灣本土法學雜誌，104，47-60。  延伸查詢new window
10.蔡庭榕、許義寶、梁世興(20080400)。監視錄影系統法規範之研究。中央警察大學法學論集，14，1-27。new window  延伸查詢new window
11.楊雲驊(20040400)。「通訊保障及監察法」實施前電話監聽合法性及證據評價的探討--評最高法院九〇年臺上字第八四八號、九一年臺上字第二九〇五號及八七年臺上字第四〇二五號判決。臺灣本土法學雜誌，57，37-54。  延伸查詢new window
12.劉定基(20120500)。從美國法的觀點評司法院大法官釋字第六八九號解釋--以新聞自由、言論自由、隱私權的保障與衝突為中心。興大法學，11，195-236。new window  延伸查詢new window
13.李榮耕(20120900)。電磁紀錄的搜索與扣押。國立臺灣大學法學論叢，41(3)，1055-1116。new window  延伸查詢new window
14.許恒達(20121100)。高樓間與動畫中的隱私法益。月旦法學教室，121，30-32。  延伸查詢new window
15.Allen, R. J.、Rosenberg, R. M.(1998)。The Fourth Amendment and the Limits of Theory: Local Versus General Theoretical Knowledge。St. John's Law Review，72，1149-1202。  new window
16.Amsterdam, A. G.(1974)。Perspective on the Fourth Amendment。Minnesota Law Review，58，349-478。  new window
17.Arcila, F. Jr.(2012)。GPS Tracking Out of Fourth Amendment Dead Ends: United States v. Jones and the Katz Conundrum。North Carolina Law Review，91(1)，1-78。  new window
18.Arrington, Samantha(2013)。Expansion of the Katz Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Test Is Necessary to Perpetuate a Majoritarian View of the Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in Electronic communications to Third Parties。University of Detroit Mercy Law Review，90，179-201。  new window
19.Baer, M. H.(2014)。Workable Rules: Justice Sotomayor Stakes Out the Middle Ground in United States v. Jones。Yale Law Journal Forum，123，323-339。  new window
20.Berk, L. A.(2014)。After Jones, the Deluge: The Fourth Amendment's Treatment of Information, Big Data and the Cloud。The Journal of High Technology Law，14，1-41。  new window
21.Clancy, Thomas K.(2012)。United States v. Jones: Fourth Amendment Applicability in the 21st Century。Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law，10(1)，303-323。  new window
22.CoIb, Sherry F.(2002)。What is a Search? Two Conceptual Flaws in Fourth Amendment Doctrine and Some Hints of a Remedy。Stanford Law Review，55(1)，119-190。  new window
23.Davis, B.(2012)。Prying Eyes: How Government Access to Third-Party Tracking Data may be Impacted by United States v. Jones。New England Law Review，46，843-876。  new window
24.Dery III, G. M.、Evaro, R.(2013)。The Court Loses Its Way with the Global Positioning System: United States v. Jones Retreats to the "Classic Trespassory Search。Michigan Journal of Race and Law，19(1)，113-151。  new window
25.Editors of Harvard Law Review(2012)。Leading Cases。Harvard Law Review，126，226-236。  new window
26.Gatewood, J. C.(2013)。It's Raining Katz and Jones: The Implication of United States v. Jones-A Case of Sound and Fury。Pace Law Review，33(2)，682-715。  new window
27.Gatewood, Jace C.(2014)。District of Columbia Jones and the mosaic theory in search of a public right of privacy: The equilibrium effect of the mosaic theory。Nebraska Law Review，92(3)，504-536。  new window
28.Henderson, S. E.(2013)。After United States v. Jones, After the Fourth Amendment Third Party Doctrine。North Carolina Journal of Law and Technology，14(2)，489-556。  new window
29.Kerr, Orin S.(2004)。The Fourth Amendment and New Technologies: Constitutional Myths and the Case for Caution。Michigan Law Review，102(5)，801-888。  new window
30.Kerr, O. S.(2012)。The Mosaic Theory and the Fourth Amendment。Michigan Law Review，111(3)，311-354。  new window
31.Kerr, O. S.(2013)。The Curious History of Fourth Amendment Searches。The Supreme Court Review，2012(1)，67-96。  new window
32.Lave, T. R.(2013)。Protecting Elites: An Alternative Take on How United States v. Jones Fits into the Court's Technology Jurisprudence。North Carolina Journal of Law and Technology，14(2)，461-488。  new window
33.Leary, M. G.(2012)。The Missed Opportunity of United States v. Jones: Commercial Erosion of Fourth Amendment Protection in a Post-Google Earth World。University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law，15(2)，331-376。  new window
34.Mason, C.(2012)。New Police Surveillance Technologies and the Good-Faith Exception: Warrantless GPS Tracker Evidence After United States v. Jones。Nevada Law Journal，13，60-94。  new window
35.McLaughlin, K.(2007)。The Fourth Amendment and Cellphone Location Tracking: Where Are We。Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal，29，421-445。  new window
36.Murphy, E.(2012)。Back to the Future: The Curious Case of United States v. Jones。Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law，10(1)，325-340。  new window
37.Overtoom, W.(2013)。Application of the Fourth Amendment to Evidence Obtained by Government Officials From Cell Phones and Other Electronic Media Without a Search Warrant: A Review of United States v. Jones。Trinity College Law Review，18，60-84。  new window
38.Pell, S. K.(2013)。Jonesing for a Privacy Mandate, Getting a Technology Fix-Doctrine to Follow。North Carolina Journal of Law and Technology，14(2)，431-460。  new window
39.Pozen, D. E.(2010)。Deep Secrecy。Stanford Law Review，62，257-339。  new window
40.Priester, B. J.(2013)。Five Answers and Three Questions After United States v. Jones (2012), the Fourth Amendment "GPS Case"。Oklahoma Law Review，65，491-532。  new window
41.Reid, M.(2013)。United States v. Jones: Big Brother and the "Common Good" versus the Fourth Amendment and Your Right to Privacy。Tennessee Journal of Law and Policy，9(1)，103-132。  new window
42.Sherry, S.(2002)。Haste Makes Waste: Congress and the Common Law in Cyberspace。Vanderbilt Law Review，55，1-61。  new window
43.Slobogin, C.(1997)。Technologically-Assisted Physical Surveillance: The American Bar Association's Tentative Draft Standards。Harvard Journal of Law and Technology，10，383-463。  new window
44.Smith, P. J.(2013)。Much Ado About Mosaics: How Original Principles Apply to Evolving Technology in United States v. Jones。North Carolina Journal of Law and Technology，14(2)，557-598。  new window
45.Sobel, R.、Horwitz, B.、Jenkin, G.(2013)。The Fourth Amendment Beyond Katz, Kyllo and Jones: Reinstating Justifiable Reliance as a More Secure Constitutional Standard for Privacy。Boston University Public Interest Law Journal，22，1-44。  new window
46.Strandburg, K. J.(2008)。Freedom of Association in a Networked World: First Amendment Regulation of Relational Surveillance。Boston College Law Review，49，741-822。  new window
47.Swire, P.(2012)。A Reasonableness Approach to Searches After the Jones GPS Tracking Case。Stanford Law Review Online，64，57-62。  new window
48.Werdegar, M. M.(1998)。Lost? The Government Knows Where You Are: Cellular Telephone Call Location Technology and the Expectation of Privacy。Stanford Law and Policy Review，10(1)，103-117。  new window
49.王皇玉(20110200)。短裙下的大腿是隱私部位嗎？。月旦裁判時報，7，123-129。  延伸查詢new window
50.許恒達(20090600)。論違法通訊監察罪之行為主體--法益取向的解釋觀點。月旦法學，169，168-185。new window  延伸查詢new window
51.黃朝義(20030600)。檢警關係。月旦法學教室，8，79-88。  延伸查詢new window
52.Kerr, O. S.(2009)。The case for the third-party doctrine。Michigan Law Review，117，561-601。  new window
53.葉俊榮(20111000)。2010年臺灣法律發展回顧--憲法。國立臺灣大學法學論叢，40(特刊)，1625-1658。new window  延伸查詢new window
54.王兆鵬(20030200)。重新定義高科技時代下的搜索。月旦法學，93，166-182。new window  延伸查詢new window
55.李榮耕(20090400)。個人資料外洩及個資外洩通知條款的立法芻議。東吳法律學報，20(4)，251-291。new window  延伸查詢new window
56.蔡榮耕(20080400)。I am Listening to You--釋字第六三一號解釋、令狀原則及修正後通訊保障及監察法。臺灣本土法學雜誌，105，43-56。  延伸查詢new window
57.李震山(20041200)。從公共場所或公眾得出入之場所普設監視錄影器論個人資料之保護。東吳法律學報，16(2)，45-92。new window  延伸查詢new window
58.Pozen, David E.(2005)。The Mosaic Theory, National Security, and the Freedom of Information Act。Yale Law Journal，115(3)，628-679。  new window
59.林鈺雄(20070400)。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，96，189-231。new window  延伸查詢new window
60.許恒達(20131200)。GPS抓姦與行動隱私的保護界限--評臺灣高等法院一〇〇年度上易字第二四〇七號刑事判決。月旦裁判時報，24，59-78。  延伸查詢new window
61.劉定基(20120500)。個人資料的定義、保護原則與個人資料保護法適用的例外--以監視錄影為例。月旦法學教室，115，42-54。  延伸查詢new window
62.Slobogin, Christopher、Schumacher, Joseph E.(1993)。Reasonable Expectations of Privacy and Autonomy in Fourth Amendment Cases: An Empirical Look at “Understandings Recognized and Permitted oy Society"。Duke Law Journal，42(4)，727-775。  new window
研究報告
1.李震山(20051200)。個人資料保護與警察資料蒐集權之研究--以警察職權行使法第九至第十三條之規定為中心 (計畫編號：No. NSC93-2414-H-004-072)。new window  延伸查詢new window
學位論文
1.李明勳(2013)。合理隱私期待之研究--以定位科技為例(碩士論文)。國立政治大學。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.林俊益(2013)。刑事訴訟法概要。台北：新學林出版股份有限公司。  延伸查詢new window
2.Solove, Daniel J.(2008)。Understanding Privacy。Harvard University Press。  new window
3.張麗卿(201309)。刑事訴訟法理論與運用。台北：五南。  延伸查詢new window
4.王兆鵬、張明偉、李榮耕(2013)。刑事訴訟法。台北：王兆鵬。  延伸查詢new window
5.Cisco Systems, Inc.(2008)。Wi-Fi Location-Based Services 4.1 guide。San Jose, CA：Cisco Systems, Inc.。  new window
6.Rosen, J.(2001)。The Unwanted Gaze: The Destruction of Privacy in America。New York, NY：Vintage。  new window
7.Taslitz, A.、Paris, M.、Herbert, L.(2010)。Constitutional Criminal Procedure。New York, NY：Foundation Press。  new window
8.U. S. Department of Justice(2009)。Searching and Seizing Computers and Obtaining Electronic Evidence in Criminal Investigation。Office of Legal Education Executive Office for United States Attorneys。  new window
9.陳樸生(199906)。刑事訴訟法實務。海宇文化事業有限公司。  延伸查詢new window
10.蔡墩銘(1999)。刑事訴訟法論。臺北：五南圖書出版公司。  延伸查詢new window
11.林鈺雄(1999)。檢察官論。臺北市：學林文化。new window  延伸查詢new window
12.林鈺雄(2013)。刑事訴訟法。臺北：元照出版有限公司。  延伸查詢new window
13.黃朝義(2013)。刑事訴訟法。新學林出版股份有限公司。  延伸查詢new window
14.王兆鵬(20000000)。搜索扣押與刑事被告的憲法權利。臺北：王兆鵬。new window  延伸查詢new window
15.Solove, Daniel J.(2011)。Nothing to Hide: The False Tradeoff between Privacy and Security。Yale University Press。  new window
16.林永謀(2010)。刑事訴訟法釋論。臺北：林永謀。  延伸查詢new window
其他
1.Kerr, O. S.(2012)。Why United States v. Jones Is Subject to So Many Different Interpretations，http://www.volokh.com/2012/01/30/why-united-states-v-jones-is-subject-to-so-many-different-interpretations。  new window
圖書論文
1.陳運財(200006)。通訊之監察。刑事訴訟法實例研究。台北：學林出版社。  延伸查詢new window
2.蕭文生(20040000)。自基本權保障觀點論街頭監視錄影設備裝設之問題。法治與現代行政法學：法治斌教授紀念論文集。臺北：元照。new window  延伸查詢new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：223（臺灣：214，外國：9） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1951065 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67751111
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上