國家基於特定目的，於公共場所或公眾得出入之場所普設監視錄影器，籍以蒐集並利用資料之措施，在未對其形式合法性與實質正當性為嚴謹論證與評估之前，早就已成為普遍現象。雖然，我國已有「電腦處理個人資料保護法」( 84年8月11日公布施行)及警察職權行使法「資料蒐集」 (92年12月1日施行)之法律，尚有大部分之國家公權力或人民，對於個人資料保護之意識，仍處於知其然，不知其所以然的萌芽階段。 從個人資料保護觀點言，國家機關以安全、秩序、福祉為理由，所採之資料蒐集措施，聯結隨後之資料利用，若可能限制、剝奪憲法保障人民之具體自由與權利，色括秘密通訊自由、集會自由及概括行為自由等；特別是由人格自由與人性尊嚴所推導出的資訊自決權(informationelles Selbstbestimmungsrecht 或稱為資訊隱私權)時，該等蒐集或利用資料所採取之措施，則具干預性質。此時，國家權力之發動與運作，應依合憲秩序之法律(verfassungsmäßige Gesetze)及民主正當程序，至少應合於憲法第二十三條之法律保留及比例原則，如此，其所維護之國家安全、秩序或促進人民福祉方有正當性可言。 基於以上認知，本文先就國家於公共場所或公眾得出入之場所普設監視錄影器之現況中實然與應然面、雙面性功能及關鍵名詞詮釋與研究範圍等，作一概括論述。其次，專針對於公共場所普設監視錄影器蒐集資料所干預之基本權利探討之。其參，從我國與德國個人資料保護法與警察法規範內容，作分析比較。最後提出以下之基本看法。 國家在「公共場所」普設監視錄影器，既然有雙刃性功能，表示其仍有正面功效，無須全面加以排斥。但針對可能的負面功效之防止，就需靠完善立法規範，而該規範須經得起法治國原則之檢驗，從目的、要件、程序，皆需慎重考量，並應注意相關基本權利的保障(資訊自決或資訊隱私及行為自由)與公益維護間之衡平。 我國電腦處理個人資料保護法宜做德國聯邦資料保護法第六b條，明文授權國家於公共場所或公眾得出入之場所得設監視錄影器，化暗為明，以符實際需要。我國警察職權行使法第十條之規定與德國「個資法」及Bayern邦警察法相較，則有以下幾點值得補強與改進之處：1.透明性不足。2.告知義務之欠缺。3.隱私合理之期待未受正視。最後並初步建議引進類似德國在各級政府中所設專責「資料保護監察人」(Beauftragter für den Datenschutz)之制度，以補現行由法務部主管之組織與人員有限性，以及監察、檢、警、調職權行使之不足，使憲法保障人民個人資料之美意得以落實。

Closed circuit television (CCTV) systems have been set up in public places or areas where the public has access as a tool to collect data. It has long been commonplace even before it was not regulated by statute. In Taiwan, “Computer-processed Data Protection Act” was enacted in 1995 and “Police Duties Enforcement Act” took in enforce on 1 December 2003, but there has been less attention given to raising public awareness towards data protection. In the view of data protection, government collects and uses citizens' personal data in the name of national security, public order, and social well-being. These actions once restrict or deprive civil liberties inc1uding freedom of privacy of correspondence, freedom of assembly; particularly, “right to informational self-determination” or information privacy derived form “right of personality” and human dignity should abide by the rule of law and the principle of proportionality. The installation of the CCTV system in public places is a two edged sword. It can serve a certain positive society-wide function. However, its negative side should be aware and prevented in advance. Hence, the purpose, legal requirement, and procedure of establishing the CCTV in public places should be consistent with the rule of law. Furthermore, it is also crucial to strike the balance between human rights (right to informational self-determination) and public interests. It might be useful to follow article 6(b) of German Data Protection Act, which clearly stipulates CCTV can be established in public place or areas where the public has access. Compared to the Germany Data Protection Act and Bayern State Police Act, the drawbacks of the article 10 of the Police Duties Enforcement Act are 1. lack of transparency; 2. lack of prior notification; 3. less attention on reasonable expectation of privacy; This paper suggests the commission and staffs of data protection (Beauftragter für den Datenschutz) should be established in Taiwan. This paper first explores the legislations and practices on the installation of CCTV in public places; then examines the related basic rights which have arisen by installation of CCTV in public places and makes a comparative study between Taiwanese and German Data Protection Act and Police Act. Finally this paper suggests the measures for further improvement.