國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
張「人際交往隱私權」者，或許過度偏重個人與他人之人際關係連結，忽略刑事 訴訟程序仍有犯罪訴追之目的。從這樣的觀點思考「合理隱私期待」內涵，本文 研究過程容易因「百家爭鳴」、「各執一詞」而無所適從，難以通盤且詳盡個別理 論所衍生的後續問題。
因此，本文綜覽美國法研究此議題的學理與實務後，於掌握歷史生成、理論 發展、所生困境與改革方向的基礎上，認為我國規範論上就刑事偵查中「合理隱 私期待」保障範圍可以思考：1、干預門檻類型化而善用比例原則，斟酌調取「非 內容性通訊資料」，就被告或犯罪嫌疑人所生之隱私權干預程度，區別其規範密 度；2、擴及於「資料使用」限制的規範，當所涉「資料私密性程度」偏高時，
必須透過中立司法機關事前監督機制；3、其中，可透過「資料規模」與「社會 科學數據分析」區別「資料私密性程度」，以確切反映當代社會公眾價值觀；4、
最後，回到「第三人原則」以「自願性揭露」為核心理論討論，採取弱化純粹主 觀要件，透過客觀要素強化個人「真摯性同意」，包含：所使用的網路服務是否 為「普遍」且「必要」、個人是否具有同意能力。前者採用「社會科學數據」分 析當代大眾所使用者是否為「普遍」且「必要」的網路服務平台，後者納入 Schneckloth 案判斷要素，以被告年齡、受教育程度、智力水平、同意者是否意識 到有拒絕同意的權利為斷621。基此，「同意原則」的操作，亦不失於棄守共享社 會中「人際交往互動」的必要性。
第二節 未來展望
本文《刑事偵查「第三人原則」與「隱私之合理期待」─以偵查機關向網路 服務提供者調取非內容性通訊資料為例》是為求立論我國通保法規範通信紀錄法 制的妥適性，以刑事偵查「合理隱私期待」內涵為核心進行討論，所探討的是被 告隱私權受到「網路服務提供者」與「非內容性通訊資料」的介入後，將受到哪 些因素的影響，從而追問的是「隱私權」本質內涵，並因我國既受美國法制觀點 甚深，爬梳大量篇幅關於「合理隱私期待」中衍生而出的「第三人原則」，其歷 史生成、發展，希冀在我國將來制度設計的規範面上納入更多元的要素，重新思 考刑事偵查中被告隱私權保障的問題，在這樣的理解下，本文著重於前端取證行 為的監督機制。
621 Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. at 245 & n33.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
實際上，以網路服務提供者為平台進行取證，在刑事偵查中更重要的問題應 當是「如何執行」？在資訊具有傳播性、流動性而全球化的前提下，恐怕更加劇 取證上的困難。在法制規範面，通常為了使取證行為得以順利執行，將會課予網 路服務提供者「協力義務」，經合法程序之進行後，命其協助提交被告或犯罪嫌 疑人之相關資料，我國在通保法上亦有所規範，僅因限於「電信事業及郵政事業」
的文義，輔以過時的電信法解釋之下，過度窄化協力義務對象的範圍，不及於「網 路務服提供者」。
在這方面的研究上，證立網路服務提供者履行協力義務的正當化基礎是重要 的，蓋網路服務提供者居於私人企業地位，有其兼顧用戶隱私權益以建立信賴關 係的市場利益衡量，如何要求其犧牲商業利益、用戶隱私權益、營業秘密而成就 國家犯罪訴追之公益目的，必須具有堅強的說理。其次，強制私人協助提交用戶 個人資料，必須以資料存在為前提，故「儲存義務」將連帶成為協力義務所需考 量之一環，此中所影響的是潛在多數無涉犯罪之個人用戶，侵害隱私權的程度與 範圍甚鉅。再者，參考我國國人普遍使用的網路服務項目(圖 5-2、圖 5-3、圖 5-4、
圖 5-5)，以跨國企業者所提供的服務為多數，加以資訊具有流動性的本質，「跨 國取證」的問題油然而生，這也是我國在106 年度台非字第 259 號判決中所思考 者，因涉及司法互助、各國司法有別、準據法適用之問題云云，將使得刑事偵查 取證行為於處境上更為艱難622。
622 詳見本文第貳章第二節第三款的說明。
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
參考文獻
英文
一、 專書
1. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. 1881. The Common Law.
2. Cooley, Thomas M. 1888. The Law Of Torts 29(2d Ed.).
3. Simmel, Arnold.1971. Privacy Is Not An Isolated Freedom, In PRIVACY. Nomos XIII 71 .J. Penncok & J. Chapman.
4. Solove, Daniel J.2010. Understanding Privacy, Harvard University Press.
5. Solove, Daniel J.2004. The Digital Person: Technology And Privacy In The Information Age. New York University.
6. Slobogin, Christopher. 2007. Privacy At Risk: The New Government Surveillance And The Fourth Amendment. University Of Chicago Press.
二、 期刊
1. A Reconsideration of the Katz Expectation of Privacy Test. 1977. Michigan Law Review 76: 154-183.
2. Amsterdam, Anthony G. 1974. Perspectives On The Fourth Amendment.
Minnesota Law Review 58: 349-478.
3. Burger, Warren E. 1974. The ABA Standards For Criminal Justice. American Criminal Law Review 12: 251-254.
4. Balkin, Jack M. 2008. The Constitution In The National Surveillance State.Minnesota Law Review 93: 1-25.
5. Blumenthal, Jeremy A. & Adya, Meera & Mogle, Jacqueline. 2009. The Multiple Dimensions Of Privacy: Testing Lay Expectations Of Privacy. University Of Pennsylvania Journal Of Constitutional Law 11: 331-374.
6. Bedi, Monu. 2013. Facebook and Interpersonal Privacy: Why the Third Party Doctrine Should Not Apply.Boston College Law Review 54: 1-72.
7. Brennan-Marquez, Kiel & Henderson, Stephen E. 2018. Fourth Amendment Anxiety. American Criminal Law Review 55: 1-36.
8. Coombs, Mary I. 1987. Shared Privacy And The Fourth Amendment, Or The
‧
Right Of Relationships. California Law Review 75: 1593-1664.
9. Cloud, Morgan. 2002. Rube Goldberg Meets The Constitution: The Supreme Court, Technology And The Fourth Amendment. Mississippi Law Journal 72: 5-50.
10. Colb, Sherry F. 2002.What Is A Search ? Two Conceptual Flaws In Fourth Amendment Doctrine And Some Hints Of A Remedy. Stanford Law Review 55:
119 -190.
11. Crocker, Thomas P. 2009. From Privacy To Liberty: The Fourth Amendment After Lawrence. UCLA Law Review 57: 1-70.
12. Citron, Danielle Keats & Pasquale, Frank. 2010. Network Accountability For The Domestic Intelligence Apparatus.Hastings Law Journal 62: 1441-1494.
13. Citron, Danielle Keats. 2010. Mainstreaming Privacy Torts. California Law Review 98:1805-1852.
14. Covey, Russell D. 2011. Pervasive Surveillance And The Future Of The Fourth Amendment. Mississippi Law Journal 80: 1289-1318.
15. Crowther, Brandon T. 2012. (Un)Reasonable Expectation Of Digital Privacy.
Brigham Young University Law Review 2012: 343-370.
16. Cukier, Kenneth & Mayer-Schoenberger, Viktor. 2013. The Rise Of Big Data:
How It's Changing The Way We Think About The World, Foreign Affairs 92: 28-40.
17. Conley, Chris. 2014. Non-Content Is Not Non-Sensitive: Moving Beyond The Content/Non-Content Distinction. Santa Clara Law Review 54: 821-842.
18. Cuellar, Mariano-Florentino. 2018. Adaptation Nation: Three Pivotal Transitions In American Law & Society Since 1886. Oklahoma Law Review 70: 321-358.
19. Diez, Eric R. 2006. "One Click, You're Guilty": A Troubling Precedent For Internet Child Pornography And The Fourth Amendment. Catholic University Law Review 55: 759-794.
20. Dennis, Erin Smith. 2011. A Mosaic Shield: Maynard, The Fourth Amendment, And Privacy Rights In The Digital Age. Cardozo Law Review 33: 737-772.
21. Dixon, Herbert B. Jr. 2012. Cloud Computing. Judges' Journal 51: 36-39.
22. Erickson, William H. & Jameson, William J. 1974. Monitoring And Updating The Standards. American Criminal Law Review 12: 469-476.
23. Epstein, Richard A. 2009. Privacy And The Third Hand: Lessons From The Common Law Of Reasonable Expectations. Berkeley Technology Law Journal 24: 1199-1228.
24. Freiwald, Susan. 1996. Uncertain Privacy: Communication Attributes After The Digital Telephony Act. Southern California Law Review 69: 949-1020.
25. Freiwald, Susan. 2007. First Principles Of Communications Privacy. Stanford
‧
Technology Law Review 2007: 3-2.
26. Ferguson, Andrew Guthrie. 2017. The Smart Fourth Amendment. Cornell Law Review 102: 547-632.
27. Gerber, D. 1976. Types Of Property Seizable Under The Fourth Amendment.
UCLA Law Review 23: 963-987.
28. George, B. J. Jr. 1985. American Bar Association's Mental Health Standards: An Overview. George Washington Law Review 53: 338-374.
29. Grimmelmann, James. 2009. Saving Facebook. Iowa Law Review 94:1137-1206.
30. Gray, David& Citron, Danielle. 2013. The Right To Quantitative Privacy.
Minnesota Law Review 98: 62-144.
31. Hodson, Kenneth J. 1981. The American Bar Association Standards For Cirminal Justice: Their Development, Evolution And Future. Denver Law Journal 59: 3-24.
32. Haynes, Allyson W. 2012. Virtual Blinds:Finding Online Privacy In Offline Precedents. Vanderbilt Journal Of Entertainment And Technology Law 14: 603-648.
33. Harris, David A. 2016. Riley v. California and the Beginning of the End for the Third-Party Search Doctrine. University of Pennsylvania Journal of
Constitutional Law 18: 895-932.
34. Hosein, Gus & Palow, Caroline Wilson. 2013. Modern Safeguards For Modern Surveillance: An Analysis Of Innovations In Communications Surveillance Techniques. Ohio State Law Journal 74 : 1071-1104.
35. Henderson, Stephen E. 2006. Learning From All Fifty States: How To Apply The Fourth Amendment And Its State Analogs To Protect Third Party Information From Unreasonable Search. Catholic University Law Review 55: 373-438.
36. Henderson, Stephen E. 2013. After United States v. Jones, after the Fourth Amendment Third Party Doctrine. North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology 14: 431-460.
37. Henderson, Stephen E. 2014. Our Records Panopticon And The American Bar Association Standards For Criminal Justice. Oklahoma Law Review 66: 699-724.
38. Joh, Elizabeth E. 2014. Policing By Numbers: Big Data And The Fourth Amendment. Washington Law Review 89: 35-68.
39. Krent, Harold J. 1995. Of Diaries And Data Banks: Use Restrictions Under The Fourth Amendment. Texas Law Review 74: 49-100.
40. Kerr, Orin S. 2002. Internet Surveillance Law After The USA Patriot Act: The Big Brother That Isn't. Northwestern University Law Review 97: 607-674.
41. Kerr, Orin S. 2002. Lifting The Fog Of Internet Surveillance: How A
‧
Suppression Remedy Would Change Computer Crime Law.Hastings Law Journal 54: 805-846.
42. Kerr, Orin S. 2004.A User's Guide To The Stored Communications Act, And A Legislator's Guide To Amending It. George Washington Law Review 72: 1208-1243.
43. Kerr, Orin S. 2004. The Fourth Amendment And New Technologies:
Constitutional Myths And The Case For Caution. Michigan Law Review 102:
801-888.
44. Kerr, Orin S. 2007. Four Models Of Fourth Amendment Protection. Stanford Law Review 60: 503-552.
45. Kerr, Orin S. 2009. The Case For The Third-Party Doctrine. Michigan Law Review 107: 561-602.
46. Kerr, Orin S.2009. Defending The Third-Party Doctrine: A Response To Epstein And Murphy. Berkeley Technology Law Journal 24: 1229-1238.
47. Kerr, Orin S. 2010. Applying The Fourth Amendment To The Internet: A General Approach. Stanford Law Review 62: 1005-1050.
48. Kerr, Orin S. 2010.Ex Ante Regulation Of Computer Search And Seizure.
Virginia Law Review 96: 1241-1294.
49. Kerr, Orin S. 2012. The Mosaic Theory Of The Fourth Amendment. Michigan Law Review 111: 311-354.
50. Kerr, Orin S. 2014. The Next Generation Communications Privacy Act.
University Of Pennsylvania Law Review 162: 373-420.
51. Kerr, Orin S. 2015. Executing Warrants For Digital Evidence: The Case For Use Restrictions On Nonresponsive Data. Texas Tech Law Review 48: 1-36.
52. Kerr, Orin S. 2015. Katz Has Only One Step: The Irrelevance Of Subjective Expectations University Of Chicago Law Review 82: 113-134.
53. Logan, Wayne A. 2012. Policing Identity. Boston University Law Review 92:
1561-1612.
54. Mulligan, Deirdre K. 2004. Reasonable Expectations In Electronic
Communications: A Critical Perspective On The Electronic Communications Privacy Act. George Washington Law Review 72: 1557-1598.
55. Murphy, Erin. 2009. The Case Against The Case For Third-Party Doctrine: A Response To Epstein And Kerr. Berkeley Technology Law Journal 24: 1241-1254.
56. Marcus, Martin. 2009. The Making Of The ABA Criminal Justice Standards - Forty Years Of Excellence. Criminal Justice 23: 10-15.
57. O'Brien, David M. 1978. Reasonable Expectations Of Privacy: Principles And Policies Of Fourth Amendment-Protected Privacy. New England Law Review
‧
58. Oza, Achal. 2008. Amend The ECPA: Fourth Amendment Protection Erodes As E-Mails Get Dusty. Boston University Law Review 88: 1043-1074.
59. Ohm, Paul. 2011. Massive Hard Drives, General Warrants, And The Power Of Magistrate Judges. Virginia Law Review In Brief 97: 1-12.
60. Posner, Richard A. 2006. Not A Suicide Pact: The Constitution In A Time Of National Emergency. Oxford University Press.
61. Palmer, Vernon Valentine. 2011. Three Milestones In The History Of Privacy In The United States. Tulane European And Civil Law Forum 26: 67-98.
62. Price, Michael M. 2016. Rethinking Privacy: Fourth Amendment Papers And The Third-Party Doctrine. Journal Of National Security Law And Policy 8: 247-300.
63. Rubinstein, Ira S. 2013. Big Data: The End Of Privacy Or A New Beginning?
International Data Privacy Law 3: 74-87.
64. Richard, Neil M. 2013. The Dangers Of Surveillance. Harvard Law Review 126:
1934-1965.
65. Richards, Neil M. & King, Jonathan H. 2014. Big Data Ethics. Wake Forest Law Review 49: 393-432.
66. Reid, Blake Ellis. 2010. Substitution Effects: A Problematic Justification for the Third-Party Doctrine of the Fourth Amendment. Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law 8: 613-630.
67. Serr, Brian J. 1988. Great Expectations of Privacy: A New Model for Fourth Amendment Protection.Minnesota Law Review 73: 583-642.
68. Slobogin, Christopher & Schumacher, Joseph E. 1993. Reasonable Expectations of Privacy and Autonomy in Fourth Amendment Cases: An Empirical Look at Understandings Recognized and Permitted by Society. Duke Law Journal 42:
727-775.
69. Slobogin, Christopher. 2012. Making The Most Of United States V. Jones In A Surveillance Society: A Statutory Implementation Of Mosaic Theory. Duke Journal Of Constitutional Law & Public Policy 8: 1-38.
70. Solove, Daniel J. 2002. Conceptualizing Privacy. California Law Review 90:
1087-1156.
71. Solove, Daniel J. 2002. Digital Dossiers And The Dissipation Of Fourth Amendment Privacy. Southern California Law Review 75: 1083-1168.
72. Solove, Daniel J. 2004. Reconstructing Electronic Surveillance Law. George Washington Law Review 72: 1264-1305.
73. Solove, Daniel J. 2005. A Taxonomy Of Privacy.University Of Pennsylvania Law Review 154: 477-564.
‧
74. Solove, Daniel J. 2005. Fourth Amendment Codification And Professor Kerr's Misguided Call For Judicial Deference. Fordham Law Review 74: 747-778.
75. Solove, Daniel J. & Richards, Neil M. 2007. Privacy's Other Path: Recovering The Law Of Confidentiality. Georgetown Law Journal 96: 123-182.
76. Solove, Daniel J. 2013. Introduction: Privacy Self-Management And The Consent Dilemma. Harvard Law Review 126: 1880-1903.
77. Solove, Daniel J. & Citron, Danielle Keats. 2018. Risk And Anxiety: A Theory Of Data-Breach Harms. Texas Law Review 96: 737-786.
78. Sommer, Kyle. 2009. Riding The Wave: The Uncertain Future Of RFID Legislation. Journal Of Legislation 35: 48-75.
79. Soghoian, Christopher. 2010. Caught In The Cloud: Privacy, Encryption, And Government Backdoors On The Web 2.0 Era. Journal On Telecommunications And High Technology Law 8: 359-424.
80. Semitsu, Junichi P. 2011. From Facebook To Mug Shot: How The Dearth Of Social Networking Privacy Rights Revolutionized Online Government Surveillance. Pace Law Review 31: 291-381.
81. Schwartz, Paul M. & Solove, Daniel J. 2011. The P1 Problem: Privacy And A New Concept Of Personally Identifiable Information. New York University Law Review 86: 1814-1894.
82. Swan, Melanie. 2012.Sensor Mania! The Internet Of Things, Wearable Computing, Objective Metrics, And The Quantified Self 2.0.J. SENSOR &
ACTUATOR NETWORKS 1: 217-253.
83. Simmons, Ric. 2014. The Missed Opportunity Of Riley V. California. Ohio State Journal Of Criminal Law 12: 253-266.
84. Simmons, Ric. 2018. The Mirage Of Use Restrictions. North Carolina Law Review 96: 133-199.
85. Sheehan, Tim. 2015. Taking The Third-Party Doctrine Too Far: Why Cell Phone Tracking Data Deserves Fourth Amendment Protection. Georgetown Journal Of Law & Public Policy 13: 181-202.
86. Strandburg, Katherine J. 2011. Home, Home On The Web And Other Fourth Amendment Implications Of Technosocial Change. Maryland Law Review 70:
614-680.
87. Tomkovicz, James J. 1985. Beyond Secrecy for Secrecy's Sake: Toward an Expanded Vision of the Fourth Amendment Privacy Province.Hastings Law Journal 36: 645-738.
88. Tokson, Matthew. 2011. Automation And The Fourth Amendment. Iowa Law Review 96: 581-648.
89. Tene, Omer & Polonetsky, Jules. 2013. Big Data For All: Privacy And User
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Control In The Age Of Analytics. Northwestern Journal Of Technology And Intellectual Property 11: 239-274.
90. Thierer, Adam D. 2015. The Internet Of Things And Wearable Technology:
Addressing Privacy And Security Concerns Without Derailing Innovation.
Richmond Journal Of Law & Technology 21: 1-118.
91. Warren, Samuel D. & Brandeis, Louis D. 1890. Right To Privacy, Harvard Law Review 4: 193-220.
92. Winn, Peter. 2009. Katz And The Origins Of The Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy Test. Mcgeorge Law Review 40: 1-12.
三、 其他資料
1. ABA Standards For Criminal Justice: Law Enforcement Access To Third Party Records(3d Ed. 2013).
https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/criminal_justice_stan dards/third_party_access.authcheckdam.pdf
2. Acessnow,Transparency Reporting Index,
https://www.accessnow.org/transparency-reporting-index/
3. Airbnbcitizen：https://www.airbnbcitizen.com/transparency/
4. Apple：https://www.apple.com/privacy/transparency-reports/
5. Dreamhost,We Fight For The Users,August 14, 2017：
https://www.dreamhost.com/blog/we-fight-for-the-users/
6. EDD DUMBILL, What Is Big Data?: An Introduction To The Big Data
Landscape, O'REILLY (Jan. 11, 2012),
https://www.oreilly.com/ideas/what-is-big-data
7. Facebook：https://govtrequests.facebook.com/country/Taiwan/2016-H2/
8. Google：https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/TW/
9. ITU Internet Reports 2005: The Internet Of Things :
https://www.itu.int/pub/S-POL-IR.IT-2005/e
10. 國際電信聯盟(ITU)官方網站：
http://life.itu.int/radioclub/rr/art1.pdf
11. In Re Application Of The FBI For An Order Requiring The Production OfTangible Things From Verizon Bus. Network Svcs., Secondary Order, BR 13-80, At 2 (FISA Ct. Apr. 25, 2013),
https://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order?guni=Article:in%20body%201ink
12. John Markoff. Mar. 3, 1999. Growing Compatibility Issue: Computers And User Privacy, New York Times.
13. Kerr, Orin S. Amicus Brief In The Fourth Amendment Cell-Site Case,
‧
WHASHINGTON POST,Oct.5, 2017
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh- conspiracy/wp/2017/10/05/amicus-brief-in-the-fourth-amendment-cell-site-case/?utm_term=.e2d8a029eb4b
14. Kerr, Orin S. Use Restrictions And The Future Of Surveillance Law, FUTURE OF THE CONST., Apr. 2011,
14. Kerr, Orin S. Use Restrictions And The Future Of Surveillance Law, FUTURE OF THE CONST., Apr. 2011,