查詢結果分析
相關文獻
- 預防性通信資料存取之憲法界限--以歐盟儲備性資料存取指令(2006/24/EG)之發展為借鏡
- 德國「資訊自主權」之概念在我國法律上之應用
- [實例研習]土地登記謄本上住所資料之公開--個人資料保護之界線
- 衛星定位追蹤之刑責--評臺灣高等法院100年度上易字第2407號判決
- 知的權利與個人資料保護之折衝--德國透過立法途徑處理前東德國家安全部所遺留「個人安全資料」之反思
- 被淘空的法律保留與變質的資訊隱私憲法保障--評最高行政法院一○六年度判字第五四號判決與相關個資法條文
- 1922實聯制簡訊、通訊監察與個資保護
- 公共安全與警察危機決策行為之研究
- 圖書館行政法個案:中國圖書館學會名稱競合的問題
- 民事損害賠償責任法上因果關係之結構分析以及損害賠償之基本原則
頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 預防性通信資料存取之憲法界限--以歐盟儲備性資料存取指令(2006/24/EG)之發展為借鏡=Constitutional Boundary on Preventive Retention of Communication Data: Taking the Development of 2006/24/EC Directive as Example |
---|---|
作者 | 李寧修; Lee, Ning-hsiu; |
期刊 | 興大法學 |
出版日期 | 20150500 |
卷期 | 17 2015.05[民104.05] |
頁次 | 頁87-140 |
分類號 | 581.2324 |
語文 | chi |
關鍵詞 | 歐盟儲備性資料存取指令(2006/24/EG); 通信資料; 歐盟基本權利憲章; 個人資料保護; 比例原則; 歐洲法院C-293/12及C-594/12判決; 通訊保障及監察法; Data Retention Directive 2006/24/EC; Communication data; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; Protection of personal data; Principle of proportionality; Judgment in joined cases C-293/12 and C-594/12 of the Court of Justice of the European Union; The Communication Security and Surveillance Act; |
中文摘要 | 歐盟於二○○六年制定歐盟2006/24/EG指令,透過積極立法,運用預先存取之電信及網路資料滿足防範重大犯罪之渴求,但亦引發與歐盟基本權利憲章第7條與第8條不相合致之議論;無獨有偶,我國通訊保障及監察法於二○一四年初進行增修,明文訂定國家機關基於犯罪偵查及證據蒐集之目的,向電信業者調取通信紀錄及通訊使用者資料之要件,上述規範在合憲性之檢證結果是否將殊途同歸,值得探究。本文首先就預防性通信資料存取可能涉及之基本權利進行類型化之分析,續以德國聯邦憲法法院與歐洲法院之判決觀察歐盟2006/24/EG指令發展之興替,並就我國現行之相應規範予以介析,思考其可能遭遇的憲法困境,最後,嘗試在探尋個人資料保護平衡點之路途上,提供個人的觀察與建議作為參考。 |
英文摘要 | In the year of 2006, the European Union used progressive leg-islation to establish the 2006/24/EC Directive, using Retention of In-ternet Data and Communication Data to fulfill the need to prevent se-rious crimes. But this approach has caused debate over whether the Directive has breached the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU Art. 7 and Art. 8. Also, Taiwan’s “The Communication Security and Surveillance Act” has been amended in early 2014, explicitly regulat-ing the criteria to access communication records and communica-tions user’s information when State Agency investigate and collect evidence. Whether these respective regulations of EU and Taiwan may lead to the same result, is worth further research. This research will firstly analyze the categorization of possible fundamental rights related to preventive retention communication data. Then, by exam-ining the Judgments of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany and the Court of Justice of the EU, the application of EU Directive of 2006/24/EC will be observed. This study will also ana-lyze Taiwan’s current and similar regulations and ponder possible constitutional obstacles that could be encountered. At last, personal opinion will be provided, in hope to provide some observa-tion and advice on the path to find the balance point of personal data protection. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。