| 摘要: | 隨著科技之發展，網際網路的出現改變了傳統的生活方式，隨之而來的智慧型手機問世之後，生活型態更開始出現重大的變化，而其中網際網路協定( Internet Protocol, IP位址)更為串聯網際網路之必要工具。而隨著生活當中運用網際網路的時間增加，對於ISP、IPP等各種業者所記錄用戶之IP位址的資訊就越多，IP位址所能回推個人生活樣態的輪廓就越清晰。因此，對於偵查機關調取IP位址是否侵害隱私權與其是否具備法律保留原則，則成為本文探討之目的。
在美國之立法上，美國聯邦憲法第四增修條文之搜索涵蓋財產權與隱私權兩種法益之保護，對於偵查機關之行為是否構成搜索，隨著科技之發展也有不同之見解。對此，美國聯邦最高法院於2018年時，於Carpenter案當中首次將偵查機關調取歷史性行動電話基地台位置資訊認為已構成第四修正案之搜索，須申請搜索票，美國聯邦最高法院認為新興科技與技術的進步，其對於個人產生之數位足跡之記錄所能透漏之隱私則更多，於偵查機關對於調取該類紀錄應具備法院事前所核發之搜索票方得為之。另一方面Carpenter案中對於第三人原則之解釋也開始產生變化，對於第三方所持有之資訊，個人對其不具備隱私期待之推論也開始有不同聲音。而對於IP位址是否也應受到事前法院核發搜索票才得以調取與第三人原則之適用，美國聯邦最高法院則尚未做出判決。
於我國現行法上，對於IP位址之調取並無明確之規定，於刑事偵查中，其可能按電信法、刑事訴訟法、個人資料保護法與通訊保障及監察法之法規而可以由偵查機關逕行調取，而各偵查輔助機關所依據的法源並無統一適用，鑒於IP位址於現代社會可揭露之資訊涵蓋位置資訊與個人生活型態之資訊，本文認為應透過事前法官保留原則，提升其審查密度，才能有效保護個人之隱私。
;With the developments on technology, the Internet has changed the way human beings live. After the invention of smartphones came out, it is especially a change that influences many different aspects of life. Among them, Internet Protocol (IP address), has become the very tool to connect the Internet. Yet, when people spend more time on the Internet, the more information ISP and IPP could get from the users IP address. According to the IP address, it is getting more transparent to trace out their lifestyles. Hence, the purpose of the study is to discuss if investigation agencies retrieving IP data invade privacy or is under Principle of legal reservation.
With the development of technology, the explanation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution change, not only about the protection of property right and privacy, but also about whether the law enforcement under investigation agencies constitutes search change. For this, in 2018, Supreme Court of the United States first affirmed that retrieving historical cell site location information in investigation a search under the Fourth Amendment, and a search warrant issued by a judge is required because the digital footprint is revealing more privacy due to the emerging technologies and the progress of skills.
On the other hand, the explanation of Third Party Doctrine in this case also varied. There were different voices on the inference of individual’s expectations on not owning privacy on the information which is owned by the third party. Still, Supreme Court of the United States has not judged if a search warrant issued by the court is required before a IP address retrieval.
According to the existing laws in Republic of China(R.O.C), there is no specific regulation on IP address retrieval. In criminal investigations, IP address may be feasibly retrieved according to Telecommunication Act, The Code of Criminal Procedure, Computer-Processed Personal Data Protection Law, and The Communication Security and Surveillance Act by the investigation agencies. This paper suggests enhancing the Intensity of Judicial Review through Statutory reservation to effectively secure individual privacy for IP address reveals the information of locations and lifestyles. |
