| 摘要: | 科技發展瞬息萬變，對於現代化犯罪型態來說，傳統偵查方法已不敷使用，而有賴於新興之科技偵查手段始能有效打擊犯罪。對此，臺灣近年終於將科技偵查處分成文法化，於刑事訴訟法第11章之1新增特殊強制處分規範，以解決先前關於GPS、行動通訊設備與隱私空間之科技偵查等授權基礎欠缺之問題，可見其潮流之勢不可擋。惟本法亦僅限於前開三種科技偵查類型，並未包含如車牌辨識，甚至是人臉辨識等新興偵查方法之特別授權，相比之下，外國司法實務上則已多少有所使用及討論。
故而，本文欲先自認識辨識科技可能致生之風險開始，循序討論關於系爭科技之應用情況與爭議，了解其對於基本權利衝擊之可能，再自德國、美國、英國及歐盟對於科技偵查之相關法制規範切入認識與比較，冀望能予本文就此議題有所啟發，並提出想法。
With the rapid development of science and technology, traditional investigation methods are no longer sufficient to cope with the diverse patterns of modernized crimes, and only through newer technological investigation methods can crimes be investigated more effectively. Therefore, Taiwan in recent years, finally in the Criminal Procedure Law, Chapter 11-1, provides a special mandatory sanctions norms, in order to solve the previous on the Global Positioning System (GPS), mobile communications equipment, private space technology investigation, about the lack of authorization basis of the problem, it can be seen that technology investigation has a lot of influential power. However, the authorized law only provides for the aforementioned three types of technological investigations, and does not include such as license plate recognition, or even face recognition and other methods of investigation of the authorization requirements, compared to foreign judicial practice has been used and discussed, do not wait until it is too late to legislate, and then is not complete.
Therefore, this paper will firstly introduce the various risks that may occur in identification technology, then explain the situation and controversy of its practical application, understand the impact or infringement on the basic rights, and then recognize and compare the relevant legal norms of Germany, the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union on technological investigation, hoping that it can be helpful to the discussion of this paper and put forward ideas. |
