私人通信紀錄強制供公益目的使用之合憲性研究

Abstract

通信紀錄是資訊時代下新興的資料類型，電信業者為了提供電信服務而生成通信紀錄，此類無涉通信實體內容的後設資料，具有刻畫鮮明個人圖像的能力，當國家欲利用通信紀錄識別資料主體的能力來追索特定人或防範潛在危險時，基於公益目的強制電信業者預先儲存通信紀錄，該等公權力行為應受特定合憲性條件的拘束，包含：法律保留原則、比例原則、正當法律程序等，為本文關切重點。本文關於公益目的使用通信紀錄的討論，以偵查追訴刑事犯罪為主。 由於產品通行全球的大腳資訊企業﹙如GAFA、Intel、Microsoft、Oracle﹚絕大部分在美國，相較之下，歐盟國家鮮有這種企業，重視法制的歐盟尤需建立自己的保護措施，這就促使歐盟的資訊保護法制先進並周延，因此，本文對於相關的歐盟個資保護基礎法律、派生法律，均納入討論，並以極具影響力的歐盟會員國德國為例，檢視其依歐盟法立法轉換的成果，另外包含若干歐盟法院及德國聯邦憲法法院的指標性判決，從歐盟法與德國內國法層次觀察司法權如何回應公權力強制通信紀錄供公益目的使用的爭議。 最後回來探討我國現行規範之間的扞格與適用難題，包含個人資料保護法、電信法、電信事業處理有關機關查詢電信通信紀錄實施辦法、電信管理法﹙尚未施行﹚、刑事訴訟法、通訊保障及監察法、數位通訊傳播法草案等。 國家強制電信業者儲存並依公益目的使用通信紀錄的議題，呼應了國家安全與個人自由兩者緊繃且微妙的關係，法治國家雖肩負維護公共利益的國家任務，憲法並不容許以人民的自由作為完全犧牲。

Communication metadata is an emerging type of information in the information age. Telecommunications operators generate communication metadata in order to provide telecommunication services. Such metadata without communication content has the ability to portray vivid personal images. When public authorities want to use it to track a specific person or prevent potential dangers, telecommunications operators are mandated for precautionary retention based on the purpose of public interests. Such exercise of public authorities shall be subject to certain restrictions, including: principle of legal reservation, proportional principles, and due process of law, etc.. This article discusses the use of communication metadata for public interests, mainly to investigation and prosecution of criminal offences. Most of the world's big information corporations (such as GAFA, Intel, Microsoft, Oracle) are in the United States of America. Compared to the EU countries, EU especially needs to establish its own informative law system. Its informative law system is relatively advanced and comprehensive. Germany, as an influential country of the EU member states, is taken as an example to examine the result of transformation under the EU law. In addition, the judgments of EU Court of Justice and German Federal Constitutional Court also show how the judicial power responds to this issue. Finally, we return to discuss the problems of Taiwan's law systems, including Personal Data Protection Law, Telecommunications Act, Telecommunications Universal Service Regulations (unimplemented), Code of Criminal Procedure, and The Communication Security and Surveillance Act and the draft of Digital Communication Law. The issue of private communication metadata mandated for public interests points out the tight and delicate relationship between national security and freedom of individuals. Although the state shoulders the responsibility of guarding national security, the rule of law doesn't totally allow sacrificing the freedom of individuals.