[1]庄乾龙.加密刑事电子数据证据之关联性判断[J].常州大学学报(社会科学版),2021,22(06):29-45.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-042X.2021.06.004]
　Zhuang Qianlong.Relevance Judgment of Encrypted Criminal Electronic Data Evidence[J].Journal of Changzhou University(Social Science Edition),2021,22(06):29-45.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-042X.2021.06.004]
点击复制

加密刑事电子数据证据之关联性判断()
分享到：

常州大学学报(社会科学版)[ISSN:2095-042X/CN:32-1821/C]

卷:
第22卷
期数:
2021年06期
页码:
29-45
栏目:
政治·法学研究
出版日期:
2021-11-28

文章信息/Info

Title:
Relevance Judgment of Encrypted Criminal Electronic Data Evidence
作者:
庄乾龙
Author(s):
Zhuang Qianlong
关键词:
加密;  刑事电子数据证据;  证据能力关联性;  证明力关联性
Keywords:
encryption;  criminal electronic data evidence;  relevance of evidence capability;  relevance of probative force
分类号:
DF73
DOI:
10.3969/j.issn.2095-042X.2021.06.004
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
证据的关联性具有双重含义:一是证据有能力证明案件事实,此为证据能力关联性; 二是证据与案件事实之间具有实质关联性,此为证据证明力关联性。在证据能力关联性方面,加密刑事电子数据证据搜查范围与加密电子数据信息与案件信息的关联性程度相关。密码与加密电子数据信息宜并列成为刑事搜查的对象。未来立法有必要构建完善的密码提供商协助执法机构义务规则及密码搜查规则以消解加密技术导致的惩罚犯罪与保障人权之间的内在冲突。在证明力方面,加密技术将影响司法主体对加密刑事电子数据证据证明力内容的认知,并推动关联性审查判断方法的更新换代。加密技术要求在加密刑事电子数据证据证明力关联性层面以搭建虚拟与现实空间的关联性判断规则为基础,构建中间性事实与司法者背景知识的关联性判断制度。如此可有效消解法庭争议,提升司法裁判的权威。
Abstract:
The relevance of evidence has dual meanings: one is that the evidence has the ability to prove the facts of the case, which is the relevance of evidence capacity; the other is that there is a substantial relevance between the evidence and the facts of the case, which is the relevance of the probative force. In terms of the relevance of evidence capacity, the search scope of encrypted criminal electronic data evidence is related to the degree of relevance between encrypted electronic data information and case information. Passwords and encrypted electronic data information should be juxtaposed to be the subject of criminal searches. In the future, it is necessary for legislation to construct a comprehensive password provider to assist law enforcement agencies in obligatory rules and password search rules, which will alleviate conflicts between the punishment of crimes and the protection of human rights caused by encryption technology. In terms of the probative force, encrypted technology will affect the judicial body’s perception on the content of probative force of encrypted criminal electronic data and will promote the update of the relevance review method. Encrypted technology requires that in the level of the relevance of the probative force of encrypted criminal electronic data evidence, it is necessary to base on the construction of the relevance judgment rules of the virtual and realistic space so as to construct the relevance judgment system of intermediate facts and judicial persons’ background knowledge, which can resolve court disputes effectively and enhance the authority of judicial adjudication.

参考文献/References:

[1]沈达明.英美证据法[M].北京:中信出版社,1996:130.
[2]乔·R.华尔兹.刑事证据大全[M].何家弘,译.北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,1993:64.
[3]汤维建,卢正敏.证据“关联性”的涵义及其判断[J].法律适用,2005(5):24-26.
[4]冯潇洒.国外加密与执法案例分析及其对我国密码立法的启示[J].信息安全研究,2018,4(3):201-210.
[5]陈一云.证据法学[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,1991:101.
[6]程荣斌.中国刑事诉讼法教程[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,1993:169.
[7]陈卫东.刑事诉讼法学[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2004:153.
[8]陈朴生.刑事证据法[M].台北:三民书局,1979.
[9]何家弘.从应然到实然:证据法学探究[M].北京:中国法制出版社,2008:33-34.
[10]我妻荣.新法律学辞典[M].董璠舆,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1991:249.
[11]罗森贝克,施瓦布,戈特瓦尔德.德国民事诉讼法[M].李大雪,译.北京:中国法制出版社,2007:819.
[12]古岑科.俄罗斯刑事诉讼教程[M].黄道秀,王志华,崔熳,等译.北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2007:214.
[13]美国联邦刑事诉讼规则和证据规则[M].卞建林,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1996:105.
[14]张继成.认定证据相关性的逻辑性标准[J].证据学论坛,2001,3(2):417-431.
[15]陈卫东.论刑事证据法的基本原则[J].中外法学,2004,16(4):411-440.
[16]奚玮,刘晓东,余茂玉.证据关联性问题之研究: 以证明力为考察视角[EB/OL].(2006-10-29)[2021-05-30]. http://www.law-lib.com/lw/lw_view.asp?no=7728.
[17]马秀娟.论证据的关联性及其判断[J].政法学刊,2008,25(6):19-23.
[18]申君贵.关于诉讼证据能力之探讨[J].政法论坛,1993(6):70-80.
[19]纵博.我国刑事证据能力之理论归纳及思考[J].法学家,2015(3):72-85.
[20]陈伶俐.证据相关性的判断与规则构建[J].法律适用(司法案例),2017(24):66-71.
[21]阳平.从客观性到相关性:中国证据法学四十年回顾与展望[J].浙江工商大学学报,2018(6):118-130.
[22]樊崇义.客观真实管见:兼论刑事诉讼证明标准[J].中国法学,2000(1):114-120.
[23]REITINGER P R.Compelled production of plaintext and keys[J]. University of Chicago legal forum,1996(1):195-197.
[24]梁欣.不得自证其罪原则适用的几个问题:兼评刑事诉讼法修正案(草案)第49条[J].法律适用,2012(3):30-33.
[25]熊志海,周国平.美国加密数据的强制性披露[J].时代法学,2013,11(1):106-111.
[26]周洪波.证明标准视野中的证据相关性:以刑事诉讼为中心的比较分析[J].法律科学(西北政法学院学报),2006(2):83-94.
[27]刘品新.电子证据的关联性[J].法学研究,2016,38(6):175-190.
[28]罗纳德·J.艾伦,张保生,强卉.证据的相关性和可采性[J].证据科学,2010,18(3): 365-382.
[29]方芳.加密技术对计算机网络的影响与应用[J].网络安全与技术应用,2017(4):58-59.
[30]庄乾龙.论加密技术对电子邮件证据力的影响[J].时代法学,2012,10(2):37-43.
[31]吴宏耀.反对强迫自证其罪特权原则的引入与制度构建[J].法学,2008(6):20-27.
[32]LARKIN J E D.Compelled production of encrypted data[J].Vanderbilt journal of entertainment & technology law, 2012(1): 253-258.
[33]STIER R H J.Revisiting the missing witness inference-quieting the loud voice from the empty chair[J].Maryland law review, 1985(44):137, 175-176.
[34]陈瑞华.刑事证据法学[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2012:63.
[35]快播涉黄案公开庭审全程文字实录[EB/OL].(2016-01-08)[2021-03-09].https://tech.qq.com/a/20160108/062986.htm.
[36]赵艳红.人工智能在刑事证明标准判断中的运用问题探讨[J].上海交通大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2019,27(1):54-62.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
收稿日期:2021-07-02
作者简介:庄乾龙,法学博士,北京林业大学人文社会科学学院副教授。
基金项目:教育部人文社会科学研究一般项目“大数据时代刑事电子数据证据的收集与运用”(15YJC820088)。
更新日期/Last Update: 1900-01-01