| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立臺北大學 === 法律學系一般生組 === 98 === In the past, CCTV(closed-circuit television system ) applied to military, industry, medical treatment, banking, sewers fixing, traffic controlling, and educational training . In recent years, CCTV applied to criminal investigation progressively. the usages of CCTV in criminal investigation by Specific state agencies was a bit later comparing to Britain`s and American`s. Even Being a neighbouring country to us, Japan, it’s specific state agencies used CCTV against crimes earlier than us. Those practicing data and discussing of the academic circle involved in CCTV in these countries might be suitable reference for the executive authorities to make better understanding about the benefits and flaws of using CCTV.
Due to the “all-seeing, all-recording” trait of CCTV, the usage of CCTV has restricted and deprived the people’s basic rights (especially to information autonomy, information privacy and freedom to act ). Being spreading and commonly existing methods, the usages of CCTV are of multiple purposes. The vital issue is always how to use CCTV. As such, we must fall back on adequate, sound and appropriate legislation and regulations to harness the advantages of CCTV while minimizing the negative downsides. These regulations must stand up to the standards of the “Rule of the Law” principle and require deliberate consideration regardless of the purpose, conditions and procedures to maintain the balance between basic human rights and interests of the pubic.
Presently, The Police Authority Performing Act, having been passed through by the legislature, Article 10 of the Police Authority Performing Act is the legislative basis for polices to set up CCTV. However, it still has room for improvement with regards to the fineness of coverage. Since Article 10 of the Police Authority Performing Act is only the legislative basis for polices’ usages, it cannot be the same basis for civilians’ usages. And, all data captured by video surveillance systems can be categorized as “personal information”, the need to refer to the Computer Processed Data Protection Act may arise occasionally. In fact, it could be feasible to adopt the Computer Processed Data Protection Act to serve as the general principles that govern the regulation on the capturing of personal information by video surveillance systems to fortify the network of protection for personal data/information.
Furthermore, the law enforcement personnel respectably rely on the data captured by CCTV. The data even may serve as concrete evidence in determining the offences committed by a perpetrator. How do we classify those data into specific categories of evidence in the criminal litigation procedures? How do we examine those data to make sure it can stand up to the tests of various criminal principles? And what methods should we use to practice the investigation of evidence? In order to be used as legitimate evidence, the data must stand up to the tests of various criminal principles such as the principles of relevance, exclusionary rule, hearsay rule and so forth. In other words, a piece of surveillance video evidence and the issue on fact must encompass “significance”, “necessity” and “possibility”. In addition, the process involved in the acquisition of surveillance video evidence must also be entirely legal and appropriate. On the other hand, the practice of adopting the hearsay rule to determine if a given surveillance video evidence should be recognized as an evidence of hearsay still requires further investigation. These issues should be properly dealt with and make the focuses of this thesis themselves.
|
|---|
