Research of Communications Secueity Superrision Law－Focus on Article 18-1 after 103 years of revision

• Main Authors: HSIAO,MING-HSIANG, 蕭名翔
• Other Authors: CHOU,CHING-TUNG
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2018
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/6y55q2

碩士 === 國防大學 === 法律學系 === 106 === The Communication Security and Surveillance Act of Taiwan was promulgated in 1999. Communication surveillance is generally deemed as a type of prosecutors’order involving the infringement of the people’s basic rights, including such rights as human dignity, the right to privacy under protection by the Constitution, freedom of secret communication, and freedom of residence. With the rapid development and widespread use of communications technology,and the constant alteration of criminal tactics,“tapping”has become an important means which crime investigation agencies rely on. However, its improper use can result in the infringement of people’s basic rights. In 2013, the commotion surrounding the tapping of the Legislative Yuan exposed long-standing undesirable customs such as exorbitant applications of communication surveillance in practice, multiple persons and multiple lines for one case, warrant reviews becoming mere formalities, arbitrary continuation of surveillance, and other issues. In January 2014, the Legislative Yuan passed three readings on the amendment of the “Communication Security and Surveillance Act”, focusing on strictly prohibiting political investigation and limited to “one person, one crime, one warrant”. In addition, in response to derivative wiretapping and incidental discoveries about other cases from tapping data, the issue of the “admissibility of evidence” was added to Article 18-1, as there had been no stipulations on handling “derivative wiretapping” prior to the law amendment in 2014. Both in theory and in practice,the views are divided. Following the law amendment, the admissibility of evidence of the communication content from derivative wiretapping was based on“denial in principle and acceptance in exceptions”, although doubts and applicability disputes continue to arise in its formulation and implementation. This paper attempted to take the essence of tapping as the starting point to compile theoretical and practical opinions involving the basic rights by the Constitution, while clarifying the legality of derivative wiretapping and the practical issues, as well as exploring whether or not it restricts the ability of the investigation agency to “discover the truth”and“combat crime”in practice.Finally,based on the research findings, suggestions were put forth with the intent of perfecting communication and surveillance laws and practical operations in Taiwan.