公共隱私權之研究—以政府設置監視器為中心

隨時代發展，科技不斷進步，政府機關利用科技設備維護公共安全、預防偵查犯罪所在多有，遍布大街小巷隨處可見的錄影監視系統即是其中之一，執法人員與錄影監視系統相輔相成，利用不間斷攝錄的監視器，作為預警、嚇阻犯罪事件發生的象徵，還可約制人民，避免觸犯交通法規，降低生命財產損失的危險行為和交通事故發生率。在事件發生後，調閱監視器是民眾期待警察機關偵辦案件時主要手段之一，監視器畫面可彌補人類在事件發生當下不會注意的細節，作為偵查及犯罪證據之用，警察局更廣泛搭配運用各種偵查技術及數位科技，進行比對、清查、分析，以尋求破案契機，使監視器有了「破案神器」之美名。維護治安雖是政府的重要任務，然而在公共場所四處設置錄影監視系統，對於憲法保障人民的基本權利，如隱私權、資訊隱私權、公共隱私權及一般行動自由均有造成侵害之疑慮，故於錄影監視器之法制配套措施上，如何在維護公共利益之必要限度內，與人民基本權保護之間取得平衡，一直是亟待解決的難題。依照我國實務及司法院大法官相關解釋，隱私權乃係不讓他人無端干預其個人私的領域之權利，此種人格權乃是在維護個人尊嚴，保障追求幸福所必要而不可或缺者，並肯認個人縱於公共場域中，亦應享有依社會通念得不受他人侵擾之私人活動領域及個人資料自主，確立了公共隱私權的存在。因此，隱私權被認為是和科技不斷角力中成長的基本權，其定義和保障範圍須與科技持續進步息息相關，始能維護個人主體性及人格發展之完整。本文從隱私權的發展談起，依據美國的見解和我國實務判決見解，整理隱私權的定義及功能，進一步分析衍生而來的公共隱私權保障；接著探討我國現行政府設置錄影監視器之相關法源依據，輔以臺北市目前設置錄影監視器的實際現況進行分析，瞭解其對於提高犯罪偵查率及降低犯罪發生率的影響，並針對警察機關設置監視器的主要依據-警察職權行使法第10條進行合憲性檢討，是否足以在治安維護及人民隱私權保障間取得衡平。此外，秉持他山之石可以攻錯之精神，整理英國、日本、德國對於錄影監視系統相關規範，期能作為未來錄影監視器或其他相關科技執法設備之立法參考，在強化犯罪預防、治安維護的同時，強化人民隱私權之保障。最後，形成結論，並提出相關修法建議，提供主管機關未來檢討研修相關法制及改進實務作法之參考。

關鍵字

錄影監視器；隱私權；資訊隱私權；公共隱私權；警察職權行使法

並列摘要

With the development of the times and the continuous advancement of science and technology, government agencies use scientific and technological equipment to maintain public safety, prevent and investigate crimes. The video surveillance system that can be seen everywhere in the streets is one of them. Law enforcement officers and video surveillance systems complement each other. Intermittently recorded monitors, as a symbol of warning and deterring crimes, can also restrain the people, avoid violating traffic laws, and reduce the risk of life , property loss and the incidence of traffic accidents. After the incident, access to the monitor is one of the main means which the public expects the police to investigate the case. The monitor screen can make up for details that humans will not pay attention to at the moment of the incident. With the use of various investigative techniques and digital technologies, comparisons, investigations, and analysis are carried out to find opportunities for solving crimes, giving the monitor the reputation of "the magic weapon for solving crimes." Although maintaining public order is an important task of the government, setting up video surveillance systems in public places is being doubted for infringements on the basic rights of the people protected by the Constitution, such as privacy, information privacy, public privacy and general freedom of action. Regarding the legal support measures for video surveillance systems, how to strike a balance between the protection of the basic rights of the people within the necessary limits of safeguarding public interests has always been a problem that needs to be resolved. According to Taiwan’s practice and the relevant interpretations of the justices of the Judiciary, the right to privacy is the right to prevent others from unwarrantedly interfering in their private areas. This kind of personality right is to safeguard personal dignity and protect those who are necessary and indispensable for the pursuit of happiness. It also determines that individuals, even in the public domain, should also enjoy private activities and personal data autonomy that are not disturbed by others according to social concepts, which establishes the existence of public privacy rights. Therefore, the right to privacy is regarded as the basic right to grow in the constant struggle with science and technology. Its definition and scope of protection must be closely related to the continuous progress of science and technology in order to maintain the integrity of individual subjectivity and personality development. This research starts with the development of privacy rights, based on the opinions of the United States and Taiwan’s practical judgments, sorts out the definition and functions of privacy rights, and further analyzes the derived public privacy protection; and then discusses the relevant laws of Taiwan’s current government setting up video monitors source basis, supplemented by analysis of the actual situation of the current installation of video monitors in Taipei City, to understand its impact on increasing the rate of crime detection and reducing the incidence of crimes. Then analyzing the main basis for setting up video surveillance system for police agencies-Article 10 of Police Power Exercise Act by constitutional review procedure, to certify if the Article is sufficient to achieve a balance between the protection of public order and the protection of people’s right to privacy. In addition, upholding the spirit that an ass in Germany is a professor in Rome, sort out the relevant regulations of video surveillance systems in UK, Japan, and Germany, hoping to be used as a legislative reference for future video surveillance systems or other related technology law enforcement equipment, strengthening crime prevention and public security maintenance. At the same time, strengthen the protection of people’s right to privacy. Finally, relevant amendments are proposed within the conclusion, expecting that the competent authority could review and take advantage to improve relevant legal systems and practical practices in the future.