刑事程序中調取通信紀錄與使用者資料
-以國際人權公約與德國法為中心

有效的犯罪追訴與預防是國家重要任務之一，通聯紀錄所包含之通訊的狀態資料、基地台位置資料、IP位址等資訊；使用者資料所包含之個人資料、IMEI碼、IMSI碼、PIN碼、PUK碼等資訊，兩者皆能作為證明犯罪的利器，不僅能大幅提升集團犯罪之破獲效率，亦可透過基地台位置的比對，找到原本藏匿無蹤的被告或犯罪嫌疑人；然而，通聯紀錄與使用者資料原本係個人因使用電信服務，經電信業者留存、使用，並非得直接證立追訴機關得自由調取；另一方面，我國司法院大法官解釋早已肯認個人資料之自主使用受《憲法》第22條一般人格權所推衍之資訊隱私權所保障，且通訊之狀態(即通聯紀錄)受到《憲法》第12條秘密通訊自由所保障，故公權力調取行為，本質上屬於基本權干預，必須符合法律保留原則及比例原則的要求；遲遲未有立法下，完全不符合法律保留之要求，濫權調閱情形一再發生，直到民國102年9月爆發特偵組「監聽風暴」案件，立法者才因時事造法，於103年1月才明定通聯紀錄與使用者資料的調取於《通訊監察保障法》中。本文肯認此次修法將通聯紀錄與使用者資料調取規範明文化，符合形式上法律保留之要求，惟透過《歐洲人權公約》、《公民與政治權利公約》及德國《刑事訴訟法》之研究，本文認為通聯紀錄與使用者資料本質不同，應分別規範調取規定，職此，我國現行法採兩者並列之立法，應有修法之必要，尚且，通聯紀錄及使用者資料涵蓋多樣化資料，應分別有不同層級化之發動門檻，而非一蓋而論；除此之外，現行法尚有缺漏，如漏未規定審判中的調取、法官保留之例外僅及於通聯紀錄等，皆亟待日後審慎之修法改善。

關鍵字

通訊保障及監察法；通訊狀態；通聯紀錄；使用者資料；基地台位置；基地台監察； IP位址； IMEI碼；基本權干預

並列摘要

In recent years, the access to the communications records and the communications user’s information have played an important role in the criminal investigation, especially helping to crack the organized crimes, as well as finding the accused or the suspect in hidden place. However, the communications records and the communications user’s information have been stored by telecommunication companies for telecommunications service, if the government agency needs to use those data outside the scope, in this essay, should be law basis. Because each of the access those to the two data constitutes interference with the fundamental rights laying down in the Constitution, and the legal basis is required respectively requires by the Constitution, which could also restrain the authority from disproportionate intrusion on individual. In this regard, this essay demonstrates that the current Communication Security and Surveillance Act fails to not only provide an adequate legal basis, but also a guarantee of disproportional interferences. Firstly, the communications records and the communications user’s information are different kind of data and protected by different fundamental rights, so they should be discriminated by legal basis. Secondly, there are many data contained in the communications records and the communications user’s information, thus, the more detailed legal basis is needed. Last but not least, there are some mistakes in the current Communication Security and Surveillance Act. By researching the European Convention on Human Rights and the German Code of Criminal Procedure, this essay suggests some directions and points for new amendment of the Communication Security and Surveillance Act as the epilogue..