从“权力监督”到“权利制约”:大数据侦查法律规制的理性之维  

From“power supervision”to“right restriction”:The rational dimension of legal regulation of big data investigation

作　　者：刘小庆 LIU Xiaoqing(School of Law,Chongqing University,Chongqing 400044,P.R.China)

机构地区：[1]重庆大学法学院,重庆400044

出　　处：《重庆大学学报（社会科学版）》2022年第2期220-231,共12页Journal of Chongqing University(Social Science Edition)

摘　　要：大数据国家战略的实施推动了现代信息技术与传统侦查手段的资源整合,促成了大数据侦查模式的诞生。由此,我国社会治理模式由被动侦查到能动预防转变,案侦模式从“由供到证”到“由证到供”逐渐转变,工作模式也由“人员密集型”向“技术密集型”转变,传统侦查在信息化浪潮中实现了脱胎换骨式的巨变。然而,通过法社会学与语言学理论分析揭示出,大数据侦查下的真实面纱乃是“规训与惩罚”的权力逻辑,这使得侦查权力主体容易受到压力型考核指标以及个人升迁等非理性因素的制约,而权力本身的“弥散性”特征又使得大数据侦查更具欺骗性,公民个人信息权利不可避免地会遭受侵犯。令人遗憾的是,我国立法对于大数据侦查目前尚未作出明确规定,实践中主要依靠公安机关自我监督;同时,《宪法》明确了人民检察院国家法律监督机关的地位,由此,大数据侦查形成了以公安机关内部“层级监督”为主,外部“检察监督”为辅的二维控权模式。然而,此种制度安排的缺陷在于:一方面,公安机关“既是运动员又是裁判权”,难以保证该措施适用的正当性和必要性,而层级监督模式的固有缺陷也导致监督信息传导不畅,并影响了监督效果。另一方面,传统“书面式”检察监督无法有效识别违法收集的个人数据信息,检察监督强制制裁手段的缺乏也会削弱监督效果,而检察机关侦查权的部分行使导致检察监督易受公安反制;所以,意图单独通过检察监督来约束大数据侦查权不能给予过高期待。虽然,域外由法官批准强制措施的“司法令状”模式深受国内学者推崇,但公安机关所具有的较高的政治地位也使得此种模式在我国不具有可行性。有鉴于此,在“以审判为中心”的司法命题下,打出“立法与司法”的组合拳、确保个人信息权得到全面保障,成为勒住�The implementation of the national strategy of big data promotes the resource integration of modern information technology and traditional investigation means,and promotes the birth of big data investigation mode.As a result,China’s social governance mode has changed from passive investigation to active prevention,the case investigation mode has gradually changed from“from confession to evidence”to“from evidence to confession”,and the working mode has also changed from“personnel intensive”to“technology intensive”.The traditional investigation has achieved great changes in the wave of informatization.However,the theoretical analysis of legal sociology and linguistics reveals that the real veil under big data investigation is the power logic of“discipline and punishment”,which makes the subject of investigation power vulnerable to irrational factors such as pressure assessment indicators and personal promotion,and the“dispersion”characteristics of power itself make big data investigation more deceptive.Citizens’personal information rights will inevitably be violated.Unfortunately,China’s legislation has not yet made clear provisions on big data investigation,which mainly depends on the self-supervision of public security organs in practice.At the same time,the Constitution defines the status of the people’s procuratorate as the national legal supervision organ.Therefore,the big data investigation has formed a two-dimensional power control mode dominated by the internal“hierarchical supervision”of the public security organ and supplemented by the external“procuratorial supervision”.However,the defects of this institutional arrangement lie in:on the one hand,the public security organ is“both an athlete and a referee”,which is difficult to ensure the legitimacy and necessity of the application of this measure,and the inherent defects of the hierarchical supervision mode also lead to the poor transmission of supervision information and affect the supervision effect.On the oth

关 键 词：个人信息权 大数据侦查 层级监督 检察监督 权利制约权力 

分 类 号：D918[政治法律—法学]