跨境电子取证的中国应对  

China’s Response to Cross-border Electronic Evidence Collection

作　　者：陈丽 Chen Li(the Law School of Renmin University of China)

机构地区：[1]中国人民大学法学院

出　　处：《国家检察官学院学报》2022年第5期24-40,共17页Journal of National Prosecutors College

基　　金：2020年中央高校建设世界一流大学(学科)和特色发展引导专项资金支持项目“科技革命与未来法治跨学科研究平台”的研究成果。

摘　　要：我国跨境电子取证既有方案存在两大误区,即固守司法协助路径和数据存储地模式,这两种方案均架空了网络空间主权,在落地实践时效果不佳。跨境电子取证变革的内在逻辑理路是由属地主义迈向属人主义,这是新近各国立法的共性规律,网络服务提供者披露数据量的激增也为属人主义奠定了基础。在承认差异的基础上扩大共识、寻求各国做法“最大公约数”,是完善跨境电子取证中国方案的智慧。沿循属人主义,我国可建构数据任意访问者模式,以办案机关签发令状、由诉讼参与人或其他主体直接收集电子数据;还可以基于国家主权调适数据控制者模式,允许办案机关向在中国注册或提供服务的网络服务提供者调取境外电子数据。There are two misunderstandings in the existing schemes of cross-border electronic evidence collection in China,namely,sticking to the judicial assistance path and the data location model.Both of these schemes make the cyberspace sovereignty come to nothing and have poor effect in practice.The internal logic of the reform of cross-border electronic evidence collection is from the principle of territory to the principle of nationality,which is a common law of recent legislation in various countries.The surge in the amount of data disclosed by network service providers has also laid the foundation for the principle of nationality.Expanding consensus on the basis of acknowledging differences and seeking the“greatest common divisor”of national legislative practices should be the wisdom to improve China’s cross-border electronic evidence collection.Following the principle of nationality,China can construct the arbitrary data visitor model,with the case handling organ to issue orders and then let litigation participants or other subjects collect electronic evidence directly.The data controller model can also be adjusted based on national sovereignty,allowing case-handling agencies to access overseas electronic evidence from network service providers registered or providing services in China.

关 键 词：电子数据 远程取证 属地主义 属人主义 主权 

分 类 号：D924.3[政治法律—刑法学]