“流量劫持”行为的类型重释与责任界定研究  

AStudy on the Type Reinterpretation and Responsibility Identification of“Traffic Hijacking”Behaviors

作　　者：宋振武[1] 刘洋 Song Zhenwu;Liu Yang(Law School of Yantai University,Yantai,Shandong,264000)

机构地区：[1]烟台大学法学院,山东烟台264000

出　　处：《山东警察学院学报》2022年第6期5-12,共8页Journal of Shandong Police College

基　　金：河南省法学会民法学研究会项目“大数据时代流量劫持侵权行为的法律规制研究”(项目编号:HNCLS(2023)12)的阶段性研究成果。

摘　　要：与“流量劫持”行为涉及的技术基础的复杂性相联系,当前司法实践中“流量劫持”案件的处理存在劫持行为种类划分过于繁琐、案件刑民界限模糊、同案不同判的问题。传统以“手段强制性”为标准划分的“软、硬劫持”类型,与文义解释规则不相合,应当在文义上将“流量劫持”解释为以“强制性手段”实施的劫持行为,进而以“是否具有可自动恢复性”为标准赋予“软、硬劫持”类型行为全新的内涵。为廓清“流量劫持”行为的刑民责任,应当抛弃“情节严重”的认定标准,提倡以“计算机信息系统秩序法益可损性”为标准,对“流量劫持”行为的刑民责任做类型化处理。Due to the complexity of the technical basis involved in“traffic hijacking”behaviors,there are some problems in handling such cases in current judicial practices,such as the complicated types of hijacking behaviors,the ambiguous boundary between the criminal and civil nature of the cases,and the phenomenon of different judgments for similar cases.The traditional classification of“soft/hard hijacking”based on the standard of“forciblemeasures”does not conform to the rules of textual interpretation.“Traffic hijacking”should be interpreted as hijacking behaviorscarried out through“forcible measures”,and then“self-recovery or not”should give a new connotation to the“soft/hard hijacking”types of behaviors.In order to clarify the criminal and civil responsibility of“traffic hijacking”behaviors,the identification standards of“serious circumstances”should be abandoned,and the standard of“damaging the legal interest of computer information system”should be adopted to classify the criminal and civil responsibility of“traffic hijacking”behaviors.

关 键 词：“流量劫持”行为 引诱行为 类型重释 牵连犯 刑民责任界分 

分 类 号：D914[政治法律—刑法学]