警察運用資料職權之合憲性觀察* ──以德國聯邦憲法法院【自動化資料分析】判決為中心. (Chinese)

The Observation of Constitutionality on Police Authority in Using Data: Center on the Judgment “Automated Data Analysis” Made by German Federal Constitutional Court. (English)

With the rapid advancement of technology, the police often utilize technological assistance, hoping to prevent risk or danger before it happens and to enhance the efficiency of exercising their power. However, the using of technology maybe is stem from the purpose of important public welfare but considering its high interference with people’s fundamental rights, it’s important to find the appropriate balance between freedom and safety under the rule of law principle when the exercise of police power. The German Federal Constitutional Court pronounced a judgment regarding “automated data analysis” in February 16, 2023. The legislation in Land Hesse and Land Hamburg have authorized the police that can base on the purpose of preventing particular criminal acts by processing the data they have already stored along with other internal and external data by using automated systems to analyze and evaluate. The German Federal Constitutional Court held that is unconstitutional because of the violation of the right to informational self-determination of Basic Law. This judgment elaborates on the constitutional conditions and its boundary which should be obeyed when the police exercise their power by using technological assistance, especially the establishment and use of automated data analysis systems. By comparison, although the legal system is not yet complete in Taiwan, but the technique seems tobe chosen first. With the strong promotion of “police technology law enforcement”, it is still fear that the challenge of constitutionality cannot be avoided. Thereupon, the judgment regarding “automated data analysis” should be worth introducing as a reference to the police information legal system in Taiwan. This report aims to introduce the facts, controversies, and reasoning of the judgment, and to explore various aspects, such as the application of the principle of purpose restriction, the requirements for utilizing emerging technologies for automated processing, and the design of corresponding supervisory procedures. To act in concert with the current legal system in Taiwan, preliminary observations and suggestions will be proposed at the end of this report and looking forward to providing reference for further open discussion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

隨著科技一日千里的發展，警察執行 職務時，常會運用科技輔助，除希冀達到 防患於未然之目的外，亦藉此強化行使職 權之效能。而科技之運用，或許出於重要 之公益目的，但考量其對人民基本權利造 成高度干預，警察職權之行使，應如何在 法治國原則下，尋求自由與安全間之妥適 衡平，誠具重要性。德國聯邦憲法法院針 對德國黑森邦及漢堡邦，立法授權警察得 基於預防特定犯罪行為之目的，將其所持 有資料，以自動化之系統，連結其他內、 外部資料進行分析與評估之規定，於2023 年2月16日作成【自動化資料分析】判 決，宣告其牴觸德國基本法保障資訊自決 權之意旨，該判決對於警察運用科技輔助 職權行使，特別是建置及運用自動化資料 分析系統時，應遵循之合憲要件及其界 限，有詳盡論述。相較之下，我國似乎在 法制尚未齊備之情況下，選擇技術先行， 但大力推動「警察科技執法」之餘，恐怕 仍無法避免合憲性之挑戰，就此，【自動 化資料分析】判決，應值得引介作為我國 警察資訊法制之參考。本文將就【自動化 資料分析】判決之事實、爭點及判決理由 進行介紹，並針對目的拘束原則之適用、 運用新興科技進行自動化處理所應具備之 要件，以及相應監督程序之設計等面向進 行探究，配合我國法制現況，提出個人初 步之觀察及建議，期供各界參考。 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Taiwan Law Review is the property of Angle Publishing Co., Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)