首页|数据刑法保护路径的分歧与解决方案

数据刑法保护路径的分歧与解决方案

扫码查看
在现有数据犯罪体系下,数据刑法保护面临形式保护和实质保护的分歧.形式保护通过计算机犯罪罪名体系实现,实质保护通过保护数据内容所对应的法益实现.形式保护和实质保护的分歧导致司法实践中数据犯罪罪名适用不一.造成这一分歧的原因是现有刑法规定无法直接反映数据对应的法益,并且司法上并未厘清数据犯罪的法益识别路径.现有的解决方案包括实质保护优先、形式保护优先以及两者结合等思路,但都存在一定缺陷,不能彻底解决这一分歧.解决形式保护和实质保护的分歧需要立法和司法联动.立法上,应对实质保护条款进行必要改造,取消对数据单独的形式保护并设置专门的数据安全保护规定;司法上,应妥善处理不同法条之间的关系.
Protection Paths of Data Criminal Law:Differences and Solutions
Under the existing data crime system,the protection of data criminal law is facing the differences between formal and substantive protection.Formal protection is realized through the computer crime charge system,while substantive protection is realized through the protection of the legal interests corresponding to the data content.The differences between formal and substantive protection lead to the different application of data crime charges in judicial practice.The reason for this disagreement is that the existing criminal law provisions can not directly reflect the legal interests corresponding to data,and the path of judicial identification of the legal interests of data crime is unclear.The existing solutions include the priority of substantive protection,the priority of formal protection,and the combination of the two,but each has defects and cannot resolve the differences thoroughly.To resolve the differences between formal protection and substantive protection,legislation and judicial interaction is needed.In terms of legislation,it is necessary to reform the substantive protection provisions,cancel the separate formal protection of data,and set up special data security protection provisions.Judicially,the relationship between different laws should be properly handled.

data securitycriminal law protectionformal protectionsubstantive protectionlegal interest identification

林雨佳

展开 >

上海大学 法学院,上海 200444

数据安全 刑法保护 形式保护 实质保护 法益识别

国家社会科学基金重大项目上海市哲学社会科学规划青年项目

20&ZD1992022EFX005

2024

上海大学学报(社会科学版)
上海大学

上海大学学报(社会科学版)

CSTPCDCSSCICHSSCD北大核心
影响因子:0.85
ISSN:1007-6522
年,卷(期):2024.41(2)
  • 46