政策否决的社会建构——以我国几次立法禁止“人肉搜索”的失败为例

针对传统的政策否决理论无法对我国立法禁止"人肉搜索"失败的现象做出完满解释的问题,本文通过引入建构主义社会学中边界物的概念认为:作为边界物的"人肉搜索"由于其解释的灵活性,存在着技术、权利和适用三个层面的划界。如果说从依靠人的"人机互动"中衍生出针对人的"人际互动"具有偶然性的因素,在其立法禁止的多方尝试中却是隐私权和"监督权-批评权"相对于另外一种隐私权和言论自由权划界方式的胜利。虽然中央和地方都试图在"监督权-批评权"的指涉对象上做出社会一般失范和官员腐败的划分,结果也只是带来规制性政策的流产或是象征性通过,即便趋利避害地利用"人肉搜索"已经得到了社会各界的广泛认同。文章还进一步指出,"人肉搜索"现象的出现和政策应对上的两难源于国家和公民社会之间的张力,只有对其进行有效分流才能真正阻止"网络暴力"的产生。而且在信息社会等生成性的制度语境下,打开政策问题内容的黑箱也是十分必要的。     

在中国广西靖西县探寻胡志明革命活动遗迹

在胡志明领导越南人民争取民族独立的斗争中,中国广西靖西县是越南革命的后方基地。胡志明和他的战友曾长期在这里进行革命活动,靖西县也留下了不少胡志明革命活动遗址。这些遗址和相关史事反映了中越两国人民在共同斗争中相互支持、情同一家的亲密关系,见证了中越两国人民的传统友谊及胡志明主席与中NJ,,-民的深厚感情。靖西人民已经和正在对这些革命遗址进行妥善的保护和积极的利用,使其在对中越两国人民群众特别是青少年进行中越友谊传统教育中发挥重要作用。     

China Internet going wild: Cyber-hunting versus privacy protection

The Internet is notoriously known to be the “human flesh search engine” in China when it is used against private individuals for the purpose of social shaming, monitoring and revenge. In such case of cyber witch hunting, personal information of the targeted individuals is often ruthlessly exposed and their lives are mercilessly disrupted. In the face of the growing resort to the human flesh search engine, the Beijing Court delivered the first ruling condemning this practice and affirming privacy rights for Chinese citizens at the end of 2008. This article discusses the trend of cyber-manhunt in China, with specific focus on the judgment of the Beijing Court. It points out the inadequacy in the ruling and argues that legislative enactment to protect personal information at the national level is essential in China.     

初论刑事附带搜查制度

刑事附带搜查是现代刑事诉讼搜查制度中的一个重要内容。本文初步探讨了附带搜查的法理依据 ,对美国、英国、日本以及我国台湾地区的有关刑事附带搜查的立法规定进行了比较、研究 ,并对我国现行刑事附带搜查制度进行了评析 ,进而提出了完善我国刑事附带搜查的若干对策。     

西方警察盘查立法对我国的启示

盘查是警察执法的重要手段与措施.目前,我国的警察盘查制度仍然存在一些不足之处.为了完善我国的警察盘查制度,建议将盘查措施纳入《刑事诉讼法》进行规范,借鉴英国的成文法对警察盘查权作出详细规定,借鉴美国判例法对警察盘查权的行使原则进行规范等.     

The Google conundrum: Perpetrator or facilitator on the net? – Forging a fair copyright framework of rights, liability and responsibility in response to search engine 2.0 – Part I: The Google Images Search Engine

Is Google in its quest for search engine optimization through the creation of new technologies, which not only improves its search algorithms but also refines its search functions for users, doing it in a manner that makes it a perpetrator of primary copyright infringement or an invaluable facilitator for Internet functionality? How should the balance of interests in the treatment of creative works be recalibrated in the face of changes in search engine technology and operations, and the disputes that have arisen within the last decade in the context of the digital age and its needs? Using Google as a case study, this paper will look at the two main areas of dispute over the operations of information locator tools and services that either threatens search engine functionality and efficiency or weakens copyright holders’ exclusive rights. It proposes a concerted set of solutions through a reassessment and amendment of copyright law to optimize the social benefits and objectives of both the copyright regime and technological innovations in the electronic model of information archiving, indexing and delivery. A fair distribution of responsibilities and allocation of rights and liabilities will be suggested. In the process, due consideration will be given to both public and private interests, with the former taking precedence; while the recommended solutions will be made within the currently outdated framework for Internet intermediary protection (i.e. safe harbor laws) and exceptions (i.e. specific statutory exemptions and the general fair use defense) under the existing copyright regime. Thus, the proposed changes will be far reaching without being too radical a departure from current law, an evolution that will likely be more acceptable and realistic a solution to the problem.This paper is published in two parts. Part One of this paper will deal with the challenges to the copyright regime posed by the operations and technology behind the Google Images Search Engine, while Part Two that will be published in the subsequent edition of the CLSR will assess the benefits of the Google Books Search Project vis-à-vis the effects it will have on the scope of copyright protection. Recommendations are made to copyright law to accommodate both functions while generally preserving the main objectives of copyright protection.     

论人肉搜索的合法界限

狭义的人内搜索指通过网络上现有资料将人肉搜索对象的资料乃至个人和家人的隐私暴露出来.其结果可能附带引发对当事人的骚扰甚至侮辱和伤害,侵犯当事人的隐私权、名誉权甚至身体健康权.合法的人肉搜索要区分个人隐私权和公众知情权的界限、言论自由和公众评论正当性的界限.普通公民和公职人员的个人隐私与私人行为应该受到保护,网民对国家公职人员的违法、违纪现象进行披露则应属于公众行使知情权的行为.在人内搜索中,如果搜索者在主观臆断的基础上对被搜索对象的信息进行复制、改变和传播,可能会侵害当事人的隐私权、名誉权甚至健康权,不属于行使言论自由;如果因此造成当事人的损失,言论者和网站管理者都应承担相应的法律责任.     

Monte-Carlo Filesystem Search – A crawl strategy for digital forensics

Criminal investigations invariably involve the triage or cursory examination of relevant electronic media for evidentiary value. Legislative restrictions and operational considerations can result in investigators having minimal time and resources to establish such relevance, particularly in situations where a person is in custody and awaiting interview. Traditional uninformed search methods can be slow, and informed search techniques are very sensitive to the search heuristic's quality. This research introduces Monte-Carlo Filesystem Search, an efficient crawl strategy designed to assist investigators by identifying known materials of interest in minimum time, particularly in bandwidth constrained environments. This is achieved by leveraging random selection with non-binary scoring to ensure robustness. The algorithm is then expanded with the integration of domain knowledge. A rigorous and extensive training and testing regime conducted using electronic media seized during investigations into online child exploitation proves the efficacy of this approach.     

搜索引擎的法律治理——以表达自由和知情权为视角

为迎合自己的使用群体,搜索引擎服务商会对搜索内容做一些编辑和调整,这些编辑和调整会对某些内容产生系统化的偏好,于是产生了＂搜索引擎偏见＂（Search Engine Bias）现象。＂搜索引擎偏见＂有其存在的现实合理性,但是不当的＂偏见＂能够干扰互联网环境下的表达自由并侵犯公众知情权,给社会带来负面影响,因此有必要采取适宜的法律治理措施规范搜索引擎市场。     

我国无证搜查制度法理之构建——《刑事诉讼法》第111条第二款质疑

《刑事诉讼法》第111条第二款"在执行逮捕、拘留的时候,遇有紧急情况,不另用搜查证也可以进行搜查"的规定,含义比较模糊,可作"重叠式"和"并列式"两种理解。从目前实务运作和立法用语表达习惯来看,"重叠式"理解比"并列式"理解合理。但如果作"重叠式"理解,第二款在三个方面违背了有关搜查制度预设的基本法理。构建我国无证搜查制度的基本法理,对抑止搜查权力滥用和发挥搜查权力的应有效能势所必然。应明确无证搜查的种类,同时将必要性要件、可能性要件和适度性要件作为无证搜查合法实施的构成要件及认定标准。