指定监视居住法律属性之辨——兼论“剥夺人身自由”的审查

在2012年《刑事诉讼法》中,指定监视居住被定性为羁押替代措施。但是,指定监视居住的制度性特征与传统的非羁押性措施格格不入。立法上指定监视居住的定位混乱一定程度上源于非羁押措施的传统理论界定不清晰。世界范围内人身性强制措施的发展早已模糊了传统理论划分的羁押与非羁押的边界。根据国际人权法的相关规定,对一项人身性强制措施进行定性,不依据该措施的法律称谓,而是审查该措施是否会造成被追诉人处于被剥夺人身自由的状态。以"剥夺人身自由"的具体标准审视指定监视居住制度,可以认定,指定监视居住实际上已经等同于逮捕后的羁押措施。指定监视居住的立法定性是失当的,由此会带来诸多负面后果。     

论侦查实践中视频监控运用机制的完善

随着侦查理论研究和实践的广泛运用,利用视频监控侦查破案势必成为一条全新、简捷、高效的侦查途径。但当前视频监控在建设、运用和法律规范方面仍存在一些尚需解决的问题。随着"科技强警"理念的不断深入,我们要积极转变传统思维,使视频监控在侦查实践中的作用最大化发挥,从而更好地保障社会稳定和公民基本权利。     

Privacy,surveillance, and the proportionality principle: The need for a method of assessing privacy implications of technologies used for surveillance

Developments in technology have created the possibility for law enforcement authorities to use for surveillance purposes devices that are in the hands or private premises of individuals (e.g. smart phones, GPS devices, smart meters, etc.). The extent to which these devices interfere with an individual's private sphere might differ. In the European Union, surveillance measures are considered lawful if they have been issued in conformity with the legal rules and the proportionality principle. Taking a fundamental rights approach, this paper focuses on the information needed for adopting proportionate decisions when authorizing the use for surveillance of devices that are not built for surveillance purposes. Since existing methods of privacy assessment of technologies do not offer the required information, this paper suggests the need for a new method of assessing privacy implications of technologies and devices which combines an assessment of privacy aspects with the different dimensions of surveillance.     

关于治安防控体系中视频监控系统的研究

视频监控系统作为治安防控体系的重要组成部分,可以全方位、多角度地预防和处理各类治安突发情况,是公安机关维护社会治安的重要手段。应从视频监控系统的重要性、系统建设以及发展趋势等方面入手,探讨治安防控体系下的动态视频监控系统的相关问题,以期更好地为公安机关预防和打击各种违法犯罪行为提供重要保障。     

视频监控信息在目标轨迹分析中的应用研究

从理性选择角度分析作案人,可以推测其在实施犯罪后大多会逃离犯罪现场,销毁犯罪证据,隐匿身份,这些活动过程必然会在一定的时间、空间得以体现。而以案件现场为基准点,根据视频监控系统中记录犯罪嫌疑人案发前的活动情况、案发后活动行踪,以还原行为轨迹,从而分析其下一步将会出现的时间点和活动区域。狭义的目标轨迹概念是指造型体在时空运动中,通过信息交换,遗留在承受体上记录其社会交互活动状况的总和。它以社会网络分析、信息交换、数据挖掘等原理为支撑。可以以人员轨迹、车辆轨迹、涉案的特定物等为标识,通过运用时序、空间、信息联查等方法,分析视频监控信息中的目标轨迹。     

‘Look to yourselves,that we lose not those things which we have wrought.’ What do the proposed changes to the purpose limitation principle mean for public bodies' rights to access third-party data?

This article analyses the proposed changes to the purpose limitation principles contained in the draft Data Protection Regulation adopted by the European Commission in January 2012. It examines the historical motives for the introduction of the principle as part of the 1995 Data Protection Directive, and looks at the constitutional framework under which it operates both at EU and member state level. It considers the risks and long-term consequences that EU citizens may face if the principle is eroded or substantially abandoned.     

Privacy principles,risks and harms

The protection of privacy is predicated on the individual's right to privacy and stipulates a number of principles that are primarily focused on information privacy or data protection and, as such, are insufficient to apply to other types of privacy and to the protection of other entities beyond the individual. This article identifies additional privacy principles that would apply to other types of privacy and would enhance the consideration of risks or harms to the individual, to groups and to society as a whole if they are violated. They also relate to the way privacy impact assessment (PIA) may be conducted. There are important reasons for generating consideration of and debate about these principles. First, they help to recalibrate a focus in Europe on data protection to the relative neglect of other types of privacy. Second, it is of critical importance at a time when PIA (renamed ‘data protection impact assessment’, or DPIA) may become mandatory under the European Commission's proposed Data Protection Regulation. Such assessment is an important instrument for identifying and mitigating privacy risks, but should address all types of privacy. Third, one can construct an indicative table identifying harms or risks to these additional privacy principles, which can serve as an important tool or instrument for a broader PIA to address other types of privacy.     

关于检察机关适用刑事和解程序的若干问题探讨

刑事和解作为我国司法改革试验的一个热点,无疑是近些年来实务中探索较多、理论上争议较大的一种新型案件处理方式。2012年刑事诉讼法将刑事和解作为一种特别程序首次入法,并且以三个宏观框架性条款对其适用范围和适用条件做出了规定,这对于有效应对实践中的刑事和解混乱局面具有重要意义。我们在肯定该程序进步的同时,还必须看到其并没有从根本上解决刑事和解适用过程中存在的问题。通过对检察机关近几年适用刑事和解的情况进行实证调研,认为我国目前的刑事和解存在适用范围界定不合理、不同程序之间衔接困难、配套机制不完善等问题,而要解决上述问题,就必须重新界定刑事和解的适用范围、厘清程序之间转换的障碍、建立外部监督和制约机制等配套措施。     

论监视居住制度的完善

许多学者认为,监视居住制度存在适用空间狭窄和执行效果差等难以解决的的情形,主张将这一制度加以废除.而客观地分析,监视居住的制度本身具有其他强制措施不可替代性,因而,有必要在缩短监视居住的适用期限,限制犯罪嫌疑人、被告人监视居住期间的通信权利,确立人民检察院、人民法院对监视居住的执行权,建立监视居住折抵刑罚和监视居住决定机关做出错误决定的赔偿制度等方面进行完善.     

Suspect Height Estimation Using the Faro Focus3D Laser Scanner

At present, very little research has been devoted to investigating the ability of laser scanning technology to accurately measure height from surveillance video. The goal of this study was to test the accuracy of one particular laser scanner to estimate suspect height from video footage. The known heights of 10 individuals were measured using an anthropometer. The individuals were then recorded on video walking along a predetermined path in a simulated crime scene environment both with and without headwear. The difference between the known heights and the estimated heights obtained from the laser scanner software were compared using a one-way t-test. The height estimates obtained from the software were not significantly different from the known heights whether individuals were wearing headwear (p = 0.186) or not (p = 0.707). Thus, laser scanning is one technique that could potentially be used by investigators to determine suspect height from video footage.