刑事诉讼电子数据取证的制度困境与法治化路径研究

Research on Institutional Predicaments and Legal-Institutional Pathways for Electronic Data Forensics in Criminal Proceedings

摘要: 我国刑事诉讼中电子数据取证的现实困境与制度完善路径仍需继续深入。电子数据凭借其技术性、复合性、无形性与脆弱性等特征，已成为刑事案件证明的核心载体，但立法滞后与理论薄弱导致三大突出问题：立法体系存在部门规范冲突与公民权利保障缺位，下位法突破《刑事诉讼法》授权范围，且规则过度侧重技术真实性审查而忽视隐私权、财产权等基本权利；侦查行为性质界定模糊，以“网络远程勘验”为代表的措施兼具任意性、强制性与技术性侦查三重属性，引发程序规制失序；“以鉴代侦”现象泛化，鉴定机构实质行使侦查权，规避制度监督与当事人权利保障。对此，应作出以下对策：将电子数据收集纳入《刑事诉讼法》修订框架，以高位法统合细分规则并强化公民权利保障在宪法中的重要性；依据数据隐私层级与干预强度明确侦查行为分类体系；构建专家辅助人制度替代以鉴代侦。

Abstract: The ongoing challenges and pathways for institutional refinement in electronic data forensics within China’s criminal proceedings warrant deeper exploration. Characterized by its technical complexity, composite nature, intangibility, and fragility, electronic data has emerged as a pivotal evidentiary vehicle in criminal cases. Yet legislative lag and theoretical deficiencies have engendered three prominent issues: First, the legislative framework suffers from interdepartmental normative conflicts and inadequate guarantee of citizens’ rights, wherein subordinate regulations exceed the authorization scope of the Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) while overemphasizing technical authenticity verification at the expense of fundamental rights such as privacy and property. Second, ambiguous characterization of investigative acts persists, exemplified by measures like “remote online inspection” that simultaneously exhibit discretionary, compulsory, and technical investigative attributes, triggering procedural regulatory disorder. Third, the pervasive phenomenon of “investigation by proxy through forensic authentication” enables forensic institutions to de facto exercise investigatory powers, circumventing accountability mechanisms and litigant rights protections. To address these, the following countermeasures should be implemented: integrate electronic data collection into the CPL revision framework, unifying sectoral rules under higher-level legislation while reinforcing constitutional mandates for rights protections; establish a clear taxonomy of investigative acts based on data privacy tiers and intervention intensity; and develop an expert assistants system to supplant proxy investigation practices.