刑事偵查程序中加密檔案的解密

The Decryption of Encrypted Files in Criminal Procedure

10.6199/NTULJ.202311/SP_52.0003

李榮耕(Rong-Geng Li)

隱私 ； 加密 ； 解密 ； 破解 ； 合理隱私期待 ； 搜索 ； 令狀原則 ； privacy ； encryption ； decryption ； crack ； reasonable expectation of privacy ； search ； warrant requirement

臺大法學論叢

52卷S期（2023 / 11 / 01）

1031 - 1084

繁體中文;英文

電腦在現代生活中扮演著不可或缺的角色，大量的資訊也因而以數位的型態交換，或儲存於各式的載體中。是以，如何確保檔案的安全，確保檔案不被他人所接觸，就有其實際需求。檔案的加密技術的普遍使用，也就應運而生。不過，犯罪份子也同時使用了此一技術，隱匿犯罪事證，大大地增加偵查上的困難。在討論及分析後可以知道，可能性理論無法完整地解釋隱私的意涵，不能因為技術上難以破解，就認為人們加密後的檔案可以主張隱私權。再者，加密後的檔案無法類比為上鎖的容器，因為人們並不是看不到加密後檔案的內容，只是無法了解其意思而已。相比較之下，檔案的加密更類似於翻譯以外國語言進行的交談，使用警犬嗅聞，或是拼湊軋碎的文件。從結論上來說，我們認為人們不會僅僅因為將檔案加密而當然能夠就其內容主張合理隱私期待。在合法取得加密檔案後，檔案的解密沒有令狀程序的適用，執法官員可以逕自破解，不需要事先獲有法官的授權。

Computers have become an integral and essential part of our daily lives. A huge amount of digital data is exchanged among devices and stored in various storage types. With this increased reliance on technology comes the growing concern for data security and privacy. In this digital age, where personal and sensitive information is constantly being transmitted and stored, it becomes imperative to protect this data from unauthorized access. One way to achieve this is through the use of encryption technology. Encryption is the process of converting plain text into a code to prevent unauthorized access. This technology is widely used to secure data, but unfortunately, it can also be exploited by criminals to hide illegal activities and information. This makes it even more challenging for law enforcement agencies to carry out criminal investigations. While encryption provides a certain level of security, it does not automatically grant individuals privacy rights. In fact, the use of probability theory is not a suitable explanation for privacy. Encrypted files should not be equated with locked containers such as rooms or suitcases. The contents of encrypted files may be visible, but their meaning may not be understandable. Decrypting encrypted files is similar to interpreting a conversation in a foreign language or searching bags with sniffer dogs. Moreover, encrypting files does not provide absolute privacy protection. Law enforcement agencies are allowed to decrypt encrypted files that have been legally obtained, without obtaining a warrant in advance. In conclusion, while encryption technology is an effective tool for securing data, it does not provide complete privacy protection. It is important for individuals to be aware of the limitations and to adopt a multi-layered approach to data security and privacy. This may include using encryption technology, implementing strong passwords, and regularly updating software to stay ahead of potential security threats.

1. 李榮耕(2016)。數位資料及附帶搜索：以行動電話內的資訊為例。臺北大學法學論叢，100，245-322。
   連結：
2. 李榮耕(2015)。科技定位監控與犯罪偵查：兼論美國近年 GPS 追蹤法制及實務之發展。臺大法學論叢，44(3)，871-969。
   連結：
3. 中國哲學書電子化計劃，《六韜．龍韜．陰符及陰書》，載於：https://ctext.org/liu-tao/zh。https://ctext.org/liu-tao/zh
4. Amitay, D. (2011, June 14). Most Common iPhone Passcodes. Daniel Amitay Blog. http://danielamitay.com/blog/2011/6/13/most-common-iphone-passcodes.
5. Bonin, A. C.(1996).Protecting Protection: First and Fifth Amendment Challenges to Cryptography Regulation.University of Chicago Legal Forum,1996(1),495-517.
6. Brady, S.(1997).Keeping Secrets in Cyberspace: Establishing Fourth Amendment Protection for Internet Communication.Harvard Law Review,110(7),1591-1608.
7. Couillard, D. A.(2009).Defogging the Cloud: Applying Fourth Amendment Principles to Evolving Privacy Expectations in Cloud Computing.Minnesota Law Review,93,2205-2239.
8. Crain, N. A.(1999).Bernstein, Karn, and Junger: Constitutional Challenges to Cryptographic Regulations.Alabama Law Review,50(3),869-909.
9. Edgett, S. J.(2003).Double-Clicking on Fourth Amendment Protection: Encryption Creates a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy.Pepperdine Law Review,30(2),339-366.
10. Fraser, J. A., III(1997).The Use of Encrypted, Coded and Secret Communications is an “Ancient Liberty” Protected by the United States Constitution.Virginia Journal of Law & Technology,2,1-45.
11. Froomkin, A. M.(1995).The Metaphor Is the Key: Cryptography, the Clipper Chip, and the Constitution.The University of Pennsylvania Law Review,143(3),709-897.
12. Gilligan, F. A.,Imwinkelried, E. J.(1998).Cyberspace: The Newest Challenge for Traditional Legal Doctrine.Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal,24,305-343.
13. Hricik, D.(1998).Lawyers Worry Too Much about Transmitting Client Confidences by Internet E-mail.Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics,11,459-508.
14. Kerben, J.(1997).The Dilemma for Future Communication Technologies: How to Constitutionally Dress the Crypto-Genie.CommLaw Conspectus,5,125-152.
15. Kerr, O. S.(2009).The Case for the Third-Party Doctrine.Michigan Law Review,107(4),561-602.
16. Kerr, O. S.(2007).Four Models of Fourth Amendment Protection.Stanford Law Review,60(2),503-552.
17. Kerr, O. S.(2005).Searches and Seizures in a Digital World.Harvard Law Review,119,531-585.
18. Kerr, O. S.(2001).The Fourth Amendment in Cyberspace: Can Encryption Create A “Reasonable Expectation of Privacy?”.Connecticut Law Review,33,503-533.
19. Kerr, O. S.,Schneier, B.(2018).Encryption Workarounds.Georgetown Law Journal,106,989-1019.
20. LaFave, W. R.(2004).Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment.Thomson West.
21. Lauzon, E.(1998).The Philip Zimmermann Investigation: The Start of the Fall of Export Restrictions on Encryption Software Under First Amendment Free Speech Issues.Syracuse Law Review,48,1307-1364.
22. Lennon, T. B.(1994).The Fourth Amendment's Prohibitions on Encryption Limitation: Will 1995 Be Like 1984?.Albany Law Review,58,467-508.
23. Nguyen, T.(1997).Cryptography, Export Controls, and the First Amendment in Bernstein v. United States Department of State.Harvard Journal of Law & Technology,10(3),667-682.
24. Pilkington, L. M.(1996).First and Fifth Amendment Challenges to Export Controls on Encryption: Bernstein and Karn.Santa Clara Law Review,37(1),159-211.
25. Post, R.(2000).Encryption Source Code and the First Amendment.Berkeley Technology Law Journal,15(2),713-723.
26. Schneier, B.(2015).Applied Cryptography: Protocols, Algorithms, and Source Code in C.John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
27. Shankland, S. (2021, May 24). Quantum computers could crack today's encrypted messages. That's a problem. Cent. https://www.cnet.com/tech/computing/quantum-computers-could-crack-todays-encrypted-messages-thats-a-problem
28. Singh, S.(1999).The Code Book: The Science of Secrecy from Ancient Egypt to Quantum Cryptography.:Fourth Estate.
29. Slobogin, C.,Schumacher, J. E.(1993).Reasonable Expectations of Privacy and Autonomy in Fourth Amendment Cases: An Empirical Look at “Understandings Recognized and Permitted by Society”.Duke Law Journal,42(4),727-775.
30. Suro, R., & Corcoran, E. (1998, March 30). U.S. Law Enforcement Wants Keys to High-Tech Cover. Washington Post.https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/encryption/stories/cr033098.htm
31. 王兆鵬(2000).搜索扣押與刑事被告的憲法權利.自刊.
32. 王兆鵬(2004).新刑訴‧新思維.元照.
33. 王兆鵬,張明偉,李榮耕(2022).刑事訴訟法（上）.新學林.
34. 王兆鵬,張明偉,李榮耕。王兆鵬、張明偉、李榮耕《武經總要．武經總要前集．字驗》，載於 ：https://ctext.org/wiki.pl?if。https://ctext.org/wiki.pl?if=gb&res=817018
35. 李榮耕(2008)。Yes, I do!：同意搜索與第三人同意搜索。月旦法學雜誌，157，102-125。
36. 楊雲驊(2007)。未告知證人拒絕證言權之法律效果：評最高法院九五年臺上字第九○九號、九五年臺上字第二四二六號、九六年臺上字第一○四三號判決。台灣法學雜誌，99，157-176。
37. 溫祖德(2015)。行動電話內數位資訊與附帶搜索：以美國聯邦最高法院見解之變遷為主。月旦法學雜誌，239，198-220。