解除互联网监控的“迷雾”:压制补救措施将如何改变计算机犯罪法

IF 0.7 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW Hastings Law Journal Pub Date : 2003-01-30 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.374282
Orin S. Kerr
{"title":"解除互联网监控的“迷雾”:压制补救措施将如何改变计算机犯罪法","authors":"Orin S. Kerr","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.374282","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Article argues that the rules of Internet surveillance law remain obscure and undeveloped because of the remedies Congress has chosen to enforce its statutory standards. By rejecting a suppression remedy and embracing aggressive civil penalties, Congress has ensured that courts only rarely encounter challenges to Internet surveillance practices - and when they do, the cases tend to be in civil cases between private parties that raise issues far removed from those that animated Congress to pass the statutes. As a result, the courts have not explained how the complex web of surveillance statutes apply in routine criminal cases, and the rare judicial decisions construing the statutes tend to confuse the issues, not clarify them. This article argues that Congress should add a statutory suppression remedy to lift the fog of Internet surveillance law, and that such a change would benefit both civil liberties and law enforcement interests alike.","PeriodicalId":46736,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2003-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Lifting the 'Fog' of Internet Surveillance: How a Suppression Remedy Would Change Computer Crime Law\",\"authors\":\"Orin S. Kerr\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.374282\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This Article argues that the rules of Internet surveillance law remain obscure and undeveloped because of the remedies Congress has chosen to enforce its statutory standards. By rejecting a suppression remedy and embracing aggressive civil penalties, Congress has ensured that courts only rarely encounter challenges to Internet surveillance practices - and when they do, the cases tend to be in civil cases between private parties that raise issues far removed from those that animated Congress to pass the statutes. As a result, the courts have not explained how the complex web of surveillance statutes apply in routine criminal cases, and the rare judicial decisions construing the statutes tend to confuse the issues, not clarify them. This article argues that Congress should add a statutory suppression remedy to lift the fog of Internet surveillance law, and that such a change would benefit both civil liberties and law enforcement interests alike.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46736,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hastings Law Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2003-01-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hastings Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.374282\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hastings Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.374282","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

本文认为,由于国会选择了执行其法定标准的补救措施,互联网监督法的规则仍然模糊不清和不发达。通过拒绝压制补救措施和积极的民事处罚,国会确保法院很少遇到对互联网监控行为的挑战——当他们遇到挑战时,这些案件往往是私人当事人之间的民事案件,这些案件提出的问题与促使国会通过法规的问题相去甚远。因此,法院没有解释复杂的监视法规网络如何适用于日常刑事案件,而解释法规的罕见司法裁决往往混淆了这些问题,而不是澄清它们。本文认为,国会应该增加一项法定压制补救措施,以解除互联网监督法的迷雾,这样的改变将有利于公民自由和执法利益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Lifting the 'Fog' of Internet Surveillance: How a Suppression Remedy Would Change Computer Crime Law
This Article argues that the rules of Internet surveillance law remain obscure and undeveloped because of the remedies Congress has chosen to enforce its statutory standards. By rejecting a suppression remedy and embracing aggressive civil penalties, Congress has ensured that courts only rarely encounter challenges to Internet surveillance practices - and when they do, the cases tend to be in civil cases between private parties that raise issues far removed from those that animated Congress to pass the statutes. As a result, the courts have not explained how the complex web of surveillance statutes apply in routine criminal cases, and the rare judicial decisions construing the statutes tend to confuse the issues, not clarify them. This article argues that Congress should add a statutory suppression remedy to lift the fog of Internet surveillance law, and that such a change would benefit both civil liberties and law enforcement interests alike.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Hastings College of the Law was founded in 1878 as the first law department of the University of California, and today is one of the top-rated law schools in the United States. Its alumni span the globe and are among the most respected lawyers, judges and business leaders today. Hastings was founded in 1878 as the first law department of the University of California and is one of the most exciting and vibrant legal education centers in the nation. Our faculty are nationally renowned as both teachers and scholars.
期刊最新文献
Corporations and the Original Meaning of 'Citizens' in Article III Law of the State and Politics Beyond the Double Veto: Housing Plans as Preemptive Intergovernmental Compacts Unmasking the Right of Publicity History, Tradition, the Supreme Court, and the First Amendment
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1