| 使用网络爬虫获取数据行为的刑事责任认定: 以“晟品公司”非法获取计算机信息系统数据罪为视角 |
| |
| 引用本文： | 石经海, 苏桑妮. 爬取公开数据行为的刑法规制误区与匡正从全国首例“爬虫”入刑案切入[J]. 北京理工大学学报（社会科学版）, 2021, 23(4): 154-164, 172. DOI: 10.15918/j.jbitss1009-3370.2021.4524 |
| |
| 作者姓名： | 石经海 苏桑妮 |
| |
| 作者单位： | 西南政法大学 法学院，重庆 401120 |
| |
| 基金项目： | 2020年国家社科基金重点项目“认罪认罚从宽制度的刑法应对研究”（20AFX012）；2020年重庆市教委科研创新项目“行政行为的出罪机能研究”（CYB20127）；2021年重庆市新型犯罪研究中心项目“数据爬取行为的刑法规制误区与匡正”（21XXZF26） |
| |
| 摘 要： | 全国首例“爬虫”入刑案表现出司法实践过度规制爬取公开数据行为的现象。司法实践以技术判断为主导，扩张适用非法获取计算机信息系统数据罪。在立法规定以数据控制者的技术授权为依据认定爬取行为形式违法性的情况下，以数据的技术属性取代法律属性判断行为的法益侵害性，从而扩大本罪的适用范围。从法秩序统一原理和安全与发展并重的数据安全观来看，技术判断主导下的罪名扩张适用，不应成为刑法规制数据爬取行为的立场。相反，规制数据爬取行为应当坚守刑法谦抑性精神，将刑法规制手段的行使，限定在保护刑法已类型化规定的重要数据和维护计算机系统正常运行的范围内。其中，对于爬取刑法已类型化保护的公开作品数据行为，基于个案全部事实应受刑罚处罚的，应认定为侵犯著作权罪；对于爬取刑法未类型化规定的其他公开数据行为，不能适用非法获取计算机信息系统数据罪，但在爬取公开数据行为扰乱计算机系统正常运行且应受刑罚处罚时，可认定为破坏计算机信息系统罪。
|
| 关 键 词： | 爬虫 爬取 公开数据 数据安全 非法获取计算机信息系统数据罪 |
| 收稿时间： | 2020-09-27 |
Misunderstandings of Criminal Regulations of Crawling Public Data and the Corresponding Correction |
| |
| SHI Jinghai, SU Sangni. Misunderstandings of Criminal Regulations of Crawling Public Data and the Corresponding CorrectionCut from the Country’s First “Crawler” Sentencing Case[J]. Journal of Beijing Institute of Technology (Social Sciences Edition), 2021, 23(4): 154-164, 172. DOI: 10.15918/j.jbitss1009-3370.2021.4524 |
| |
| Authors: | SHI Jinghai SU Sangni |
| |
| Affiliation: | Law School, Southwest University of Political Science & Law, Chongqing 401120, China |
| |
| Abstract: | The country ’s first “crawler” indictment case reflected the problem of criminal law ’s over-regulation of crawling public data. The reason for this problem is that the judicial practice is dominated by technical judgments to expand the application of the crime of illegally obtaining data. Specifically, under the legislative provisions that determine the illegality of the form of crawling behavior based on the technical authorization of the data controller, the judiciary uses the technical attribute of the data to replace the legal attribute to judge the legal interest infringement of the behavior. From the perspective of the unification principle of legal order and the data security view that takes into account both security and development, the expansion and application of crimes led by technical judgments should not be the position of criminal law data crawling. In fact, data security protection should adhere to the restraint of the criminal law based on the consideration of data development, and limit the criminal law of crawling public data to the scope of protecting important data that has been typed in the criminal law and maintaining the normal operation of computer systems. For crawling public works data that has been typed and protected by the criminal law, which should be punished based on all the facts of the case, it should be determined as a crime of copyright infringement; for other public data crawling activities that are not typed in the criminal law, the crime of illegally obtaining data cannot be applied. But when the act of crawling public data disrupts the normal operation of the computer system and should be punished, it can be determined as the crime of destroying the computer information system. |
| |
| Keywords: | crawler crawling public data data security the crime of illegally acquiring computer data |
|
| 点击此处可从《北京理工大学学报(社会科学版)》浏览原始摘要信息 |
|
点击此处可从《北京理工大学学报(社会科学版)》下载全文 |
