大数据时代网络犯罪的刑法应对——兼论人工智能犯罪的规制

网络技术发展促成了网络代际更迭。在大数据为核心的Internet 3.0阶段，网络在犯罪中的作用和地位发生变化，网络的刑法属性由传统的犯罪对象、工具演变为网络犯罪的场域空间和存在方式。网络犯罪的表现形式也随之演化，在传统犯罪网络化趋势加强的同时，出现了人工智能犯罪等新的犯罪形态。在对比网络犯罪与传统犯罪的危害性评价差异的基础上，可以将网络犯罪区分为三种类型：危害性评价等价于传统犯罪的网络犯罪类型、线上线下危害性评价背离的网络犯罪类型、以网络大数据为核心的新型网络犯罪，后者尤以人工智能犯罪为代表。人工智能的法律问题冲击着以人为核心的法律制度体系，也给刑法提出了新的命题。大数据、云计算以及人工智能技术的发展，意味着新的风险时代的到来。刑法对以网络为工具和对象的犯罪进行了有效立法应对，但对大数据时代的网络犯罪规制不力，对以“网络为空间”的犯罪应对不力，对以“网络为存在本质”的犯罪尚未作出实质回应。刑法缺乏应对新型网络犯罪的风险机制，一是对大数据系统安全、算法安全和数据与信息安全为内容的新型网络安全风险应对不足，二是对滥用人工智能技术、人工智能技术瑕疵带来的刑事风险缺乏应对。同时，在立法规制网...

Criminal law response to cybercrime and the regulation of artificial intelligence crime in the big data era

The development of network technology has contributed to the intergenerational change of the network. In the Internet 3.0 stage with big data as the core, the role and status of the network in crime has changed, and the criminal law attribute of the network has evolved from the traditional object and tool of crime to the field space and way of existence of cybercrime. The manifestations of cybercrime have also evolved accordingly. While the trend of traditional crime being networked has been strengthened, new forms of crime such as artificial intelligence crime have emerged. On the basis of comparing the difference between the harmfulness evaluation of cybercrime and traditional crime, cybercrime can be divided into three types: cybercrime types whose harmfulness evaluation is equivalent to traditional crime, cybercrime types whose online and offline harmfulness evaluation deviates, and a new type of cybercrime centered on network big data, the latter being especially represented by artificial intelligence crimes. The legal issues of artificial intelligence impact the human-centered legal system, and put forward new propositions for criminal law.The development of big data, cloud computing and artificial intelligence technology means the arrival of a new era of risk. Thecriminal law has made effective legislative responses to crimes that use the internet as a tool or an object, but it is not effective in regulating cybercrimes in the era of big data, responding poorly to crimes that use the internet as a space, and has not yet responded to crimes that use the internet as the essence of existence. The criminal law lacks a risk mechanism for dealing with new types of cybercrimes. First, it is insufficient to deal with new cybersecurity risks with the content of big data system security, algorithm security, and data and information security. At the same time, in the process of legislation and regulation of cybercrime, the criminal law has paid necessary attention to the computer information system, but it is out of balance with the protection of legal interests of network security, especially that network public security and data information security have not been given necessary attention. The criminal law should make legislative adjustments, establish the concept of risk criminal law, and carry out criminal prevention of network security risks and technical risks in the era of big data. The legislative protection of legal interests in network public security should be clarified, and its connotation includes cyberspace data and information-based content. A network security legal interests protection system should be established, and new charges to regulate new types of cybercrimes should be added. The tool attribute and non-subjectivity of artificial intelligence in cybercrime should be clarified, and the fault liability for the use of controllable artificial intelligence for crime and the supervision fault liability of self-controlling artificial intelligence crimes should be established. By choosing appropriate paths and legislative techniques, the criminal law can respond to cybercrimes.