發(fā)布時(shí)間：2019-02-09 18:34

【摘要】：隨著電子信息技術(shù)的成熟,互聯(lián)網(wǎng)絡(luò)已經(jīng)同我們密不可分。電子商務(wù)、互聯(lián)網(wǎng)金融、網(wǎng)絡(luò)社交、網(wǎng)絡(luò)生態(tài)圈等電子信息產(chǎn)品帶來了巨大的便捷,但也產(chǎn)生了大量新問題、新挑戰(zhàn),對(duì)我們的訴訟工作提出了新的要求:既要在紛繁復(fù)雜的電子數(shù)據(jù)中對(duì)證據(jù)證明力進(jìn)行判定,又要高效便捷地推進(jìn)訴訟程序。電子數(shù)據(jù)作為基于電子信息科技產(chǎn)生的獨(dú)立證據(jù)類型,在這種新的挑戰(zhàn)和要求中,發(fā)揮著愈發(fā)重要的作用。但電子數(shù)據(jù)的應(yīng)用也存在問題:一方面,電子數(shù)據(jù)自身具有流動(dòng)難固定、脆弱易損改等特點(diǎn),保存固化難度較大,對(duì)及時(shí)固化和技術(shù)支持的要求較高。另一方面,傳統(tǒng)證據(jù)保全中申請(qǐng)證據(jù)保全的程序較為繁瑣和被動(dòng),難以滿足當(dāng)事人對(duì)電子數(shù)據(jù)保全的需求。這就要求一種高效便捷、安全可靠、排他可行的電子數(shù)據(jù)固化系統(tǒng),在保證電子數(shù)據(jù)真實(shí)性、合法性、關(guān)聯(lián)性的同時(shí)滿足當(dāng)事人的效率要求。由此,第三方電子數(shù)據(jù)保全平臺(tái)應(yīng)運(yùn)而生,并在司法實(shí)務(wù)得到了應(yīng)用與實(shí)踐。本文旨對(duì)第三方電子數(shù)據(jù)保全與傳統(tǒng)電子數(shù)據(jù)保全的異同、該平臺(tái)證據(jù)保全的可行性、第三方電子數(shù)據(jù)保全的特點(diǎn)和原則進(jìn)行分析,并結(jié)合實(shí)務(wù)考察對(duì)該類平臺(tái)的應(yīng)用問題予以剖析,提出完善建議。本文除去引言和結(jié)語外,由以下五個(gè)部分構(gòu)成:第一部分,從電子數(shù)據(jù)保全的環(huán)境分析入手,以電子數(shù)據(jù)在訴訟中廣泛應(yīng)用與傳統(tǒng)電子數(shù)據(jù)保全模式不足的矛盾作為邏輯起點(diǎn),引出第三方電子數(shù)據(jù)保全的內(nèi)涵和價(jià)值。第二部分就第三方電子數(shù)據(jù)保全的可行性進(jìn)行探討。這部分從主體、時(shí)間、管轄這三個(gè)方面的可行性進(jìn)行分析。電子數(shù)據(jù)保全對(duì)傳統(tǒng)的證據(jù)保全有了主體上的突破,繼而對(duì)“第三方”成為電子數(shù)據(jù)保全主體的可行性進(jìn)行探討。對(duì)時(shí)間的分析主要從訴前與訴訟中這兩個(gè)階段進(jìn)行。對(duì)管轄的探討從證據(jù)保全管轄規(guī)定開始,分析第三方跨區(qū)劃保全電子數(shù)據(jù)的可行性。第三部分主要從保全主體的多元化、技術(shù)性以及保全的便捷性和高效性三個(gè)方面闡述第三方電子數(shù)據(jù)保全的特征。第四部分則是從及時(shí)性、合法性、保密性、全面性等四個(gè)原則分析第三方電子數(shù)據(jù)保全的原則。第五部分分為對(duì)第三方電子數(shù)據(jù)保全的困境分析與完善建議兩個(gè)層次。困境分析方面:從保全前當(dāng)事人身份的確認(rèn)與保全對(duì)象真實(shí)性的確認(rèn),再推及保全中技術(shù)保障的分析,分析應(yīng)用中證明力受質(zhì)疑的困境。完善與建議方面則主要從法律制度保障上延展開來,欲尋得專業(yè)技術(shù)與法律實(shí)務(wù)良性結(jié)合的模式。
[Abstract]:With the maturity of electronic information technology, the Internet has been inseparable with us. Electronic commerce, Internet finance, social networking, network ecosphere and other electronic information products have brought great convenience, but they have also produced a large number of new problems and challenges. This paper puts forward new requirements for our litigation work: not only to judge the power of proof in the complicated electronic data, but also to advance the litigation procedure efficiently and conveniently. Electronic data, as an independent evidence type based on electronic information technology, plays an increasingly important role in this new challenge and requirement. However, there are some problems in the application of electronic data: on the one hand, the electronic data itself has the characteristics of difficult to fix flow, fragile and vulnerable, difficult to preserve and solidify, and high requirement for timely solidification and technical support. On the other hand, the procedure of applying for evidence preservation in traditional evidence preservation is more complicated and passive, so it is difficult to meet the parties' demand for electronic data preservation. This requires an efficient, convenient, safe and reliable, exclusive and feasible electronic data solidification system, which ensures the authenticity, legitimacy and relevance of electronic data, and meets the efficiency requirements of the parties at the same time. As a result, third-party electronic data preservation platform emerged as the times require, and has been applied and practiced in judicial practice. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the similarities and differences between the third party electronic data preservation and the traditional electronic data preservation, the feasibility of the evidence preservation of the platform, the characteristics and principles of the third party electronic data preservation. Combined with practical investigation, the application of this kind of platform is analyzed, and some suggestions are put forward. In addition to the introduction and conclusion, this paper consists of the following five parts: the first part, starting with the environmental analysis of electronic data preservation, takes the contradiction between the extensive application of electronic data in litigation and the insufficiency of traditional electronic data preservation mode as the logical starting point. The connotation and value of third party electronic data preservation are introduced. The second part discusses the feasibility of third party electronic data preservation. This part from the subject, time, jurisdiction of these three aspects of the feasibility of analysis. Electronic data preservation has made a breakthrough on the traditional evidence preservation, and then discusses the feasibility of "third party" becoming the subject of electronic data preservation. The analysis of time is mainly carried out from the two stages of pre-litigation and litigation. This paper analyzes the feasibility of third-party cross-zoning preservation of electronic data from the view of evidence preservation. The third part mainly expounds the characteristics of third party electronic data preservation from the aspects of diversification, technology, convenience and efficiency. The fourth part analyzes the third-party electronic data preservation principle from four principles: timeliness, legality, confidentiality and comprehensiveness. The fifth part is divided into three-party electronic data preservation predicament analysis and perfect suggestion two levels. Dilemma analysis: from the prior confirmation of the identity of the parties to the preservation and the authenticity of the preservation object, and the analysis of the technical support in the preservation, the dilemma that the power of proof is questioned in the application is analyzed. The perfection and suggestion mainly extend from the legal system guarantee to seek the pattern of the benign combination of professional technology and legal practice.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類號(hào)】：D925

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 杜開林;仲裁證據(jù)保全評(píng)析——從一仲裁證據(jù)保全案看現(xiàn)行法律規(guī)定的不足[J];中國對(duì)外貿(mào)易;2003年02期

2 陳清;;關(guān)于證據(jù)保全概念的界定[J];天水行政學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2009年02期

3 李恩情;周瑩;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)證據(jù)保全有效性法律問題研究[J];北京郵電大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2009年03期

4 ;訴訟中的證據(jù)保全[J];云南農(nóng)業(yè);2009年08期

5 劉顯鵬;;證據(jù)保全之應(yīng)有范圍探析[J];北京工業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2009年06期

6 黃文懿;;淺析民事證據(jù)保全[J];湖南醫(yī)科大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2010年03期

7 ;證據(jù)保全[J];中國社區(qū)醫(yī)師;2011年19期

8 丁超;;訴前證據(jù)保全的管轄模式及選擇[J];知識(shí)經(jīng)濟(jì);2013年20期

9 黃文懿;;淺析民事證據(jù)保全[J];考試周刊;2010年10期

10 趙景文;證據(jù)保全可采取哪些措施[J];山西老年;2003年02期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 記者 何曉慧 通訊員 鄧瑞珊 陳小鑫;德化實(shí)行知產(chǎn)案“1小時(shí)”證據(jù)保全[N];人民法院報(bào);2014年

2 馬園圓;刑事證據(jù)保全與調(diào)取的差異[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟(jì)報(bào);2014年

3 朱妙春;重視證據(jù)保全 避免法律尷尬[N];中國貿(mào)易報(bào);2001年

4 ;證據(jù)保全可采取哪些措施[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2002年

5 戴貞奎;證據(jù)保全，訴訟決勝的先機(jī)[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2002年

6 肖建峰 陳劍浩;對(duì)證據(jù)保全的幾點(diǎn)思考[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟(jì)報(bào);2001年

7 劉勇;高新技術(shù)案證據(jù)保全當(dāng)心點(diǎn)[N];人民法院報(bào);2001年

8 張永紅 王永亮;裁定準(zhǔn)許證據(jù)保全的條件[N];人民法院報(bào);2005年

9 通訊員　 粵媛;航運(yùn)公司申請(qǐng)證據(jù)保全自有船[N];中國水運(yùn)報(bào);2006年

10 黑龍江省海倫市人民檢察院 王佐理 楊云濤 李元松;如何進(jìn)行證據(jù)保全[N];河北科技報(bào);2007年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 劉楊;基于Hadoop的證據(jù)保全系統(tǒng)的研究與實(shí)現(xiàn)[D];電子科技大學(xué);2014年

2 李云;網(wǎng)絡(luò)證據(jù)保全基本問題研究[D];太原科技大學(xué);2015年

3 王威權(quán);電子數(shù)據(jù)證據(jù)保全問題研究[D];安徽大學(xué);2016年

4 韓紅艷;法院民事證據(jù)保全制度反思[D];內(nèi)蒙古大學(xué);2017年

5 紀(jì)淑璐;知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)訴訟證據(jù)保全制度研究[D];華僑大學(xué);2017年

6 胡敏;第三方電子數(shù)據(jù)保全的應(yīng)用性分析[D];西南政法大學(xué);2016年

7 謝函晉;論民事訴前證據(jù)保全功能擴(kuò)張—借鑒德國獨(dú)立證據(jù)調(diào)查程序的思考[D];西南政法大學(xué);2016年

8 單超峰;民事證據(jù)保全探討[D];鄭州大學(xué);2010年

9 朱紅娟;論證據(jù)保全[D];蘇州大學(xué);2005年

10 覃韋斯;計(jì)算機(jī)軟件著作權(quán)侵權(quán)證據(jù)保全案例研究[D];上海交通大學(xué);2011年

，

本文編號(hào)：2419272