本文選題：電子數(shù)據(jù)證據(jù) + 保全��； 參考：《安徽大學》2016年碩士論文

【摘要】：隨著互聯(lián)網(wǎng)絡(luò)信息技術(shù)的快速發(fā)展,電子商務、電子政務以及無紙化辦公等領(lǐng)域也在不斷發(fā)展壯大。電子數(shù)據(jù)證據(jù)在這些領(lǐng)域的快速發(fā)展所產(chǎn)生的民事糾紛中逐漸顯露頭角,并且逐漸稱為我國證據(jù)制度中不可小覷的重要組成部分。在司法實踐中,諸多民商事糾紛的解決均涉及到了電子數(shù)據(jù)證據(jù)的應用,電子數(shù)據(jù)證據(jù)已成為法官或律師等訴訟參與人員分析和證明案件事實的重要依據(jù)�；诿裆淌略V訟模式向當事人主義的轉(zhuǎn)變,法院一般不主動為認定案件事實搜集相關(guān)證據(jù)。而由于當事人在涉及電子數(shù)據(jù)證據(jù)案件中收集證據(jù)的有限能力,往往在糾紛發(fā)生后不得不放棄對自身合法權(quán)益的救濟。在當事人面對此種情況時,證據(jù)保全制度是其在訴訟活動中維護自身合法權(quán)益的唯一途徑。電子數(shù)據(jù)證據(jù)在保全方式、保全范圍、保全時間以及保全主體的技術(shù)性方面都與傳統(tǒng)證據(jù)保全有著較大的區(qū)別,而這一區(qū)別以及特征正是探求電子數(shù)據(jù)證據(jù)保全制度的價值所在,體現(xiàn)電子數(shù)據(jù)證據(jù)保全的必要性和意義。我國于2013年正式確立了電子數(shù)據(jù)證據(jù)的法律地位,結(jié)束了電子數(shù)據(jù)證據(jù)多年的地位紛爭。但此次解決的問題也僅限于電子數(shù)據(jù)證據(jù)的法律地位問題,并未涉及到收集、保全等問題,電子數(shù)據(jù)證據(jù)在司法實踐中的適用需沿用傳統(tǒng)證據(jù)保全的相關(guān)程序及規(guī)定。雖然電子數(shù)據(jù)證據(jù)保全依然屬于證據(jù)保全的范疇,沿用傳統(tǒng)證據(jù)的保全體制無可厚非。但基于電子數(shù)據(jù)證據(jù)的特征必然使得傳統(tǒng)證據(jù)保全的具體操作無法滿足電子數(shù)據(jù)證據(jù)的保全需求,而這一問題主要體現(xiàn)在保全主體在人員專業(yè)技術(shù)能力上的不過關(guān),保全手段和保全時間與電子數(shù)據(jù)證據(jù)保全需求的不完全匹配,獲取和保管電子數(shù)據(jù)信息的軟件及計算機技術(shù)的不成熟以及缺乏行業(yè)制度及標準等方面。電子數(shù)據(jù)證據(jù)保全是科技與法律的有機結(jié)合,完善電子數(shù)據(jù)證據(jù)保全體制不僅需要在技術(shù)層面加大證據(jù)獲取和保全的軟硬件研究,制定證據(jù)獲取和保全的流程,確立指導性原則。在司法實踐方面對證據(jù)保全主體的范圍,人員的專業(yè)技術(shù)能力等具體問題提出針對性的解決措施,還需要在法律層面上為電子數(shù)據(jù)證據(jù)保全確立保全條件、真實性及證明力的評判標準等法律制度的規(guī)范性保障。因此,總體來說我國的電子數(shù)據(jù)證據(jù)保全體制并不完善,電子數(shù)據(jù)證據(jù)的立法現(xiàn)狀并不能滿足司法實踐的需求,無法有效發(fā)揮電子數(shù)據(jù)證據(jù)應有的證明力。在此時對電子數(shù)據(jù)證據(jù)保全在司法實踐和立法層面所遇到的問題加以研究頗具有現(xiàn)實意義。
[Abstract]:With the rapid development of Internet information technology, e-commerce, e-government and paperless office are also growing. Electronic data evidence has been gradually revealed in the civil disputes arising from the rapid development of these fields, and has gradually become an important part of the evidence system in our country. In judicial practice, the settlement of many civil and commercial disputes involves the application of electronic data evidence, which has become an important basis for judges or lawyers to analyze and prove the facts of the case. Based on the transformation of civil and commercial litigation mode to litigant doctrine, courts generally do not actively collect relevant evidence for the determination of the facts of a case. But because of the limited ability of the parties to collect evidence in the case involving electronic data evidence, they often have to give up the remedy to their legitimate rights and interests after the dispute. In the face of this situation, evidence preservation system is the only way to protect their legitimate rights and interests in litigation activities. Electronic data evidence is quite different from traditional evidence preservation in terms of preservation mode, preservation scope, preservation time and technical aspects of preservation subject. This difference and characteristic is the value of the electronic data evidence preservation system and reflects the necessity and significance of electronic data evidence preservation. China formally established the legal status of electronic data evidence in 2013, ending the status dispute of electronic data evidence for many years. However, this problem is only limited to the legal status of electronic data evidence, and does not involve the collection, preservation and other issues. The application of electronic data evidence in judicial practice should follow the relevant procedures and regulations of traditional evidence preservation. Although electronic data evidence preservation still belongs to the category of evidence preservation, there is no problem with the traditional evidence preservation system. However, based on the characteristics of electronic data evidence, the specific operation of traditional evidence preservation cannot meet the requirements of electronic data evidence preservation, and this problem is mainly reflected in the professional and technical ability of personnel. The preservation means and the preservation time are not fully matched with the requirements of electronic data evidence preservation, the immature software and computer technology for obtaining and keeping electronic data information, and the lack of industry system and standards, etc. Electronic data evidence preservation is an organic combination of science and technology and law. To improve the electronic data evidence preservation system, we should not only increase the research on the hardware and software of evidence acquisition and preservation at the technical level, but also establish the process of obtaining and preserving evidence. Establish guiding principles. In the aspect of judicial practice, the scope of the main body of evidence preservation, the professional and technical ability of personnel and other specific problems should be solved, and the preservation conditions should be established at the legal level for the preservation of electronic data evidence. The normative guarantee of the legal system such as the criterion of authenticity and the power of proof. Therefore, on the whole, the electronic data evidence preservation system in our country is not perfect, the current legislation of electronic data evidence can not meet the needs of judicial practice, and can not effectively give full play to the necessary proof power of electronic data evidence. At this time, it is of practical significance to study the problems encountered in the judicial practice and legislation of electronic data evidence preservation.
【學位授予單位】：安徽大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2016
【分類號】：D925

【相似文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 陳清;;關(guān)于證據(jù)保全概念的界定[J];天水行政學院學報;2009年02期

2 李恩情;周瑩;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)證據(jù)保全有效性法律問題研究[J];北京郵電大學學報(社會科學版);2009年03期

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

4 劉顯鵬;;證據(jù)保全之應有范圍探析[J];北京工業(yè)大學學報(社會科學版);2009年06期

5 黃文懿;;淺析民事證據(jù)保全[J];湖南醫(yī)科大學學報(社會科學版);2010年03期

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

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

8 黃文懿;;淺析民事證據(jù)保全[J];考試周刊;2010年10期

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

10 盧新勝;證據(jù)保全舉鐵證　挽回損失傳佳話[J];中國司法;2000年05期

相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前10條

1 記者 何曉慧 通訊員 鄧瑞珊 陳小鑫;德化實行知產(chǎn)案“1小時”證據(jù)保全[N];人民法院報;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)濟報;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;2001年

4 ;證據(jù)保全可采取哪些措施[N];法制日報;2002年

5 戴貞奎;證據(jù)保全，，訴訟決勝的先機[N];檢察日報;2002年

6 肖建峰 陳劍浩;對證據(jù)保全的幾點思考[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟報;2001年

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

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

9 通訊員　 粵媛;航運公司申請證據(jù)保全自有船[N];中國水運報;2006年

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

相關(guān)碩士學位論文 前10條

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

2 王靜;電子證據(jù)保全法律問題報告[D];東南大學;2015年

3 宋雙;論知識產(chǎn)權(quán)訴訟證據(jù)保全[D];青島大學;2015年

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

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

6 單超峰;民事證據(jù)保全探討[D];鄭州大學;2010年

7 朱紅娟;論證據(jù)保全[D];蘇州大學;2005年

8 覃韋斯;計算機軟件著作權(quán)侵權(quán)證據(jù)保全案例研究[D];上海交通大學;2011年

9 梁潔;知識產(chǎn)權(quán)訴前證據(jù)保全問題研究[D];暨南大學;2013年

10 龔何;訴前證據(jù)保全[D];西南政法大學;2013年

本文編號：1805144