Read more
Due to the rise of organized crime and the rapid development of surveillance technologies, such technologies are increasingly used for the purpose of criminal investigation. However, the proliferation of such highly intrusive measures can jeopardize the individual right to privacy and the constitutionally protected secrecy of private telecommunication. It is therefore necessary to devise a legal framework that balances the need for efficient law enforcement with individuals' privacy rights. In this study, the author discusses the laws on covert surveillance as an investigative measure in the criminal process of the United States, Germany, and the P.R. China from theoretical and empirical perspectives. The author then provides a horizontal comparison of the three legal systems, with the aim of identifying solutions that achieve a proper balance between the protection of the right to privacy and the effective combat of crime.
List of contents
Introduction: The Background of the Study - The Three Jurisdictions - Presentation of Problems - Structure of the Study1. Surveillance of Wire and Oral Communications in the U.S.: Constitutional Protection - Surveillance of Wire Communications and Oral Communications in Federal Statutes - Exceptions from the General Prohibition of Warrantless Surveillance - Procedure - Exclusionary Rule - Empirical Studies2. Technological Surveillance in the Federal Republic of Germany: Telecommunication - Acoustic Surveillance (akustische Überwachung) - Procedure - »Prohibitions of Evidence« (»Beweisverbote«) - Empirical Reports3. Technological Investigative Measures in the People's Republic of China: Telecommunication and Art. 40 of the Chinese Constitution - The Inviolability of the Residence and Art. 39 of the Chinese Constitution - Technological Measures in Legislation and Departmental Regulations - Procedural Requirements - Admissibility of Information from TIMs4. Conclusions with Horizontal Comparison: »Reasonable Expectation of Privacy« vs. »Core Area of Privacy» - Statutory Protections - Procedure - The Exclusionary Rule - Empirical Studies - Final Comments and Suggestions for Reforms in ChinaAppendixReports on the questionnairesReferences, Index
About the author
Jiahui Shi received her Bachelor and Master of Law Degrees from the China University of Political Science and Law, Beijing, China, and passed the Chinese state exam for legal professionals in 2011. In 2021, she obtained a doctoral degree in law (Dr. jur.) from the University of Cologne (Germany) under the supervision of Professor Dr. Thomas Weigend. Since 2022 she is a research assistant at the Law Faculty, Sichuan University, China. Her research areas cover criminal law, criminal procedure law, comparative law, and the law on privacy.
