Abstract：Typology research is a scientific study that identifies the internal structures of things. A profound study of evidence types and the corresponding construction of evidence rules can be called a prerequisite for achieving scientific authentication. At present, there is insufficient research on the attributes of instant messaging recording subjects, context, language, and storage methods, as well as a lack of research on types and specialized authentication rules. This situation has led to the secular stagnation of research in the “formal legitimacy stage”, and there are conflicting views on judge certification, such as “not suitable as direct evidence”, “not suitable as evidence” and “cannot be used as evidence”. Instant messaging records are a system of evidence consisting of different categories. General legislation cannot solve the problems of identity authentication, such as authentication of the subject, privacy protection, and identification of non-literal symbols. In the future, constructing “exclusive authentication rules” such as reliability identification rules, privacy protection rules, proposing command rules and expert semantic interpretation rules above classification can truly achieve standardized authentication, and promote the “substantial legalization” research of this evidence through “legal status → scientific authentication”.
[1] 陈浩.即时通讯记录的司法认定[J].国家检察官学院学报,2016,24(6):144-154+173. [2] Susan Haack.Evidence Matters:Science,Proof,and Truth in the Law[M].New York:Cambridge University Press,2014. 15. [3] 国洪宇. 网络证据认定问题浅析——由微信聊天记录引发的思考[J].山东审判,2016,(4):70-72. [4] G. Michael Fenner.The Admissibility of Web-Based Evidence[J].Creighton Law Review,2013,(1):63-98. [5] Fardeen Haque.Scope of Admissibility of Electronic Records[J].Jus Corpus Law Journal,2022,(4):788-801. [6] Ioannis Iglezakis.Messenger Messages and Facebook Photographs as Means of Evidence- Heraklion Jury Trial Court (Mixed) 21/2019[J].European Data Protection Law Review, 2019,(3):404-407. [7] Joseph C. Vitale. Text Me, Maybe:State v. Hinton and the Possibility of Fourth Amendment Protections over Sent Text Messages Stored in Another's Cell Phone[J].Saint Louis University Law Journal,2014,(4):1109-1144. [8] 赵毅,钱为钢.言语交际[M].上海:上海文艺出版社,2000.50-60. [9] Leeza Arbatman, John Villasenor.Anonymous Expression and“Unmasking” in Civil and Criminal Proceedings[J].Minnesota Journal of Law,Science and Technology,2022,(1):77-130. [10] 黄志雄. 未实名认证微信聊天记录成为定案依据的法定条件[J].人民司法·案例,2016,(8):49-50. [11] Rebecca Brownell.Constitutional Law-Strengthening Schools' Abilities to Combat Cyberbullying in Denying Students' First Amending Challenge[J].Suffolk Journal of Trial & Appellate Advocacy,2023,(1):99-114. [12] 张仕海. 网络时代汉字符号包容性刍议[J].汉字文化,2023,(9):134-138. [13] 王宏选,卫成义.网络表情证据的实践困境与审查路径[J].南京邮电大学学报(社会科学版),2023,25(1):58-65. [14] 喻海松. 网络暴力的多维共治——以刑事法为侧重的展开[J].江汉论坛,2023,(5):128-135. [15] (美)约书亚·梅罗维茨.消失的地域:电子媒介对社会行为的影响[M].肖志军译.北京:清华大学出版社,2002. 12-18. [16] 屈茂辉,王中.民事科学证据可靠性认定中的司法前见——基于民事诉讼中鉴定意见的实证分析[J].华东政法大学学报,2020,23(5):115-129. [17] 张吉喜. 论证人匿名作证制度[J].比较法研究,2014,(6):113-127. [18] 欧阳爱辉. 非令状取得匿名网络通讯监听证据合法性之界定[J].法治研究,2009,(11):28-32. [19] Jean Wei Lee.Data-Driven Mergers:Is It Time to Re-form EU Merger Control?[J].De Lege Ferenda,2023,(1):103-139. [20] Rebecca A.Berels.Take Me Seriously:Emoji as Evidence[R/OL].https://hcommons.org/deposits/item/hc:37823/,2024-03-07. [21] 王俐智. 表情符号的解释:基于情境主义的解释方案[J].政治与法律,2023,(8):92-107. [22] Stocker (Appellant) v. Stocker (Respondent)[2019]UKSC 17[R/OL].https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2018-0045-press-summary.pdf,2024-03-07. [23] (德)康德.自然科学的形而上学基础[M].邓小芒译.北京:三联书店,1988.2.
2024, Vol. 41 
粤公网安备44030502007936号