| With respect to the criminal jurisdiction over the access to data,two basic models have already been developed at the national level,i.e.,the data location mode and the data controller mode.The data location mode,which is constructed on the basis of the traditional national territory,has been weakened in the field of cross-border access to data as a result of the difficulties and low efficiency in its application.In contrast,the data controller mode relies on cross-border cloud service providers,thus partially replacing the data location mode.Fundamentally speaking,the change of the mode of jurisdiction over criminal evidence collection at the international level is caused by the attempt by various states to control the domestic as well as overseas data resources for the maximization of their own national interests.Meanwhile,it should be noted that the theory of data exceptionalism has also made an important impact on the traditional mode of jurisdiction over evidence collection that applies to tangible objects.China should face up to this international trend and strive to explore the Chinese mode of jurisdiction over criminal evidence collection on the basis of national data sovereignty strategy.More specifically,firstly,we should adhere to the data location model,while at the same time making some exceptions to this mode;secondly,we should make reciprocal responses to the harms to our own interest caused by the adoption of the data controller mode by other countries while sharing the bonus of this mode to a certain extent;and thirdly,we should strengthen the equal consultation and collaboration with other countries under the conceptual framework of "procedural data sovereignty",so as to construct a reciprocal mode of jurisdiction over criminal evidence collection applicable to data. |
京公网安备11010102006664号 京ICP备2023015853号