数字安全视角下国家秘密的刑法保护

Criminal Law Protection of State Secrets from the Perspective of Digital Security

随着信息数据技术和数字经济发展,数字安全问题凸显,给国家保密工作带来更大挑战。在总体国家安全观视野下,对于国家秘密应从定密主体、程序等形式要件和国家安全、利益属性的实质要件两方面进行把握。国家秘密安全作为一种法益不是单一的,还包括与国家秘密相关的个人信息权益和数据网络公共安全,具有多元性和层次性。国家秘密刑法保护应当坚持体系性思维,实行分级分类保护,促进维护国家安全、公共利益与信息资源利用的平衡。刑法中以国家秘密安全为主要犯罪客体的罪名可归类为侵犯国家秘密犯罪。根据犯罪主体的不同,第398条规定的故意(过失)泄露国家秘密罪可区分渎职型和非渎职型。该罪名的罪刑设置未能体现故意与过失的区别,应从立法上予以完善,将过失泄露国家秘密罪的法定刑从故意泄露国家秘密罪的法定刑中剥离出来,规定独立的法定刑。该条第2款规定的“酌情处罚”不等于从轻处罚,应根据具体情况具体对待,也应包括从重处罚。除了直接侵犯国家秘密安全的罪名之外,关涉国家秘密、网络安全、个人信息数据的罪名均可视为侵犯国家秘密犯罪。不同罪名的法益性质和保护重心不同,相互之间存在重合交织。司法机关需要以相关立法为参照系,根据信息数据类型的不同,判断其所反映的法益本质,作为界分相关罪名的实质根据。当侵犯国家秘密犯罪与其他犯罪发生竞合时,应按想象竞合予以认定。

With the development of information and data technology and the development of the digital economy,digital security issues have become prominent,bringing greater challenges to the national secrecy work.From the perspective of the overall national security perspective,state secrets should be grasped from two aspects:formal elements such as the subject and procedure of classifying secrets,and the substantive elements of national security and the nature of interests.As a legal benefit,state secret security is not a single legal interest,but also includes personal information rights and interests related to state secrets and data network public security,which is pluralistic and hierarchical.Criminal law protection of state secrets shall adhere to systematic thinking,implement hierarchical and categorical protections,and promote the balance between preserving national security,the public interest,and the use of information resources.Crimes in the Criminal Law with the security of state secrets as the main object of crime can be classified as crimes of infringing on state secrets.According to the subject of the crime,the crime of intentional(negligent)disclosure of state secrets under Article 398 can distinguish between dereliction of duty and non-dereliction of duty.The criminal punishment for this crime fails to reflect the difference between intentional and negligent,and should be improved from the legislative level,and the statutory punishment for the crime of negligent disclosure of state secrets should be separated from the statutory punishment for the crime of intentional disclosure of state secrets,and an independent statutory punishment should be provided.The“discretionary punishment”provided for in paragraph 2 of that article does not amount to a mitigating penalty and should be treated on a caseby-case basis,including heavier penalties.In addition to the crime of directly infringing on the security of state secrets,crimes involving state secrets,network security,and personal information and data can all be regarded as crimes of infringing on state secrets.Different crimes have different legal nature and protection priorities,and overlap and intertwine with each other.Judicial organs need to use relevant legislation as a frame of reference,and judge the essence of law and interests reflected in information types according to different types,as the substantive basis for demarcating relevant crimes.When the crime of infringing on state secrets competes with other crimes,it shall be determined on the basis of imaginary competition.