近來幾年智慧型手機和適地性服務已經變得非常熱門。 智慧型手機必須有辦法知道使用者的位置，因此精準的定位技術就變得重要。 至今人們只能夠在特定的環境利用某些定位方法，就像是GPS只能用於室外的空間。 但是人們總是生活於大範圍的環境像是校園、都市和觀光區，這種大範圍的環境包含了室內和室外的空間。 大範圍的環境下，單一定位技術未必到處都可用，因此我們結合了GPS、WiFi和物聯網定位提出了一個異質式定位演算法。 我們提出“定位可能性”來選擇比較“可靠”(可能)的定位方法。 除此之外，利用較可靠的鄰近使用者與自己之間的WiFi訊號強度可更進一步改善定位的精準度。特別針對某些使用者在沒有任何可用的定位方法時更有幫助。這個方法被稱為“合作式定位”。 最後，我們用模擬來評估我們演算法的精準度。 因為訊號強度每分每秒都在波動，因此我們測量實際的訊號強度和GPS放入模擬器，讓實驗結果變得更真實。 最後我們也證明我們的演算法可以做在手機上而且更精準。 / Smart phones and Location Based Services (LBSs) have become very popular in recent years. To this end, the smart phone needs to know the locations of users. Therefore, an accurate localization technique is important. To date people can use some localization systems in some specific areas. For instance, GPS can only be used in the outdoor space. However, people always live in large scale environments like campus, urban and tourist areas. The large scale environments should include indoor and outdoor space. For large scale environment, a single location technique is not always available everywhere. Therefore, we proposed a heterogeneous localization algorithm which combines GPS, WiFi and Internet Of Things (IOT) localizations. We proposed “localization possibility” for each localization methods. This algorithm use localization possibility to select the most “reliable” (possible) one. Besides, the more reliable nearby users can further enhance the localization by measuring the relative WiFi signal strength. It helps especially for those users who have no any available localization methods. This method is called “cooperative localization”. Finally, we evaluated the accuracy of our algorithms by simulation. Because signal strength fluctuates from minute to minute, we measured empirical data and put into the simulator to make our experimental results more real. Finally, we also verify that our idea can be implemented on smart phones and our algorithm is more accurate.

科技的發展與進步為人類社會帶來許多便利，但若未善用於正當的途徑將可能產生某種程度的反噬而成為侵害他人權利之工具。全球定位系統（GPS）應用在日常生活中常見的方式為汽車導航，然其同時具備的定位功能若用以作為取得他人位置資訊以及行車軌跡之手段，即有侵害被追蹤者隱私法益之疑慮，因此，在刑事實體及程序法上有其探討之必要。私人使用GPS取得證據之行為可分別從刑事實體及程序法之角度進行剖析，在實體法上所可能涉及者為刑法第315條之1的竊視竊聽竊錄罪與通訊保障及監察法第24條的違法通訊監察罪。本文首先詳細分析刑法第315條之1的內涵，並進而討論私人取得證據之行為是否構成刑法第315條之1的竊視竊聽竊錄罪。針對「非公開」要件的判斷，本文先就合理隱私期待的概念做出詳實的介紹，並輔以美國法上著名案例，從合理隱私期待的視角檢視「非公開」這個要件。另外，以GPS取得之資訊是否符合通訊保障及監察法中所稱「通訊」之意涵而有該當通訊保障及監察法第24條之違法通訊監察罪的可能本文亦一併進行探析。 而在程序法的層面，私人使用GPS取得證據之行為與私人不法取證有涉，本文於定義私人不法取證後，進一步分析私人使用GPS取得證據之行為是否符合私人不法取證之內涵。私人不法取證之證據能力於我國現行刑事訴訟法並無明文規定，實務與學說對此亦尚無較為統一之見解，本文嘗試從比較法的角度觀察，期能以外國法作為借鏡，提供不同面向的思考途徑。

大法官在釋字第689號解釋中，首次在解釋文中引進美國法上的「合理隱私期待」概念，以作為人民是否受到憲法隱私權保障的判定標準。事實上，「合理隱私期待」的概念在我國法上並不令人感到陌生。例如，通訊保障及監察法第3條第2項即明確規定：「前項所稱之通訊，以有事實足認受監察人對其通訊內容有『隱私或秘密之合理期待』者為限」。 除了尾隨、全天候視覺監控等類似的古老方法，隨著科技的進步，諸如以衛星為基礎的汽車導航系統、以基地台為基礎的行動電話定位服務等低成本、高效率的定位科技，可以更輕易且嚴重地侵害我們的私生活及隱私。當定位科技成為我們每天生活的一部分時，如何在這樣的脈絡下正確地操作「合理隱私期待」概念，已成為一項重要的議題。 惟國內學術文獻對於如何正確地操作「合理隱私期待」，似乎欠缺全面性地研究。為了填補國內的空白，本文進行了美國及台灣案例法之深入比較分析，尤其是關於合理隱私期待及定位裝置的判決。本文指出了以往我國及美國法院判決的問題，以及邏輯矛盾之處。為了達到更加一致、正確的判決結果，本文認為，在操作合理隱私期望概念時，法院應著重於四個因素，其分別是：「資訊的性質」、「侵害的手段」、「侵害的場所」及「第三人原則」。 / In J.Y. Interpretation No. 689, the Constitutional Court , for the first time, employs the concept of “reasonable expectation of privacy”, originated from the United States, in order to determine whether an individual enjoys a constitutionally protected right to privacy. The concept, however, is not new to our legal system. For example, Paragraph 2, Article 3 of the Communication Protection and Surveillance Act provides: “The communications referred to in the preceding paragraph shall be limited to those for which there is an adequate showing of facts that a person subject to surveillance would have a reasonable expectation of privacy or confidentiality with respect to the content of the communications.” In addition to tailing, around the clock visual surveillance and similar old-fashioned methods, with the advance in technology, our private life and privacy could be more easily and greatly intruded by low-cost, high-efficiency location positioning technology, such as satellite-based car navigation system and cell sites-based cellphone positioning service. When location positioning technology becomes part of our everyday life, how to properly apply the concept of “reasonable expectation of privacy” in this context has also become an important issue. So far, there seems to lack a comprehensive study on the aforementioned issue in domestic academic literature. To fill the gap, this thesis conducts an in-depth comparative analysis of both U.S. and Taiwan case law, especially those involving reasonable expectation of privacy and location positioning devices. This thesis points out the problems and logical inconsistencies in past decisions in both jurisdictions. In order to reach a more consistent and appropriate result, this thesis argues that when applying the reasonable expectation of privacy test, courts should focus on four factors which are: “nature of information,” “measure of infringement,” “the place where the intrusion happens,” and “third party doctrine.”