Article 12 of Constitution of Republic of China, ¡§ people have the freedom of secret communication¡¨, protecting basic human rights aims to prevent people¡¦s communications from any arbitrary interference by others in the country except for evidence collection and crime investigation. For ensuring national security and maintaining social order, it is necessary to actually implement the communication interception. In order to balance the relationship between human rights of freedom and public interest, most of the democratic and advanced countries have set the rules of communication interception, which regulate the element of legal interception and punishment of illegal one to prevent the violations in rights of people from interception caused by abuse of power. July 14, 1999, the law of communication protection and interception was published and implemented to stipulate the operating procedure related to communication interception conducted by judiciary, procuratorial organ, executive bodies, building authorities, telecommunication corporations, and so on. This significantly symbolized that the execution of national communication interception was formally working forward to legal system, and finished the history of designated communication interception violating the constitution in the past decades. July 11, 2007, communication interception book was replaced with the provisions in the significant amendment issued by judge, and further created a new record of implementing the provision¡§people¡¦s freedoms of secret communication¡¨ secured by constitution, and formally connected with the trend of global democracy. It was undeniable that the design of this regulation still allowed much room of improvement and the circumstance of illegal wiretapping on the street stalls was definitely not restrained by the implementation of communication security law. Moreover, police units seldom dealt with the related reports or impeachments, and actively worked on the wiretapping cases. For most general public, it significantly pointed out that the effects of education did not come to the original expectation leading people to be aware of the importance of freedom of secret communication and privacy. This surely was the great defect and regret after the implementation of the relevant law. Based on the principles in the area of administrative law, the led five main structures (basic principles, framework, permission use, relief channel and monitoring mechanism,) in this research mainly analyzed and explored the current rules of communication protection and interception step by step, and further evaluated the potential deficiency and the matter of essential improvement through the modes of theory interpretation and practice review. The mentioned suggestions in this study were available to make the communication protection and interception mechanism with much better functions.

通訊監察區分為「犯罪通訊監察」及「情報通訊監察」二大種類，犯罪通訊監察須針對特定犯罪活動而為之偵查行為，而情報通訊監察則係針對外國勢力及其工作人員危害國家安全之行為而為國家預警情報作為。世界各民主先進國家在將通訊監察法治化及透過實際案例之修正後，逐步建立起類似之通訊監察立法通則，如比例原則、令狀原則監察、透明化、保護隱私權益、重罪原則、特定性、補充性原則等，幾已成為犯罪通訊監察法治不可違逆之普世價值； 然在情報通訊監察部分，各國則因歷史背景之不同，其情報通訊監察法治發展是不一而足，其法律保留、授權密度、證據能力、救濟及監督方式皆大相逕庭。 我國情報通訊監察規範於民國88年與犯罪通訊監察一併規範於「通訊保障及監察法」中，條文規範略嫌簡略，依據民國100年修正之國家情報工作法，立法政策將朝向情報通訊監察單獨立法邁進。 為探討我國情報通訊監察制度之現存問題，本文研究分析美國「外國情報通訊監察法（The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978,FISA）」及德國「G10法（Gesetz zur Beschränkung des Brief-, Post- und Fernmeldegeheimnisses,Gesetz zu Artikel 10 Grundgesetz – G10）」之情報通訊監察法治，與我國現行規範加以比較，並對未來設立專法提出建議。 / Electronic surveillance can be divided into criminal surveillance and intelligence surveillance. Different from the intelligence surveillance, criminal surveillance should be solely engaged in for specific criminal law enforcement purposes. Intelligence surveillance is directed at the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used between or among foreign powers for the purpose of national security. Through the electronic surveillance legalization process of the advanced democracy countries, we can summarize a few principles such as the principle of proportionality, warrant, privacy, felony, particularity and complementarity which have became the universal value of the criminal surveillance. Nevertheless, the development of the intelligence surveillance in each country is by no means an isolated case because of the different background. They are different from law reservation, the intensity of judicial review, admissibility and judicial remedy, etc. In 1999, the rules of intelligence surveillance were regulated in Communication Protection and Monitoring Law with criminal surveillance, and the regulations of the intelligence surveillance are sort of incomplete. According to the amendment of the National Intelligence Services Law of 2011, the independent legislation of intelligence surveillance is imperative in future. In order to solve the problems of intelligence surveillance in Taiwan, the thesis introduced and compared the “The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA)” in the U.S.A, and the “Gesetz zur Beschränkung des Brief-, Post- und Fernmeldegeheimnisses,Gesetz zu Artikel 10 Grundgesetz (G10)”in Germany with the Communication Protection and Monitoring Law in Taiwan. Hopefully the thesis could provide the directions of the independent legislation of intelligence surveillance in future.