作　者：陈洪兵
关键词：网络服务商；刑事责任；“快播案”；帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪；拒不履行信息网络安全管理义务罪；个人信息权
摘　要：

 目前有关网络服务商法律责任的规定不够明确，刑法理论研究与判例总结不够充分，致使网络服务商刑事责任边界不清，代表性的案例有“快播案”判决广受质疑，腾讯等网络服务商恣意屏蔽、删除公民微信、短信内容损害了部分网民的言论自由权等。网络服务商可以分为信息（互联网）接入/传输服务提供者、信息缓存服务提供者、信息存储服务提供者以及信息定位（搜索、链接）服务提供者。网络服务商对于用户生成、上传的信息内容不负有一般性的审查监控义务，仅负有事后“通知—移除”的民事、行政责任，例外情况下承担刑事责任。帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪是否成立，取决于网络服务商是否提供专门供他人实施犯罪的技术支持与帮助，是否深度参与他人的犯罪活动。

■ 作者简介 陈洪兵，法学博士，东南大学法学院教授、博士生导师；江苏 南京 211189。

 

The Boundary of Criminal Liability of Internet Service Providers

Taking the Verdict of Qvod as an Introduction

Chen Hongbing (Southeast University)

Abstract The boundary of criminal liability of internet service providers is currently unclear due to vague provisions on the legal responsibility of network service providers and insufficient theories of criminal law and summary of jurisprudence. For these reasons, the verdict of Qvod is widely questioned. Internet service providers, such as Tencent, arbitrarily shield and delete people’s text messages, completely ignoring the Inter- net users’ right to freedom of expression. Internet service providers are concerned with information (Internet) access/transmission, information caching, information storage and information positioning have no general obli- gation to review and control for the information content generated and uploaded by users. They only assume civil and administrative liability to notice and remove and take criminal liability in exceptional cases. Providing technical support and assistance for committing crimes specifically to others and engaging in others’ criminal activities deeply are decisive factors in the establishment of the crime of helping information network criminal activity.

Key words internet service providers; criminal liability; the case of Qvod; crime of helping information network criminal activity; crime of refusing to fulfill the obligation of information network security manage- ment; right for personal information

[PDF]（下载数：）