|
|
|
| Behavior Types and Crime Control of Fake Viewership Data |
| Zhang Chi, Wang Hao |
| Shen Junru Law School, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou 311121, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Fake viewership data refers to the act of using technical or artificial means to inflate or delete data expressions on the Internet information platform for the purpose of increasing or derogating the popularity, influence or goodwill of a specific object. The phenomenon of fake viewership data appeared many years ago, but at present there are great differences of opinions in the academic community on how to divide the basic types of such acts, whether they constitute crimes, and which charges should be used to combat and sanction.According to the purposes of the faker, this paper divides the fake viewership data into positive fake and negative fake, and then further classifies them according to the implement means and behavior purposes. The positive fraud implemented by technical means can be called “consensual fake viewership data”, while the positive fraud implemented by manual means is called “intermediary fake viewership data”. Correspondingly, negative fraud can also be divided into “fraudulent fake viewership data” and “derogative fake viewership data”. Based on above classification methods, this paper discusses the crime identification and charge application of different types of fake viewership data.Consensual fake viewership data includes external viewership data fraud implemented by individuals or units outside the Internet data platform and internal viewership data fraud implemented by insiders of the Internet platform. According to the facts and evidence of the case, external viewership data fraud can be recognized as the crime of illegally controlling computer information system stipulated in Article 285 of the Criminal Law, the crime of providing intrusion and illegally controlling computer information system programs and tools, or the crime of destroying computer information system stipulated in Article 286. The court should pay more attention to the identification of accomplices such as brokerage companies, fans organizations and network anchors who participated in external viewership data fraud when dealing with such cases. Generally, internal viewership data fraud should not be treated as a crime, except in two circumstances: for one thing, fake viewership data is determined by the personal will of one or several employees in the Internet platform rather than by the overall decision of the Internet platform company; another scenario is when the platform that provides Internet information services violates the will of its users and manipulates their accounts without authorization to fabricate Internet viewership data.Fraudulent fake viewership data is normally seen in the field of advertising promotion and multi-channel network（MCN）. For the purpose of illegal possession, the fraudsters adopt manual or technical means to fabricate fake viewership data and defraud the advertising promotion expenses of the other party. It should be punished as a crime if the circumstances are serious. Generally, such acts committed in the name of the unit should be punished as a crime of contract fraud, while the internal staff of the advertising promotion company or MCN institute, who violates the will of the unit or the contract agreement, using technical or manual means to fabricate fake viewership data, should be recognized as a crime of fraud rather than a crime of contract fraud.Derogative fake viewership data refers to damaging the reputation of enterprises or product by the use of technical or manual means. This kind of fake viewership data should be distinguished by the purpose of crime: if the perpetrator demands money or commercial interests from the injured enterprise under the threat of fake viewership data and defamation of goodwill, he should be treated as the crime of extortion; while the “slander type” fake viewership data with the purpose of simply slandering competitors to obtain business advantages can be convicted and punished by the crime of damaging business reputation and commodity reputation stipulated in Article 221 of the Criminal Law.In addition to the guidelines on how to identify crimes, we also need systematic support from other crime control measures in order to eliminate crimes of fake viewership data thoroughly. Those systematic supporting measures include three aspects: First of all, the judiciary and scholars should reach a consensus on the necessity of criminal law intervention in the crime control of fake viewership data behaviors. Secondly, the exact meaning of those constitutive elements of crimes related to fake viewership data such as computer crimes, crimes against citizens’ personal information, crimes of illegal business operations and other related crimes should be clarified. Thirdly, we should improve the content of relevant laws, and formulate regulations specifically used to regulate fake viewership data behaviors.Intermediary fake viewership data can be divided into three types the “organizer”, the “identity thief” and the “reseller”. For the purpose of making profits, the organizers organized a large number of real users to fabricate Internet data such as “trade orders” “comments” or “data of views”. He should be investigated for criminal responsibility for the crime of illegal business when circumstances are serious. If he embezzles the personal identity information of others in the process of carrying out the above-mentioned acts, the “organizer” type will be transformed into “identity thief” type. In this circumstance perpetrator has simultaneously committed the crime of illegal business operation and the crime of destroying computer information system, which constitutes imaginative concurrence, and should be punished as a felony or the crime of destroying computer information system. However, the “resellers” who purchase live broadcast gifts and other virtual goods for secondary trading should not be recognized as a crime.
|
|
Received: 06 March 2022
|
|
|
|
1 陈兴良： 《教义刑法学》，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2010年。
2 鞠宏磊、李欢： 《程序化购买广告造假问题的主要类型及影响》，《编辑之友》2019年第1期，第61-64页。
3 王丽： 《流量经济背后的乱象》，《方圆》2020年第12期，第26-31页。
4 Kirk J.， “Click fraud botnet defrauds advertisers up to ＄6 million，” 2013-03-20， https：//www2.cio.com.au/article/456797/click_fraud_botnet_defrauds_advertisers_up_6_million/， 2022-03-06.
5 Stephenson P.， “Emerging products，” SC Magazine， Vol. 25， No. 11 （2014）， p. 45.
6 马少珍： 《流量造假现象分析》，《新闻研究导刊》2019年第3期，第92，131页。
7 栾轶玫： 《饭圈失范的表象及纠偏》，《人民论坛》2020年第26期，第136-139页。
8 高艳东、李莹： 《数据信用的刑法保护——以“流量黑灰产”为例》，《浙江大学学报（人文社会科学版）》2020年第3期，第63-78页。
9 颜君、董学敏： 《全国首例“暗刷流量”案履行完毕》，《人民法院报》2019年6月4日，第1版。
10 高铭暄、孙道萃： 《网络时代刑法解释的理论置评与体系进阶》，《法治研究》2021年第1期，第22-37页。
11 张明楷： 《增设新罪的观念——对积极刑法观的支持》，《现代法学》2020年第5期，第150-166页。
12 张明楷： 《刑法的格言展开》，北京：北京大学出版社，2014年。
13 付立庆： 《论积极主义刑法观》，《政法论坛》2019年第1期，第99-111页。
14 阎二鹏： 《干扰型破坏计算机信息系统罪的司法认定》，《中国刑事法杂志》2022年第3期，第122-137页。
15 尤青、高伟、石磊： 《〈李森、何利民、张锋勃等人破坏计算机信息系统案〉的理解与参照——干扰环境质量检测采样设备致使监测数据严重失真的司法认定》，《人民司法》2021年第17期，第101-104页。
16 王爱立主编： 《中华人民共和国刑法释义》，北京：法律出版社，2021年。
17 叶小琴、高彩云： 《破坏计算机信息系统行为的刑法认定——基于最高人民法院第104号指导性案例的展开》，《法律适用》2020年第14期，第3-14页。
18 崔洁、雒呈瑞： 《水军“刷好评”也会犯罪？》，《方圆》2017年第18期，第16-19页。
19 何邦武、杨庆楠： 《反向炒信行为非罪论》，《江西警察学院学报》2019年第5期，第97-102页。
20 张明楷： 《行为无价值论与结果无价值论》，北京：北京大学出版社，2012年。
21 鞠宏磊、李欢： 《程序化购买广告造假问题治理难点》，《中国出版》2019年第2期，第31-34页。
22 Hewett R. & Agarwal A.， “Protecting advertisers against click frauds，” Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering， Vol. 215 （2013）， pp. 61-69.
23 史亚娟： 《“流量经济”背后的灰产和黑产》，《检察风云》2019年第22期，第15-16页。 |
|
|
|
2023, Vol. 53 
