网络信息技术和云存储技术的迅猛发展，使得跨境网络犯罪的形势变得严峻，而在打击网络犯罪中如何跨境调取电子数据是其中的关键一环。对于电子数据跨境刑事取证，近些年各国都在进行积极地布局和实践，根据自身的利益和立场作出符合本国的制度安排。结合我国和世界上主流的取证规则来看，电子数据跨境刑事取证制度的研究，可以从对外调取和应对他国调取两个角度出发。执法机构在向境外调取电子数据时，存在着三种主要模式，其中电子数据跨境取证的传统司法协助方式，由于程序复杂，运行缓慢，无法适应电子数据的易变性和不稳定的特征，同时被请求国的执法机关由于技术所限和法律适用不同缺乏有效地获取电子数据的能力，数据存储地址的不确定更为司法互助的申请带来障碍；而网络侦查技术的单边取证方式，向第三方主体直接取证方式尤其是向网络服务提供者直接获取证据这两种取证方式，虽然满足了现实的执法需求，但是往往绕过他国主权跨越数据存储地，有违他国的网络主权观念，容易引发政治风险，也影响了证据的可采性。另外，面对他国调取数据时，严格的限制流动降低了取证效率，不利于各国合力打击犯罪。

        针对电子数据跨境刑事取证制度的现状和困境，国际社会都进行了新的探索。其中，为了快速高效地调取他国的电子数据，美国通过数据的网络服务提供者加大对电子数据的调取力度，欧盟又在此基础上扩张了数据控制者的边界，将有目的地提供服务的网络提供商都纳入到电子取证的范围。反过来，在应对他国调取本土数据时，美国虽然给“适格外国政府”创设了对等的权利，但进行严格审查和控制，进一步保护了本土数据；而欧盟在数据流动上进行分类管理，对于个人数据灵活处理的同时对于非个人数据畅通其流通渠道，避免了过度保护。此外，多边条约在网络服务提供者数据披露制度上也有了最新的发展。

        面对国内外现状，我国也应该站在我国立场和全球视角下完善我国的电子数据跨境刑事取证体系，促进联合国达成一个具有普遍性的国际性公约。在调取存储于他国的电子数据时，通过优化司法合作路径，规范网络侦查技术措施，并适当探索向网络服务提供者获取电子数据，从而打通电子数据跨境取证的各种途径，满足我国的司法需求，提升跨境执法的效率，并缓解各国的网络主权冲突，这样一来，才能有效地打击网络犯罪，促进司法合作。而对于境外执法机关、司法机关调取存储于我国境内电子数据的情况，我国原则上应当要求外国通过司法协助的方式提出请求并予以审查和执行，对外国的单边取证方式和向网络服务者调取方式，则采取被动地防御姿态，确立数据本地化存储的同时明确数据出境的安全评估机制，严格限制电子数据流出我国境内。此外，在面对他国调取电子数据时，除了坚持数据本地化存储，还应对电子数据流动进行分类治理，并建立数据披露制度，促进数据的交流互动。

      The rapid development of network information technology and cloud storage technology has made the situation of cross-border cybercrime serious, and how to retrieve electronic data across borders is a key part of the fight against cybercrime. For cross-border criminal evidence collection of electronic data, in recent years, countries have been actively deploying and practicing, making institutional arrangements in line with their own interests and positions. Combining with the mainstream evidence collection rules in our country and the world, the research on the cross-border criminal evidence collection system of electronic data can start from two perspectives: external retrieval and response to other countries' retrieval. When law enforcement agencies collect electronic data from overseas, there are three main modes. Among them, the traditional judicial assistance method for cross-border evidence collection of electronic data cannot adapt to the volatility and instability of electronic data due to complicated procedures and slow operation. At the same time, the law enforcement agencies of the requested country lack the ability to effectively obtain electronic data due to technical limitations and different legal applications, and the uncertainty of the data storage address brings more obstacles to the application of mutual judicial assistance; Although the two methods of unilateral evidence collection method of network investigation technology and obtaining evidence directly from third-party subjects, especially from network service providers, meet the actual needs of law enforcement, they often bypass the sovereignty of other countries and cross the data storage place, which violate the concept of network sovereignty in other countries. They are easy to cause political risks and affect the admissibility of evidence. In addition, when facing data from other countries, strict restrictions on the flow reduce the efficiency of evidence collection and are not conducive to the joint efforts of countries to fight crime.

      In response to the current situation and dilemma of the cross-border criminal evidence collection system on electronic data, the international community has carried out new explorations. Among them, in order to quickly and efficiently retrieve electronic data from other countries, the United States has increased its efforts to retrieve electronic data through data network service providers. On this basis, the EU has expanded the boundaries of data controllers and will provide targeted Network providers of services are included in the scope of electronic evidence collection. Conversely, when dealing with the acquisition of local data by other countries, although the United States has created equal rights for "qualified foreign governments", it conducts strict review and control to further protect local data; while the EU conducts classification management on data flow, while flexibly processing personal data, it opens up circulation channels for non-personal data and avoids excessive protection. In addition, multilateral treaties have also seen recent developments in the data disclosure system of network service providers.

      In the face of the current status of the study across the country and abroad, our country should also stand in our country's position and global perspective to improve our country's cross-border criminal evidence collection system of electronic data, and promote the United Nations to reach a universal international convention. When retrieving electronic data stored in other countries, by optimizing the path of judicial cooperation, standardizing technical measures for network investigation, and properly exploring the acquisition of electronic data from network service providers, various channels for cross-border evidence collection of electronic data can be opened to meet our country's judicial needs, improve the efficiency of cross-border law enforcement, and ease the conflict of cyber sovereignty among countries. Only in this way can we effectively combat cybercrime, and promote judicial cooperation. For overseas law enforcement and judicial authorities to retrieve electronic data stored in our country, our country should, in principle, require foreign countries to submit requests through judicial assistance, and review and implement the requests. Our country takes a passive defensive stance in the unilateral way of obtaining evidence from foreign countries and the way of obtaining evidence from network service providers. Moreover, our country establishes localized data storage and clarifies the security assessment mechanism for data export, and strictly restricts the flow of electronic data out of our country. What's more, in the face of retrieving electronic data from other countries, in addition to insisting on localized storage of data, the flow of electronic data should also be classified and managed, and a data disclosure system should be established to promote data exchange and interaction.