The ethical dilemma of privacy - Michael Vazquez and Sarah Stroud

Prevodilac: Milenka Okuka Lektor: Ivana Korom

For some reason, your otherwise peaceful planet

Iz nekog razloga, vaša inače mirna planeta

attracts the most reckless drivers in the galaxy.

privlači najneodgovornije vozače u galaksiji.

So your government has introduced a plan to address the record-breaking rates

Stoga je vaša vlada predstavila plan za borbu protiv rekordnih stopa

of traffic tickets and deadly hovercar accidents.

saobraćajnih kazni i smrtonosnih nesreća sa lebdećim automobilima.

They propose assigning driver credit scores to every car-owning citizen.

Predlažu dodelu kreditnih ocena za vozače svakom građaninu koji poseduje auto.

Drivers’ scores will go up when they drive in legal and considerate ways,

Ocene će vozačima rasti kada voze legalno i savesno,

and down when they drive recklessly.

a padaće kada voze neodgovorno.

Citizens with high scores will then be rewarded with car-related benefits,

Građani sa visokim ocenama će biti nagrađivani pogodnostima u vezi sa autima,

like easier access to car loans and cheaper gas and toll payments.

poput lakšeg dobijanja auto kredita, jeftinijeg goriva ili plaćene putarine.

But drivers with low scores will see the price of those things go up.

Vozačima pak sa niskim ocenama će ove cene da budu više.

Your planet's already tested this system,

Vaša planeta je već testirala ovaj sistem,

and researchers found a drastic decrease in car accidents

i istraživači su otkrili drastičan pad u saobraćajnim nesrećama

and inconsiderate driving.

i nesavesnoj vožnji.

But to implement this planet-wide,

Međutim, kako bi ovo primenili na nivou celokupne planete,

the government needs to observe every driver’s behavior.

vlada mora da posmatra ponašanje svakog vozača.

And because hover cars routinely drive off-road,

A kako lebdeći automobili rutinski voze izvan puteva,

it won’t be enough simply to surveil the roads—

neće biti dovoljno da se prosto nadgledaju putevi -

the government will need to install cameras and microphones in every vehicle.

vlada će morati da ugradi kamere i mikrofone u svako vozilo.

The recordings would be stored

Snimci će biti uskladišteni na vladinim serverima

on government servers to document driver behavior and justify scores.

kako bi beležili ponašanje vozača i pravdali ocene.

Clearly it would be good for everyone if the roads were safer.

Očito bi bezbedniji putevi bili dobri za svakoga.

But is this undeniable benefit worth the cost to drivers’ privacy?

Međutim, da li je ova nesporna dobit vredna cene privatnosti vozača?

The government has put their controversial plan to a vote.

Vlada je stavila svoj kontroverzni plan na glasanje.

Where do you stand?

Koje je vaše stanovište?

Your answer will likely depend on what you think the value of privacy is.

Vaš odgovor će verovatno zavisiti od toga koliko cenite privatnost.

Philosophers often understand privacy as the ability to control information

Filozofi često razumeju privatnost kao mogućnost kontrolisanja informacija

about oneself.

o sebi.

From this perspective, privacy matters

Iz ove perspektive, privatnost je važna

because it impacts how each of us navigates the social world,

jer utiče na to kako se svako od nas snalazi u društvenom svetu,

deciding when and to what extent to be in the public eye.

donoseći odluku kada i do koje mere da bude u žiži javnosti.

Some think this kind of control is essential to being free,

Neki smatraju da je ovaj vid kontrole krucijalan za slobodu,

and that any policy which reduces privacy therefore impairs our freedom.

i da svaki zakon koji umanjuje privatnost samim tim osujećuje našu slobodu.

For example, living in a surveillance state would likely affect your actions

Na primer, život u državi nadzora bi verovatno uticao na vaše postupke,

even if no one was using your private information against you.

čak i ako niko ne bi koristio vaše privatne informacije protiv vas.

But in cases like your planet’s,

Međutim, u slučaju poput onog na vašoj planeti,

the conflict is between your own personal freedom

konflikt je između vaše lične slobode

and the good of the larger social world.

i dobrobiti šireg društva.

And since society is really just a collection of individuals

A kako je društvo zaista samo skup pojedinaca

with their own rights,

sa ličnim pravima,

how can we determine what the “greater good” even is?

kako možemo da utvrdimo šta je uopšte „više dobro”?

For the philosopher Plato, this was very straightforward.

Za filozofa Platona, ovo je bilo prilično jednostavno.

He defined justice as referring to the welfare of society as a whole—

Definisao je pravdu kao nešto što se odnosi na dobrobit celokupnog društva -

not the well-being or liberty of its individual members.

a ne kao blagostanje ili slobodu njegovih pojedinačnih članova.

He likened this to the way we talk about the health of a human body,

Poredio je to sa načinom na koji govorimo o zdravlju ljudskog tela,

where the condition of any single limb or organ matters only

gde je stanje bilo kog uda ili organa važno jedino

as part of the bigger picture.

kao deo šire slike.

For Plato, the same is true of individual members of society;

Prema Platonu, isto važi i za pojedinačne članove društva;

justice requires prioritizing the collective good

pravda zahteva stavljanje u prvi plan kolektivnog dobra

over their own individual good.

iznad dobra pojedinca.

On the other hand, other philosophers have defended privacy

S druge strane, drugi filozofi su branili privatnost

as a means of moderating the “tyrannical excesses of an unchecked security state.”

kao način ograničavanja „tiranskih ispada nekontrolisane države bezbednosti.”

In the present case, your government could misuse this surveillance data.

U trenutnom slučaju, vaša vlada bi mogla da zloupotrebi podatke nadziranja.

But even if your government were perfectly trustworthy,

Međutim, čak i da se vašoj vladi može u potpunosti verovati,

some feel your right to privacy

neki smatraju da bi vaše pravo na privatnost

would still be an essential cornerstone of democracy.

i dalje bilo ključni oslonac za demokratiju.

Ruth Gavison notes that the protection of privacy fosters “moral autonomy,”

Rut Gavison primećuje da zaštita privatnosti podstiče „moralnu autonomiju”,

which she argues is necessary for people to exercise their democratic rights.

za koju ona tvrdi da je nužna da bi ljudi ispoljavali demokratska prava.

She maintains that democracy depends on people’s ability

Smatra da demokratija zavisi od sposobnosti ljudi

to form independent judgments and preferences,

da obrazuju nezavisne sudove i sklonosti,

and this requires knowing that we're free from the threat of public hostility

a ovo zahteva svest da smo slobodni od pretnji javne netrpeljivosti

or humiliation.

ili poniženja.

However, perhaps it’s worth questioning whether privacy is really valuable

Međutim, možda vredi preispitati da li je privatnost zaista važna

in its own right.

sama po sebi.

If privacy is only instrumentally valuable—

Ukoliko je privatnost važna jedino instrumentalno -

meaning valuable to the extent that it brings about other valuable things

u smislu da je važna samo kao preduslov za druge važne stvari

for society—

za društvo -

then its worth can be outweighed by other social goals.

onda kod njene važnosti mogu prevagnuti drugi društveni ciljevi.

It’s also possible that our right to privacy doesn’t even exist

Takođe je moguće da naše pravo na privatnost uopšte ne postoji

in the way we think it does.

onako kako mislimo da postoji.

Judith Jarvis Thomson argues that our so-called right to privacy

Džudit Džarvis Tomson tvrdi da je naše takozvano pravo na privatnost

is really just a combination of other, more specific rights,

uistinu samo kombinacija drugih, specifičnijih prava,

like the right to own property or to use our bodies as we see fit.

poput prava na ličnu svojinu ili da koristimo naša tela po svom nahođenju.

By this logic, all debates over privacy should be refocused on the rights

Prema ovoj logici, sve rasprave o privatnosti treba preusmeriti na prava

which are actually being compromised.

koja su zapravo ugrožena.

So is the safety afforded by this new system

Dakle, da li je bezbednost koju nudi ovaj novi sistem

worth the cost to individual privacy?

vredna cene individualne privatnosti?

What will you do with your vote?

Kako ćete da glasate?