The ethical dilemma of privacy - Michael Vazquez and Sarah Stroud

翻译人员: Dayou He 校对人员: Sammi Wang

For some reason, your otherwise peaceful planet

基于某种原因，

你们这个原本和平的星球吸引了 银河系中最鲁莽的司机

attracts the most reckless drivers in the galaxy.

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

因此，你们的政府推出了一项计划

以解决破纪录的交通罚单

of traffic tickets and deadly hovercar accidents.

和致命的悬浮车事故

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

他们建议为每一位司机设置驾驶员信用分数

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

当驾驶员合法驾驶并考虑周全时， 他们的信用分数就会提升

and down when they drive recklessly.

而当他们鲁莽驾驶时，信用分数就会下降

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

信用分数高的公民将获得驾驶相关的福利

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

比如更易于获得汽车贷款、 更便宜的汽油费和过路费等

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

但分数低的驾驶者将看到这些物品价格的上调

Your planet's already tested this system,

你们的星球已经测试了这个系统，

and researchers found a drastic decrease in car accidents

研究人员发现

车祸和不文明驾驶现象大幅减少

and inconsiderate driving.

But to implement this planet-wide,

但要在整个星球范围内实施

the government needs to observe every driver’s behavior.

政府需要观察每个驾驶员的行为

And because hover cars routinely drive off-road,

由于悬浮汽车经常在道路以外行驶

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

仅仅监控道路是远不够的

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

政府需要在每辆车上安装摄像头和麦克风。

The recordings would be stored

这些记录将存储在政府服务器上以 记录驾驶员的行为

on government servers to document driver behavior and justify scores.

并为信用评分提供依据

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

显然，如果道路更加安全，这对每个人都有好处

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

但是，这种不可否认的好处值得 以牺牲司机的隐私为代价吗？

The government has put their controversial plan to a vote.

政府已将他们备受争议的计划付诸表决

Where do you stand?

你所持的立场是什么？

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

你的答案可能取决于你对隐私价值的态度

Philosophers often understand privacy as the ability to control information

哲学家通常将隐私理解为 掌控个人信息的能力

about oneself.

From this perspective, privacy matters

从这个角度看，隐私之所以重要

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

因为它影响着我们每个人在社交中的定位

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

决定我们何时以及多大程度出现在公众视野中

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

有些人认为，这种掌控能力是自由的必要条件

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

因此任何牺牲隐私的政策 都会损害我们的自由

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

例如，生活在监控状态下可能会影响你的行为

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

即使并没有人利用你的私人信息针对你

But in cases like your planet’s,

但像你们星球这样的情况

the conflict is between your own personal freedom

冲突存在于个人自由与社会大环境的利益之间

and the good of the larger social world.

And since society is really just a collection of individuals

既然社会实际上只是拥有 各自权利个人的集合

with their own rights,

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

那么我们如何确定什么是 “更大的利益 ”呢？

For the philosopher Plato, this was very straightforward.

对哲学家柏拉图来说，这个问题非常简单

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

他将正义定义为整个社会的福祉

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

而非社会个体成员的福祉或自由

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

他把这比作我们谈论人体健康的方式

where the condition of any single limb or organ matters only

任何躯体或器官的状况都 只是人体健康的一部分

as part of the bigger picture.

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

在柏拉图看来，社会中的个体成员也是如此

justice requires prioritizing the collective good

正义要求将集体利益置于个人利益之上

over their own individual good.

On the other hand, other philosophers have defended privacy

另一方面，其他哲学家则捍卫隐私权

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

将其作为缓和 “不受约束的安全国家暴虐过度 ” 的一种手段

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

在目前的情况下，贵国政府可能会滥用这些监控数据

But even if your government were perfectly trustworthy,

但是，即使你们的政府完全值得信赖

some feel your right to privacy

有些人认为你们的隐私权仍然是民主的重要基石

would still be an essential cornerstone of democracy.

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

露丝· 加维森指出，保护隐私能促进 “道德自主”

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

她认为这是人们行使民主权利的必要条件

She maintains that democracy depends on people’s ability

她认为民主取决于人们形成独立判断和偏好的能力

to form independent judgments and preferences,

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

而这需要我们知道自己已摆脱公众敌意或羞辱的威胁

or humiliation.

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

然而，也许值得质疑的是，隐私本身是否真的有价值

in its own right.

If privacy is only instrumentally valuable—

如果隐私只具有工具的价值

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

也就是说其价值在于它能为社会带来 其他有价值的东西

for society—

then its worth can be outweighed by other social goals.

那么它的价值就会被其他社会目标所抵消

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

我们的隐私权甚至可能并不像 我们想象的那样存在

in the way we think it does.

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

朱迪斯 · 贾维斯 · 汤姆森认为我们所谓的隐私权

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

其实只是其他更具体权利的组合

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

比如拥有财产的权利或 随意使用身体的权利

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

按照这种逻辑，所有关于隐私权的争论 都应该重新聚焦于

那些实际受到损害的权利

which are actually being compromised.

So is the safety afforded by this new system

那么，这个新系统所提供的安全

worth the cost to individual privacy?

是否值得以牺牲个人隐私为代价呢？

What will you do with your vote?

你将如何抉择？