The ethical dilemma of privacy - Michael Vazquez and Sarah Stroud

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Zoe Walmsley

For some reason, your otherwise peaceful planet

不知道為什麼，

你這個原本很平靜的星球

attracts the most reckless drivers in the galaxy.

吸引了銀河系中最魯莾的駕駛。

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

因此，你的政府推出一項計畫

來因應破天量的交通罰單 和懸浮車死亡事故。

of traffic tickets and deadly hovercar accidents.

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

他們提議給每位車主 一個「駕駛信用點數」。

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

駕駛開車時如果守法有禮， 點數就會上升，

and down when they drive recklessly.

如果開車魯莾不當，點數就會下降。

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

點數高的人可以得到和車相關的獎勵，

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

比如，申請汽車貸款更容易，

加油和過路費也比較便宜。

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

點數低的駕駛則得支付較高的價格。

Your planet's already tested this system,

你的星球在測試過這套新制後，

and researchers found a drastic decrease in car accidents

研究人員發現車禍 和魯莽駕車的行為都大大減少。

and inconsiderate driving.

But to implement this planet-wide,

但如果要把這套制度推廣到整個星球，

the government needs to observe every driver’s behavior.

政府就得監看每位駕駛的行為。

And because hover cars routinely drive off-road,

因為懸浮車通常會駛離道路上，

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

所以單單監視道路還不夠──

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

政府必須要在每輛車上 安裝攝影機和麥克風。

The recordings would be stored

所有的錄音錄影會被儲存在 政府的伺服器上，

on government servers to document driver behavior and justify scores.

以記錄駕駛行為並調整點數。

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

很明顯地，道路愈安全，人人都受益。

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

但這個不可否認的好處 值得用駕駛的隱私權去換嗎？

The government has put their controversial plan to a vote.

政府決定用投票的方式 來解決這個有爭議的計畫。

Where do you stand?

你會站在哪一邊？

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

你的答案可能會取決於 你怎麼看待隱私權的價值。

Philosophers often understand privacy as the ability to control information

哲學家對隱私權的定義是

掌控自身資訊的能力。

about oneself.

From this perspective, privacy matters

從這個角度來看，隱私權很重要，

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

因為它影響我們在社交環境如何自處，

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

公開自身資訊的時間點及多寡。

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

有些人認為這種掌控 對人身自由是不可或缺的，

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

因為，任何減少隱私權的政策 都會損害我們的自由。

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

比如，生活在監控國家中

很可能會影響你的行為，

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

即使沒有人用你的個資來對付你。

But in cases like your planet’s,

但是現在你的星球提議要做的

the conflict is between your own personal freedom

卻存在一個衝突── 你該選擇你個人的自由

and the good of the larger social world.

還是有利整個社會的益處？

And since society is really just a collection of individuals

而因為社會其實就是由個人所組成，

with their own rights,

人人都有權利，

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

那「集體利益」又該如何決定呢？

For the philosopher Plato, this was very straightforward.

對哲學家柏拉圖而言，答案非常直接。

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

他對正義的定義是整體社會的福利，

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

而不是其中個別成員的 身心健康或自由。

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

他喜歡用人體健康來做比喻。

where the condition of any single limb or organ matters only

任何肢體或器官出問題， 都應該被視為全身的一部分來看待。

as part of the bigger picture.

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

對柏拉圖而言，由個人 所組成的社會也是如此，

justice requires prioritizing the collective good

正義必須把集體的利益 放在個人的利益之上。

over their own individual good.

On the other hand, other philosophers have defended privacy

另一方面，也有其他 哲學家為隱私權辯護，

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

將之視為制衡專制的 安全國家的一個手段。

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

在現在這個例子中，你的政府 有可能會濫用這些監控資料。

But even if your government were perfectly trustworthy,

但就算你的政府百分之百值得信任，

some feel your right to privacy

有些人還是會覺得 隱私權是民主的重要基石。

would still be an essential cornerstone of democracy.

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

露絲‧蓋維森指出，

保護隱私能夠促進「道德自主性」，

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

而那正是人民行使民主權利時 不可缺少的一部分。

She maintains that democracy depends on people’s ability

她斷言，民主取決於人民形成 獨立判斷和偏好的能力，

to form independent judgments and preferences,

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

而這就需要

人民知道能免於大眾 集體敵意或羞辱的威脅。

or humiliation.

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

然而，也許值得想想看，

隱私權本身的價值何在。

in its own right.

If privacy is only instrumentally valuable—

如果隱私權僅有工具價值──

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

也就是說，隱私權的價值只在於

為社會大眾實現其他的價值──

for society—

then its worth can be outweighed by other social goals.

那麼，它的價值就不如 其他社會目標的價值高。

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

也或許我們的隱私權並非 以我們設想的方式存在。

in the way we think it does.

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

茱迪絲‧賈維斯‧湯姆遜認為 我們所謂的隱私權

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

其實只是把其他比較具體的 權利組合起來而已，

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

比如擁有財產的權利、 甚至是對身體的自主權。

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

根據此邏輯，

所有關於隱私權的爭辯 都應該重新聚焦在

那些真正會被危害的權利。

which are actually being compromised.

So is the safety afforded by this new system

所以，這個新體制帶來的安全

worth the cost to individual privacy?

值得用個人隱私為代價來換取嗎？

What will you do with your vote?

你會投給哪一方？