隐私的辩证:被遗忘还是被观望?

The Dialectics of Privacy:To Be Forgotten or to Be Watched?

隐私涉及人们不愿让步的具体利益,单方赋予删除权可能刺激市场入侵,增加交易成本,并引发社会歧视。隐私诉求是包含着许多微观动机的宏观行为,不探明隐私背后的真实原因,一味强化隐私,不过是走向吁求的反面。被遗忘权也许限制了人际隐私侵犯,但因为隐私的消极自由性质,结果不可避免地强化政府监控权力。隐私具有高度情境性,鼓励封闭的被遗忘权将悖论式地导致隐私焦虑。数字隐私的辩证在于,主动袒露击败窥视欲,并有利于营造良好自我形象。被遗忘权的修辞掩盖了邻居深渊的潜意识,并使一个高度感情化的问题进一步情绪化。数字隐私具有不可预测性与无从防范性,过度保护隐私不仅无济于事,而且可能引发史翠珊效应。对于数字隐私保护,具体规定优于一揽子政策,事后救济优于事先防范,顺其自然优于步步惊心,鼓励人们培养动态身份意识优于鼓励人们封闭自己。

Privacy involves concrete interests that people do not compromise. Asymmetrically endowing people with the right to delete stimulates the market investigation, increases the cost of transactions, and exacerbates social discrimination. Privacy is a macrobehavior led by all kinds of different micromotives. Without ascertaining the real motives behind privacy and over emphasizing privacy protection will lead to the opposite. The right to be forgotten might limits the interpersonal privacy violation, but because privacy is a negative freedom, the right to be forgotten enhances the government surveillance power. Privacy is highly situational, and the right to be forgotten that en- courages concealment triggers anxiety. The dialectics of digital privacy is that exhibitionism defeats voyeurism and enables a better self-image. The rhetoric of the right to be forgotten hides the subcon- scious of the abyss of the Neighbor, and makes an emotional issue more emotional. Digital privacy risk is unpreventable and unpredictable, overprotecting privacy will lead to Streisand Effect. To pro- tect digital privacy, letting nature take its course is better than being scared by imaginary risks; re- lief afterwards is better than prevention beforehand; a norm that cultivates the right to a dynamic i- dentity is better than a law that encourages more closure.