“信息隐私鸿沟”的伦理风险及应对  

Ethical Risks and Countermeasures of Informational Privacy Gap

作　　者：王娟[1,2] 秦庆[2,3] WANG Juan;QIN Qing(School of Literature and Communication,Chaohu University,Hefei 238002;Research Center for Science Communication,Chinese Academy of Sciences,Hefei 230026;School of Humanities and Social Sciences,University of Science and Technology of China,Hefei 230026,China)

机构地区：[1]巢湖学院文学与传媒学院,合肥238002 [2]中国科学院科学传播研究中心,合肥230026 [3]中国科学技术大学人文与社会科学学院,合肥230026

出　　处：《自然辩证法研究》2024年第3期90-96,共7页Studies in Dialectics of Nature

基　　金：2023年安徽省人文社科重点项目“智能传播时代安徽省新型主流媒体舆论引导力提升路径研究”(2023AH052076);巢湖学院科研启动项目“智能媒体伦理研究”(KYQD-202213);2022年江苏省“双创博士”项目(JSSCBS20221113)。

摘　　要：认识论范式下,“信息隐私鸿沟”指他者对个体的隐私认知增强引发的个体在信息隐私享有上“应然”与“实然”之间的差距。新兴科技“入侵式”的发展导致“信息隐私鸿沟”现象愈发明显,其可能引发的伦理风险有鸿沟异化破坏个体完整性、鸿沟极化加速社会分层、鸿沟“钙化”生成新式霸权、鸿沟积化引发生存危机。鉴于“信息隐私鸿沟”本质上是一种信任鸿沟,可以从伦理、技术、法律等方面着力,构建多重默认信任区域予以应对。Informational Privacy Gap(IPG)refers to the gap between"what it should be"and"what it really is"as for individuals having informational privacy,caused by the cognitive enhancement of knowing about one's privacy from the perspective of the epistemological paradigm.As new technologies evolve in an"invasive"way,IPG draws more attention,which may lead to ethical risks,such as gap alienation destroying individual integrity,gap polarization accelerating social stratification,gap"calcification"generating new hegemony,gap accumulation causing existential crisis.We suggest that we construct multiple default trust zones from the aspects of ethical,technological and lawful paths to tackle these problems since IPG can be regarded as a trust gap.

关 键 词：信息隐私 信息隐私鸿沟默认信任区域 

分 类 号：B82[哲学宗教—伦理学]