[雙語翻譯]隱私權(quán)外文翻譯--現(xiàn)代技術(shù)與隱私權(quán)保護面臨的挑戰(zhàn)

1、4600 英文單詞， 英文單詞，23500 英文字符，中文 英文字符，中文 7400 字文獻出處： 文獻出處：Stepanovic I. Modern technology and challenges to protection of the right to privacy[J]. Annals Fac.l.belgrade Intl Ed, 2014, 62(3):167-178.MODERN TECHNOLOGY AND CHA

2、LLENGES TO PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT TO PRIVACYIvana Stepanovi?The right to privacy is a fundamental human right and can be categorised as a first generation human right. However, it is one of the most controversial human

3、rights due to the fact that it is not properly defined. The development of technology has changed our understanding of privacy and shifted the boundary between private and public, which has resulted in confusion related

4、to the very meaning of privacy and made us question to what extent we should protect it anyway. Security issues continuously undermine the protection of privacy by imposing the need for more surveillance and control. Ins

5、tead of being considered as a natural right, the right to privacy is constantly being contested.In this paper it is analysed how new technologies altered our understanding of privacy and blurred the line between private

6、and public spaces, imposing many challenges to protection of the right to privacy. I argue that these challenges are caused by the lack of definition of privacy and propose that we should rethink the concept itself in or

7、der to create a new operative definition which would enable better protection of this fundamental human right which is one of the most important pillars of modern democratic society and protects individuals from despotic

8、 controlling powers.Key words: Privacy. – The Right to Privacy. – Technology. – Human Rights. – Security.1. INTRODUCTIONThe right to privacy is included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,1 International Covena

9、nt on Civil and Political Rights,2 and in the European Convention on Human Rights, but there are numerous controversies around the meaning of the notion itself, as well as the demarcation line between the private and pub

10、lic sphere. One of the main reasons for this confusion is the rapid development of modern technology which has caused a major shift in our understanding of the notion of privacy. It almost seems that nobody knows the mea

11、ning of the word and this has big repercussions in the sphere of law.The problem is not simply what does the word mean, but what does it mean to us. How much do we really care for privacy today? This issue is open to int

12、erpretation and sometimes debates arise even in courts when it gets difficult to make decisions just because parties disagree on the meaning and value of privacy. This fundamental human right constantly collides with the

13、 right to security and we are forced to choose sides and decide who is going to be the winner. While many think that the right to privacy should be defended as one of the pillars of democracy, others argue that privacy i

14、s overestimated since “we have nothing to hide”4 thereby legitimising the ever increasing surveillance and control conducted by the military, police, secret services and even banks, medical institutions and business corp

15、orations. Colin Bennett pointed a way out of this conundrum when he stated that there is no consensus on how to define the notion of privacy, but there is some sort of “common agreement” that every human being needs it t

16、o a certain extent. This is why the first task related to the protection of privacy should be accepting the arbitrariness connected to it and understanding it as a social construct, but also accepting it as something des

17、irable.knowing it. Common sense suggests that it is deeply immoral.What really seems worrying is the fact that surveillance is imperceptible, but not in the sense of Bentham’s invisible watcher. The “inspector” is replac

18、ed by spying devices such as mini flying cameras and radio frequency identification chips, of which we are not even aware of. In this sense, perhaps it is not just the government that poses a threat to our privacy. It se

19、ems that surveillance today is primarily linked to global capitalism, while in previous epochs it was performed mainly for the purpose of governmental control.In his book “The Transparent Society”, David Brin lists surve

20、illance gadgets that are not just used by the military, police and secret services, but are also available for civilians to use, such as infrared optics, camera robots and sound and video devices for indoor monitoring. I

21、n comparison to those devices, CCTV does not seem psychologically disturbing at all. Those small privacy intruders seem like an embodiment of Deleuze’s theory about a society of control in which everyone controls everyon

22、e and instead of only one big brother, there are millions of them. Invisible and uncontrollable, anarchistic surveillance is in this sense a real reason for paranoia. This invisible surveillance seems to be a by-product

23、of capitalism. Everything, even surveillance, is available for sale. To avoid such potential dangers of capitalism, there should be laws that can effectively prevent the abuse of technology.New technology also invites ma

24、ny other fears. One of them is that the machines will spin out of control and take over the world, just like in the film “The Matrix”. Other than that, there is a belief that people will begin to rely on machines to make

25、 decisions instead of them. Concerning privacy itself, there is a fear that surveillance systems will become so ubiquitous and unavoidable that individuals will not even have an opportunity to decide whether the data rec

26、orded on cameras can be used or not. Some theoreticians suggest that there is a big risk that “smart systems become black boxes, closed even to citizens who have the skills to understand them. Smart systems will make the

27、 world more transparent only if they themselves are transparent.” It is precisely the transparency of technology that must be provided in order to avoid the worst consequences of its development.In order to get rid of ou

28、r fears and restore the privacy that we have perhaps lost in the past decade, when all the major changes in the development of digital technology occurred, we must first acknowledge that technology itself is not the prob

29、lem, for it can be used in both a right and wrong way. We can say that “technology produces adverse consequences for the individual, in particular his right to private life, his human identity, his dignity and his autono

30、my.” Furthermore, there are several characteristics of technology that are a potential threat to human rights. Firstly, networks are enabling the free transit of personal data. Secondly, integrated services digital netwo

31、rks (ISDN) are ensuring the collection of data through telemetric means without the intervention of the individual. Accordingly, “there is a danger of the surveillance of citizens, cutting an individual out of the inform

32、ation circuit, collecting personal information without the knowledge of the subject, exploitation of those data for different purposes, and finally, there is also fear of increasing the powers of certain public and priva

33、te bodies in the absence of democratic controls.” Since there is not yet a proper way to protect human identity, dignity and privacy, we need some kind of principle-based approach to the application of information techno

34、logy to protect those values. Further development of technology can lead to even more severe intrusion into private life. Therefore, the problem must be solved legally and even on the constitutional level. Firstly, the p