Wanting Privacy, Posting Anyway
既要隱私，又非貼文不可
By Kate Murphy

Imagine a world suddenly devoid of doors. The controlling authorities say if you aren’t doing anything wrong, then you shouldn’t mind. That’s essentially the state of affairs on the Internet. There is no privacy.
試想，有個世界突然沒有了門。管制當局說，如果你沒在做壞事，就不該在意。那基本上就是網路的現況。沒有隱私可言。

Increasingly, people are coming to understand how their online data might be used against them. You might not get a job, a loan or a date because of an indiscreet tweet. But less obvious is the psychic toll.
如今人們日益明白，他們的線上資料可能如何被用來傷害自己。你可能因為一則輕率的推特發文就找不到工作、貸不到款或約不到意中人。而不那麼明顯的是，精神上的傷害。

“With all the focus on the legal aspects of privacy and the impact on global trade there’s been little discussion of why you want privacy and why it’s intrinsically important to you as an individual,” said Adam Joinson, professor of the University of the West of England in Bristol.
布里斯托市西英格蘭大學的喬因森說：「現在焦點全集中在隱私的法律面及對全球商務的影響，幾乎沒有人討論你為何想要隱私，以及何以你身為一個人，隱私本質上就很重要。」

Perhaps that’s because there is no agreement over what constitutes private information. It varies among cultures, genders and individuals. Moreover, it’s hard to argue for the value of privacy when people eagerly share so much personal information.
也許，那是因為，世人對於哪些算是隱私資訊意見不一。不同的文化、性別及個人，對此都有不同看法。此外，當人們熱中於上網分享那麼多個資時，你很難主張隱私具有高度價值。

But the history of privacy is one of status. Those who are institutionalized for criminal behavior or ill health, children and the impoverished have less privacy than those who are upstanding, healthy, mature and wealthy.
實則隱私的歷史是部地位史。因犯罪或患病而被留置收容在特定處所者、兒童及窮人，享有的隱私都不如正直者、健康者、成人及富人。

“The implication is that if you don’t have it, you haven’t earned the right or aren’t capable or trustworthy,” said Christena Nippert-Eng of the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago.
芝加哥伊利諾理工學院的尼波特-恩格教授說：「言外之意是，如果你沒有隱私，表示你尚未掙到隱私權，或者能力不足、不值得信賴。」

So it’s not surprising that privacy research in both online and offline environments has shown that just the perception, let alone the reality, of being watched results in feelings of low self-esteem, depression and anxiety. Whether observed by a supervisor at work or Facebook friends, people are inclined to conform and demonstrate less individuality. Their performance of tasks suffers and they have elevated levels of stress hormones.
因此，並不令人意外的，線上及離線環境中的隱私研究都顯示，覺得被人觀看會讓人自尊低落、沮喪及焦慮，實際被人觀看更不在話下。無論是在職場上司或臉書朋友注視下，人們都傾向不要與眾不同，展現較少的個性。這時工作表現會受影響，壓力荷爾蒙值會提高。

A three-year German study ending in 2012 showed that the more people disclosed about themselves on social media, the more privacy they said they desired. The lead author of the study, Sabine Trepte of the University of Hohenheim in Stuttgart, said the paradox indicated participants’ dissatisfaction with what they got in return for giving away so much about themselves.
一項為期三年、在2012年結束的德國研究顯示，人們在社群網站透露自己越多事，對隱私的要求程度就越高。這項研究的主要作者、斯圖加特市霍恩海姆大學的莎賓娜．特萊皮特說，這項弔詭顯示，參與者不滿自己透露了那麼多事，換得的卻不夠多。

“It’s a bad deal because what they get is mainly informational support like maybe a tip for a restaurant or link to an article,” she said. “What they don’t get is the kind of emotional and instrumental support that leads to well-being, like a shoulder to cry on or someone who will sit by your bedside at the hospital.”
她說：「這交易不划算，因為他們得到的主要是是資訊支援，可能像是餐館情報或一篇文章的連結。他們並未得到導致幸福的那種情緒和工具性支援，例如一付可以靠著哭泣的肩膀，或某個將在醫院裡坐在你床邊的人。」

And yet, she added, they continued to participate because they were afraid of being left out or judged by others as unplugged and unengaged losers. So the cycle continued.
她接著說，可是人們還是繼續在網上吐露自我，惟恐被遺漏，或被人判定是離群索居、無所事事的「魯蛇」。因此這種循環繼續下去。

“There’s also this idea in our society that if I just embarrass myself enough I can be the next Snooki or Kardashian,” said Anita L. Allen, a professor of law and philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. “There’s a real financial incentive to not care and give it all up.”
賓州大學法學院法律及哲學教授安妮塔．L．艾倫說：「我們的社會還有這個觀念：如果把自己搞得夠糗，我可能是下一個（因真人實境節目而名利雙收的話題女星）史諾基或金卡黛珊。其中有實際的金錢誘因，讓人不在乎隱私且把個資全都露。」

The problem is that if you reveal everything about yourself or it’s discoverable with a Google search, you may be diminished in your capacity for intimacy. This goes back to social penetration theory, one of the most cited and experimentally validated explanations of human connection. Developed by Irwin Altman and Dalmas A. Taylor in the 1970s, the theory holds that relationships develop through gradual and mutual self-disclosure of increasingly private and sensitive personal information.
問題是，如果你透露自己的所有資訊，或你的資訊全都可Google到，可能會削弱自己建立親密關係的能力。這可以回溯到社會滲透理論，即最常被人引用、且經實驗證實的有關人際連結的解釋之一。這套理論1970年代由社會學家阿特曼及泰勒提出，說的是人們透過相互透露越來越多私人及敏感個資，逐步建立親密關係。

“Building and maintaining an enduring, intimate relationship is a process of privacy regulation,” said Dr. Altman, now an emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Utah. “It’s about opening and closing boundaries to maintain individual identity but also demonstrate unity with another, and if there are violations then the relationship is threatened.”
目前擔任猶他大學心理學榮譽教授的阿特曼博士說：「建立及維持一份持久的親密關係，是一個調整隱私的過程。過程中要開啟及關閉各種界線，以維持個人的身分，但也同時展現與對方的聯合，如果這過程受到侵害，這種關係就受到威脅。」

But privacy researchers said they are starting to see signs of a backlash. People are beginning to exercise a bit more reserve online or are otherwise engaging in subversive tactics to thwart data miners. Such small acts of defiance might include setting up multiple fake identities and not “liking” anything on Facebook or following anyone on Twitter, making their social networks and preferences harder to track.
但隱私研究人員說，他們開始看到反挫的跡象。人們在線上變得較為保留，要不就是使出一些破壞策略，阻撓數據探勘人員。這類小規模反抗行動可能包括設立好幾個假身分、在臉書上不對任何內容按讚，或是在推特上不追蹤任何人，讓人難以循線了解自己的社會網絡及偏好。

Professor Nippert-Eng said, “When people want privacy there’s often this idea that, ‘Oh, they are hiding something dirty,’ but they are really just trying to hold onto themselves.”
尼波特-恩格說：「人們希望擁有隱私時，總有人臆測：『喔，他們正在掩飾什麼齷齪事』，其實他們要的真的只是掌握自我。」

原文參照：
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/05/sunday-review/we-want-privacy-but-cant-stop-sharing.html

2014-11-04聯合報/G9版/UNITEDDAILYNEWS 馮克芸譯 原文參見紐時週報十一版右