西方文明中的兩種隱私文化：尊嚴 VS 自由

Two Types of Privacy Culture in Western Civilization: Dignity VS liberty

隱私權倡導者經常聲稱現代社會對人類保護隱私的需要擁有共同的直覺上的需求。但很明顯，人們對隱私的敏感性根據個體所處社會的不同而不同，即使在美國和歐洲這兩個具有很多相似點的社會裡也是如此。這些不同之處有的涉及日常生活的行為，比如在公眾場合是否允許裸體問題，但更多的還是法律上的差異。事實上，我們正處於大西洋兩岸法律衝擊的中心－－這些衝擊中最突出的當數消費者數據保護的問題，民事訴訟程序中的證據問題，犯人的社會公開問題等。顯然，認為不同的社會存在著相同的關於隱私的直覺並且應該在此相同直覺的基礎上來建立隱私保護的普遍性法律規範是不正確的。本文探討了這些法律衝突並試圖闡明歐洲的隱私標準是建立在法德兩國「個人榮譽」理念之上的。歐洲隱私法和歐洲關於性騷擾的法律制度、監獄法及其他部門法一樣，以保護普通法國人和德國人的「個人榮譽」為目標。美國法則採用了另一種不同的方式來保護自由的利益。本文將法國和德國的觀念向前追溯到上幾個世紀，隨後本文討論了目前法國法和德國法中消費者信用報告制度，公開場所的裸體問題和姓名法問題，並且將其與美國法進行比較。本文討論了美國法對國家侵害行為的高度敏感性，而大陸法則對個人的公眾形象表現出莫大的關注。如果我們不捨棄絕大多數美國隱私權倡導者所採用的分析方法，那麼我們便無法理解大西洋兩岸存在的這些差異，因為這些差異和那些所謂的「普遍人格」需求無關。相反，這些不同點反應了美國法和大陸法在政治理念和社會理念上的不同。的確，我們應捨棄學述中的直觀主義，而應該更多地以社會和政治理念為中心。

Privacy advocates often like to claim that all modern societies feel the same intuitive need to protect privacy. Yet it is clear that intuitive sensibilities about privacy differ from society to society, even as between the closely kindred society of the United Sates and continental Europe. Some of the difference involve questions of everyday behaviour, such as whether or not one may appear nude in public. But many involve the law. In fact, we are in the midst of major legal conflicts over questions like the protection of consumer data, the use of discovery in civil procedure, the public exposure of criminal offenders and more. Clearly the idea that there are universal human sensibilities about privacy, which ought to serve as the basis of a universal law of privacy, cannot be right. This Article explores these conflicts, trying to show that European privacy norms are founded on French and German ideas of 'personal honor'. Continental 'privacy', like continental sexual harassment law, prison law, and many other bodies of law, aims to protect the 'personal honor' of ordinary French and German folk. American law takes a very different approach, protecting primarily a liberty interest. The Article traces the roots of French and German attitude over the last couple of centuries, highlighting the French experiences of sexual license in the nineteenth century and German experiences of sexual Nazism. The article then discusses the current state of French and German law with regard to matters such as consumer credit report, public nudity, and the law of baby names. It contrasts continental approaches to what we find in American law. Throughout, the article argues, American laws shows a far greater sensibility to intrusions on the part of the state while continental law shows a far greater sensibility to the protection of one's public face. These are not differences that we can understand unless we abandon the approach taken by most privacy advocates since such difference have little to do with the supposedly universal intuitive needs of 'personhood'. Instead, they are differences that reflect the contrasting political and social ideal of American and continental law. Indeed, we should broadly reject intuitionism in our legal scholarship, focusing instead on social and political ideals.