| Annotation |
The purpose of the article is to conceptualize the changes that are taking place in the perception of information
privacy in today’s digital society. The relevance of the work is due to the development of modern information
and communication technologies, the global spread of which changes the attitude towards the security
of personal data. To analyze the problems associated with the rethinking of the phenomenon of privacy in the
modern digital age, a systematic approach is used, as well as methods of historical analysis, hermeneutic and
logical methods. The phenomenon of the privacy paradox is described, which lies in the fact that, despite the fact
that many users express concern about the safety of their personal information, they are not ready to give up the
benefi ts that the use of new technologies gives them. Doubts are increasingly being expressed about the fundamental
possibility of controlling the dissemination of personal information, since the life of an individual becomes
transparent to both government agencies and commercial structures. As a result of the development of digital
technologies and the associated possibilities for collecting, storing and processing information, an argument is
put forward that privacy, in the form in which it existed before, is an outdated concept. The fi ndings suggest that
since it is impossible to control access to personal data, claims to privacy should be abandoned altogether. The
changes taking place in modern society are refl ected in the term “post-privacy”, which describes a situation in
which information privacy is no longer perceived as a value that requires protection. In a rapidly developing digital
environment, further research into the problem of post-privacy is of particular importance. |
| References |
1. Naumann, B. Privatheit – das Obscure Objekt. In: Figurationen. Gender. Literatur. Kultur (hrsg. von
B. Naumann). Köln: Böhlau, 2018. Pp. 7–12. (In Germ.)
2. Habermas, J. Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit. Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen
Gesellschaft. Fr. а. M: Suhrkamp Verlag, 2021. (In Germ.)
3. Khodus, E. V. Privacy as the conventional concept: to the rationalization of the research strategy. Scientifi
c-theoretical almanac “Grani”, no. 10, pp. 30–37, 2016. (In Rus.)
4. Hahn, K., Koppetsch, C. Zur Soziologie des Privaten. Einleitung. In: Soziologie des Privaten (hrsg. von
K. Hahn, C. Koppetsch). Wiesbaden: Springer, 2011. Pp. 7–16. (In Germ.).
5. Chesnokova, L. V. Individualized society as a sociocultural foundation of privacy. Ideas and Ideals,
vol. 11, issue 3, part 2, pp. 375–289, 2019. DOI: 10.17212/2075-08622019-11.3.2-375-389. (In Rus.)
6. Longman. Dictionary of English Language and Culture. Edinburgh: Longman, 1998. (In Engl.)
7. Warren, S. D., Brandeis, L. D. The Right to Privacy. In: Philosophical Dimensions of Privacy: An Anthology
(ed. by F. Schoeman). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Pp. 75–104. (In Engl.)
8. Hagendorf, T. Post-Privacy oder der Verlust der Informationskontrolle. In: Privatsphähre 4.0. Eine Neuverortung
des Privaten im Zeitalter der Digitalisierung (hrsg. von H. Berendt, W. Loh). Berlin, Metzler, 2019.
Pp. 91–106. (In Germ.).
9. Westin, A. Privacy and Freedom. New York: Atheneum, 1967. (In Engl.)
10. Schirmmeister, C. Geheimnisse. Über die Ambivalenz von Wissen und Nicht-Wissen. Wiesbaden: DUV,
2004. (In Germ.)
11. Rössler, B. Der Wert des Privaten. Fr. a. M: Suhrkamp, 2001. (In Germ.)
12. Ritter, M. Die Dynamik von Privatheit und Öffentlichkeit in modernen Gesellschaften. Wiesbaden: VS
Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2008. (In Germ.)
13. Fried, Ch. Privacy (A moral analysis). Philosophical Dimensions for Privacy: An Anthology. Ed. by
F. D. Schoeman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Pp. 203–222. (In Engl.)
14. Rössler, B. Privatheit und Autonomie: zum individuellen und gesellschaftlichen Wert des Privaten. In:
Die Grenzen des Privaten (hrsg. von S. Seubert, P. Niessen). Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2019. Pp. 41–55. (In
Germ.)
15. Rössler, B. Autonomie. Ein Versuch über das gelungene Leben. Berlin: Suhrkamp, 2018. (In Germ.)
16. Benn, S. Privacy, freedom and respect for persons. In: Philosophical Dimensions for Privacy: An Anthology.
Ed. by F. D. Schoeman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Pp. 223–244. (In Engl.)
17. Gavison, R. Privacy and the limits of law. In: Philosophical Dimensions for Privacy: An Anthology. Ed. by
F. D. Schoeman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Pp. 346–402. (In Engl.)
18. Bloustein, E. I. Privacy as an aspect of human dignity. An Answer to Dean Prosser. In: Philosophical
Dimensions for Privacy: An Antholog y. Ed. by F. D. Schoeman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Pp. 156–202. (In Engl.)
19. Drozdova, A. V. The Dichotomy of public/private in the new media space. Changing Societies & Personalities,
no. 4, pp. 441–456, 2020. (In Engl.).
20. Debatin, B., Lovejoy, J. P., Horn, M. A., Hughes B. M. Facebook and Online Privacy: Attitudes, Behaviors,
and Unintended Consequences. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, vol. 15, pp. 83–108,
2009. (In Engl.)
21. Chesnokova, L. V. Blurring the line between publicity and privacy on social media and the privacy paradox.
Philosophical Problems of IT & Cyberspace, no. 2, pp. 22–38, 2021. DOI: 10.17726/philIT.2021.2.2 (In Rus.)
22. Barnes, S. B. A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States. First Monday, no. 9, 2006.
Web. 15.05.2022. http://fi rst-monday. org/article/view/1394/1312. (In Engl.)
23. Aseeva. I. A. The problem of privacy in the digital age. Scientifi c research: yearbook, pp. 36–50, 2020.
DOI: 10.31249/scis/2020.00.03. (In Rus.)
24. Enserink, M., Chin, G, The end of privacy. Science, vol. 347, pp. 490–491, 2015.Web. 15.05.2022.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.347.6221.490 (In Engl.)
25. Heller, Ch. Post-Privacy. Prima leben ohne Privatsphäre. München: Beck, 2011. (In Germ.) |
