个人数据作为人权：基于数据主权、人性尊严和数据个人主义的新社会契约
Personal Data as a Human Right: A New Social Contract Based on Data Sovereignty, Human Dignity and Data Personalism
AI总结：
本文提出以数据主权、人性尊严和数据个人主义为基础的新社会契约，主张将个人数据视为人权而非中性输入，构建六维度治理架构以实现创新与人类福祉的平衡。
摘要：
在数据无处不在、平台主导和人工智能治理的时代，数字生活的社会契约越来越由少数私人行为体塑造，而非民主协商。本文提出以数据主权、人性尊严和数据个人主义为基础的尊严中心型数字社会契约：认为个人数据是承载权利的人的 emanations，应作为人权保护，而非中性输入或可交易的商品。基于社会契约理论和法律、伦理、经济、计算机科学、社会学和政治哲学等跨学科研究，我们诊断数据化基础设施和基于监控的商业模式如何将日常痕迹转化为档案、预测和大规模决策，集中信息权力并削弱同意、自主和公民信任。我们对比数据主义（一种以提取为导向的范式，将人简化为数据点，以预测和控制为目标）与人文主义（重新中心化人类主体和尊严的不可还原性）。我们随后围绕六个维度构建治理架构：（1）通过尊严设计实现的技术监督，（2）自动化限制和有意义的人类控制，（3）情境估值、再分配和激励，（4）政治-制度合法性与多主体治理，（5）社会文化凝聚力和数字公共领域，（6）法律-监管保障。该框架通过可审计工具（原则、不可协商的限制和DbD检查表）实现，旨在使创新与自主、平等和人类繁荣相一致。我们最后阐述开放问题和张力，以促进跨学科辩论并指导未来研究。
英文摘要：
In an era of ubiquitous data collection, platform dominance, and AI-mediated governance, the social contract of digital life is increasingly shaped by a few private actors rather than democratic deliberation. This paper advances a dignity-centric Digital Social Contract grounded in data sovereignty, human dignity, and data personalism: the view that personal data are rights-laden emanations of the person and should be protected as a human right, not treated as neutral inputs or tradable commodities. Drawing on social contract theory and interdisciplinary scholarship across law, ethics, economics, computer science, sociology, and political philosophy, we diagnose how datafied infrastructures and surveillance-based business models convert everyday traces into profiles, predictions, and consequential decisions at scale, concentrating informational power and weakening consent, autonomy, and civic trust. We contrast DatAIsm (an extractive paradigm reducing persons to datapoints, optimizing for prediction and control) with HumAIsm, which recenters the human subject and the irreducibility of dignity to mere calculation. We then articulate a governance architecture around six dimensions: (1) technological oversight through Dignity-by-Design, (2) limits to automation and meaningful human control, (3) contextual valuation, redistribution, and incentives, (4) political-institutional legitimacy and multi-actor governance, (5) sociocultural cohesion and the digital commons, and (6) legal-regulatory guarantees. The framework is operationalized through auditable tools (principles, non-negotiable limits, and DbD checklists) aimed at aligning innovation with autonomy, equality, and human flourishing. We conclude by articulating open questions and tensions to foster interdisciplinary debate and guide future research.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
