社交媒体平台上自杀风险检测系统的法律、伦理和更广泛的影响。

IF 2.5 2区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Journal of Law and the Biosciences Pub Date : 2021-07-15 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1093/jlb/lsab021
Karen L Celedonia, Marcelo Corrales Compagnucci, Timo Minssen, Michael Lowery Wilson
{"title":"社交媒体平台上自杀风险检测系统的法律、伦理和更广泛的影响。","authors":"Karen L Celedonia,&nbsp;Marcelo Corrales Compagnucci,&nbsp;Timo Minssen,&nbsp;Michael Lowery Wilson","doi":"10.1093/jlb/lsab021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Suicide remains a problem of public health importance worldwide. Cognizant of the emerging links between social media use and suicide, social media platforms, such as Facebook, have developed automated algorithms to detect suicidal behavior. While seemingly a well-intentioned adjunct to public health, there are several ethical and legal concerns to this approach. For example, the role of consent to use individual data in this manner has only been given cursory attention. Social media users may not even be aware that their social media posts, movements, and Internet searches are being analyzed by non-health professionals, who have the decision-making ability to involve law enforcement upon suspicion of potential self-harm. Failure to obtain such consent presents privacy risks and can lead to exposure and wider potential harms. We argue that Facebook's practices in this area should be subject to well-established protocols. These should resemble those utilized in the field of human subjects research, which upholds standardized, agreed-upon, and well-recognized ethical practices based on generations of precedent. Prior to collecting sensitive data from social media users, an ethical review process should be carried out. The fiduciary framework seems to resonate with the emergent roles and obligations of social media platforms to accept more responsibility for the content being shared.</p>","PeriodicalId":56266,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and the Biosciences","volume":"8 1","pages":"lsab021"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/cf/1f/lsab021.PMC8284882.pdf","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Legal, ethical, and wider implications of suicide risk detection systems in social media platforms.\",\"authors\":\"Karen L Celedonia,&nbsp;Marcelo Corrales Compagnucci,&nbsp;Timo Minssen,&nbsp;Michael Lowery Wilson\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jlb/lsab021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Suicide remains a problem of public health importance worldwide. Cognizant of the emerging links between social media use and suicide, social media platforms, such as Facebook, have developed automated algorithms to detect suicidal behavior. While seemingly a well-intentioned adjunct to public health, there are several ethical and legal concerns to this approach. For example, the role of consent to use individual data in this manner has only been given cursory attention. Social media users may not even be aware that their social media posts, movements, and Internet searches are being analyzed by non-health professionals, who have the decision-making ability to involve law enforcement upon suspicion of potential self-harm. Failure to obtain such consent presents privacy risks and can lead to exposure and wider potential harms. We argue that Facebook's practices in this area should be subject to well-established protocols. These should resemble those utilized in the field of human subjects research, which upholds standardized, agreed-upon, and well-recognized ethical practices based on generations of precedent. Prior to collecting sensitive data from social media users, an ethical review process should be carried out. The fiduciary framework seems to resonate with the emergent roles and obligations of social media platforms to accept more responsibility for the content being shared.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56266,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Law and the Biosciences\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"lsab021\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/cf/1f/lsab021.PMC8284882.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Law and the Biosciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsab021\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Law and the Biosciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsab021","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

自杀仍然是世界范围内一个重要的公共卫生问题。意识到社交媒体使用与自杀之间的联系,Facebook等社交媒体平台开发了自动算法来检测自杀行为。虽然这种方法似乎是出于善意的公共卫生辅助手段,但在伦理和法律上存在一些问题。例如,同意以这种方式使用个人数据的作用只是得到了粗略的关注。社交媒体用户甚至可能没有意识到,他们的社交媒体帖子、活动和互联网搜索正在被非卫生专业人员分析,这些非卫生专业人员有能力在怀疑潜在的自我伤害时让执法部门参与决策。未能获得这种同意会带来隐私风险,并可能导致暴露和更广泛的潜在危害。我们认为,Facebook在这一领域的做法应该遵循完善的协议。这些应该类似于在人类受试者研究领域中使用的那些方法,这些方法基于几代人的先例,坚持标准化、商定和公认的伦理实践。在收集社交媒体用户的敏感数据之前,应该进行道德审查过程。信托框架似乎与社交媒体平台的新兴角色和义务产生了共鸣,社交媒体平台需要对所分享的内容承担更多责任。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Legal, ethical, and wider implications of suicide risk detection systems in social media platforms.

Suicide remains a problem of public health importance worldwide. Cognizant of the emerging links between social media use and suicide, social media platforms, such as Facebook, have developed automated algorithms to detect suicidal behavior. While seemingly a well-intentioned adjunct to public health, there are several ethical and legal concerns to this approach. For example, the role of consent to use individual data in this manner has only been given cursory attention. Social media users may not even be aware that their social media posts, movements, and Internet searches are being analyzed by non-health professionals, who have the decision-making ability to involve law enforcement upon suspicion of potential self-harm. Failure to obtain such consent presents privacy risks and can lead to exposure and wider potential harms. We argue that Facebook's practices in this area should be subject to well-established protocols. These should resemble those utilized in the field of human subjects research, which upholds standardized, agreed-upon, and well-recognized ethical practices based on generations of precedent. Prior to collecting sensitive data from social media users, an ethical review process should be carried out. The fiduciary framework seems to resonate with the emergent roles and obligations of social media platforms to accept more responsibility for the content being shared.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Law and the Biosciences
Journal of Law and the Biosciences Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
5.90%
发文量
35
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Law and the Biosciences (JLB) is the first fully Open Access peer-reviewed legal journal focused on the advances at the intersection of law and the biosciences. A co-venture between Duke University, Harvard University Law School, and Stanford University, and published by Oxford University Press, this open access, online, and interdisciplinary academic journal publishes cutting-edge scholarship in this important new field. The Journal contains original and response articles, essays, and commentaries on a wide range of topics, including bioethics, neuroethics, genetics, reproductive technologies, stem cells, enhancement, patent law, and food and drug regulation. JLB is published as one volume with three issues per year with new articles posted online on an ongoing basis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信