新网络安全态势下网络安全治理体系的再调整
Re-adjustment of the Cybersecurity Governance System under the New Network Security Situation
网络安全态势因快速迭代的数字技术进程而呈现复杂多变的发展特征。尽管《网络安全法》已于2025年部分修订,但这并非网络安全治理体系优化的“终点”。作为治理对象和治理工具的人工智能技术使得网络安全态势发生变化,既有网络安全体系与网络安全态势在治理逻辑、治理工具及治理机制层面存在不适配问题。由于这些变化并未整体性变革网络安全态势,回应方式应以“制度细化”代替“专门立法”。在绝对安全无法实现已成共识的当下,需调适网络安全治理理念:区分人工智能引发的网络安全风险和技术滥用产生的衍生风险,并在敏捷治理和协同治理理论指引下,确保网络安全治理体系具备灵活性和可延展性。具体而言,网络安全治理体系应完成治理主体、治理目的和治理工具三个层面的调整,从传统意义上的治理主体各自履行法定义务转向特定场景下不同治理主体相互配合治理。
Cybersecurity posture exhibits complex and dynamic development characteristics driven by the rapidly iterative progress of digital technologies. Although the Cybersecurity Law was partially amended in 2025, this does not mark the "endpoint" of the optimization of the cybersecurity governance system. As both a governance object and a governance tool, artificial intelligence has reshaped the cybersecurity posture, giving rise to mismatches between the existing cybersecurity system and the current cybersecurity posture in terms of governance logic, governance tools and mechanisms. Since these changes have not fundamentally transformed the nature of cybersecurity posture, the response should prioritize "system refinement" over "dedicated legislation". Against the current backdrop where the infeasibility of achieving absolute security has become a broad consensus, the concept of cybersecurity governance needs to be adjusted: cybersecurity risks induced by artificial intelligence should be distinguished from derivative risks arising from technology abuse, and under the guidance of agile and collaborative governance theories, the cybersecurity governance system should be endowed with flexibility and scalability. Specifically, the cybersecurity governance system needs to undergo adjustments at three levels: governance subjects, governance objectives, and governance tools, shifting from the traditional paradigm, where each governance subject independently fulfills statutory obligations, to a model where different governance subjects collaborate for governance in specific scenarios.
| [1] |
韩陆超, 贾梦培. 生成式人工智能赋能网络安全: 挑战与机遇[J]. 科学管理研究, 2025, 43(6): 93-99. |
| [2] |
贾焰, 方滨兴, 李爱平, |
| [3] |
杨楠. 人工智能时代的国家信息战——以美俄信息战为例[J]. 俄罗斯东欧中亚研究, 2025(4): 112-134+165. |
| [4] |
赵精武. 人工智能治理中的技术自主权[J]. 中国社会科学院大学学报, 2025, 45(1): 94-112+154-155. |
| [5] |
赵中华, 张倩. 走出“科林格里奇困境”: 生成式人工智能的风险表征及治理探索[J]. 大连理工大学学报(社会科学版), 2025, 46(4): 8-15. |
| [6] |
孙宇, 王红杰, 杜彦辉. 人工智能安全标准化综述[J/OL]. 指挥与控制学报, 1-15[2026-02-08]. DOI: 10.20278/j.jc2.2096-0204.2025.0066. |
| [7] |
刘邦奇, 黄倩倩, 张金霞. GenAI教育应用伦理风险多主体协同治理框架及实践策略[J]. 现代远程教育研究, 2025, 37(5): 48-58. |
| [8] |
世界经济论坛官网. 白皮书: 敏捷治理——在第四次工业革命中重新思考政策制定[EB/OL]. (2018-04-24)[2026-01-07]. https://www.weforum.org/publications/agile-governance-reimagining-policy-making-in-the-fourth-industrial-revolution/. |
| [9] |
刘洋溪. 迈向敏捷治理: 教育数据治理的风险识别与优化路径[J]. 华中师范大学学报(人文社会科学版), 2024, 63(6): 154-164. |
| [10] |
郑煌杰. AIGC赋能新质生产力的数据风险及其敏捷治理[J]. 河海大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2024, 26(4): 89-102. |
| [11] |
Melaku, |
| [12] |
范玉吉, 张潇. 数据安全治理的模式变迁、选择与进路[J]. 电子政务, 2022(4): 114-124. |
| [13] |
宋瑞娟. 大数据时代我国网络安全治理: 特征、挑战及应对[J]. 中州学刊, 2021(11): 162-167. |
| [14] |
张宇帆. 论人工智能政策与法律协同治理[J]. 东方法学, 2024(5): 187-200. |
| [15] |
张敏, 王玥. 美国“受控非秘信息”协同治理路径及对我国“重要数据”立法的启示[J]. 情报理论与实践, 2022, 45(10): 36-44. |
| [16] |
文新良. 数智化时代网络舆情风险的四维生态及其协同治理[J]. 吉首大学学报(社会科学版), 2025, 46(5): 117-124. |
| [17] |
田少帅. 数字经济背景下元宇宙空间的法律治理[J]. 北方法学, 2024, 18(5): 131-145. |
| [18] |
危红波. 我国数字社会风险治理责任分配[J]. 学术交流, 2021(10): 130-143. |
| [19] |
林伟. 人工智能数据安全风险及应对[J]. 情报杂志, 2022, 41(10): 105-111+88. |
| [20] |
张荣刚, 李英楠. 数字社会网络犯罪协同治理模式转型与优化进路[J]. 河南财经政法大学学报, 2025, 40(4): 114-127. |
| [21] |
赵精武. 个人信息保护合规审计的基本框架与制度衔接[J]. 法律科学(西北政法大学学报), 2025, 43(3): 83-97. |
| [22] |
詹海宝, 孙江, 郭梦圆. 基于人机协同的网络文化安全治理新模式[J]. 传媒, 2023(15): 75-77. |
| [23] |
季雨洁. 安全化理论视角下的印度人工智能发展探析[J]. 印度洋经济体研究, 2025(6): 69-98+172. |
| [24] |
周瑞珏. 数据泄露风险治理中网络安全保险的介入路径[J]. 北方法学, 2024, 18(2): 76-90. |
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |