So when the White House was built in the early 19th century, it was an open house. Neighbors came and went. Under President Adams, a local dentist happened by. He wanted to shake the President's hand. The President dismissed the Secretary of State, whom he was conferring with, and asked the dentist if he would remove a tooth. Later, in the 1850s, under President Pierce, he was known to have remarked — probably the only thing he's known for — when a neighbor passed by and said, "I'd love to see the beautiful house," and Pierce said to him, "Why my dear sir, of course you may come in. This isn't my house. It is the people's house."
白宫在19世纪早期刚刚被建好的时候 是一个开放的建筑。 附近的人会来参观。亚当斯总统执政期间 一个当地的牙医来到白宫 他想跟总统握手 总统当时正在和国务卿谈话 他让国务卿先离开,然后问那个牙医 可不可以帮他拔牙 到了19世纪50年代,皮尔斯总统执政期间 他说过一句非常有名的话 ——大概也是他说过的唯一一句名言 一个当地人路过白宫时感慨说,“我真想参观一下 这栋漂亮的房子。” 皮尔斯总统对他说 为什么不呢,先生,你当然可以进来 这不是我的房子。这是人民的房子
Well, when I got to the White House in the beginning of 2009, at the start of the Obama Administration, the White House was anything but open. Bomb blast curtains covered my windows. We were running Windows 2000. Social media were blocked at the firewall. We didn't have a blog, let alone a dozen twitter accounts like we have today. I came in to become the head of Open Government, to take the values and the practices of transparency, participation and collaboration, and instill them into the way that we work, to open up government, to work with people.
但是,当我2009年初 奥巴执政初期来到白宫的时候 这个地方却一点也不开放 窗户前装着厚厚的防爆窗帘 电脑里运行的还是windows 2000 防火墙屏蔽了所有的社交媒体 我们没有博客,更别谈twitter账号了。 直到今天都是如此。 我负责的“开放政府”计划 高度重视透明度, 参与度和合作性,将这些理念 灌输到我们工作中,以此来使政府变得开放 与民众协同工作
Now one of the things that we know is that companies are very good at getting people to work together in teams and in networks to make very complex products, like cars and computers, and the more complex the products are a society creates, the more successful the society is over time. Companies make goods, but governments, they make public goods. They work on the cure for cancer and educating our children and making roads, but we don't have institutions that are particularly good at this kind of complexity. We don't have institutions that are good at bringing our talents to bear, at working with us in this kind of open and collaborative way.
当前我们都知道 商业公司很擅长让员工 以小组或类似网络的方式来生产 非常复杂的产品,例如汽车和电脑 并且一个社会能制造的产品越复杂 社会生产就越成功 商业公司制造产品 而政府制造公共品,政府致力于治疗癌症 教育儿童,修建道路 可惜的是,我们没有 能够很好地处理这其中的复杂关系的机构。 我们没有这样的机构,去发挥人才的能力 让他们在开放与合作的环境下跟我们一起工作
So when we wanted to create our Open Government policy, what did we do? We wanted, naturally, to ask public sector employees how we should open up government. Turns out that had never been done before. We wanted to ask members of the public to help us come up with a policy, not after the fact, commenting on a rule after it's written, the way is typically the case, but in advance. There was no legal precedent, no cultural precedent, no technical way of doing this. In fact, many people told us it was illegal.
所以,当我们想要建立一个开放政府政策的时候 首先要知道我们已经做了什么。我们询问 公共部门的雇员,要怎样做才能开放我们的政府 结果发现我们从未在这方面下过功夫 我们希望向公众寻求帮助 一同构建这样的开放政策,而不是像以前一样 由我们制定规则,再让公众进行评论 这种做法在法律上和文化上 都没有先例,也没有技术支持 实际上,许多人告诉我们这样做是不合法的
Here's the crux of the obstacle. Governments exist to channel the flow of two things, really, values and expertise to and from government and to and from citizens to the end of making decisions. But the way that our institutions are designed, in our rather 18th-century, centralized model, is to channel the flow of values through voting, once every four years, once every two years, at best, once a year. This is a rather anemic and thin way, in this era of social media, for us to actually express our values. Today we have technology that lets us express ourselves a great deal, perhaps a little too much.
这是最主要的障碍 政府的存在实际上是为了引导两样事物 那就是政府和公民之间 不断相互交换的价值观和专业技能来做决定 但是我们的政府机构现有的运作方式 仍是18世纪的集权模式 它通过投票来汇聚价值观 四年一次,两年一次,或者最多一年一次 在社会媒体如此发达的今天,以这样的方式 来表达我们的价值观实在是太薄弱无力了 现代科技使我们可以很好的表达自己 甚至有时候还会太随心所欲了
Then in the 19th century, we layer on the concept of bureaucracy and the administrative state to help us govern complex and large societies. But we've centralized these bureaucracies. We've entrenched them. And we know that the smartest person always works for someone else. We need to only look around this room to know that expertise and intelligence is widely distributed in society, and not limited simply to our institutions.
19世纪时,人们坚信 官僚主义和行政国家可以帮助我们 管理好复杂而庞大的社会 但当我们集中化这样的官僚主义 使其根深蒂固后 才发现聪明的人总是在为别人工作 看看在座的各位我们就知道 专家和智者是广泛地分布于社会当中的 而不仅仅存在于我们的政府机构里
Scientists have been studying in recent years the phenomenon that they often describe as flow, that the design of our systems, whether natural or social, channel the flow of whatever runs through them. So a river is designed to channel the flow of water, and the lightning bolt that comes out of a cloud channels the flow of electricity, and a leaf is designed to channel the flow of nutrients to the tree, sometimes even having to route around an obstacle, but to get that nutrition flowing. The same can be said for our social systems, for our systems of government, where, at the very least, flow offers us a helpful metaphor for understanding what the problem is, what's really broken, and the urgent need that we have, that we all feel today, to redesign the flow of our institutions.
科学家近年来做了一些研究 他们提出了“流”这个概念 他们认为我们的体系,无论是自然的还是社会的 都会引导通过它的“流”的改变 就如河可以引导水流 闪电可以引导电流 树叶则可以引导 树木中营养的流向 即使有时候需要绕过一些障碍 仍然在引导营养物质不停地流动 我们的社会体系和政府体系也是一样 在这里 “流”这个简单明了的比喻 可以帮助我们理解真正的问题所在 使我们发现重新设计 政府机构中“流”的必要性
We live in a Cambrian era of big data, of social networks, and we have this opportunity to redesign these institutions that are actually quite recent. Think about it: What other business do you know, what other sector of the economy, and especially one as big as the public sector, that doesn't seek to reinvent its business model on a regular basis? Sure, we invest plenty in innovation. We invest in broadband and science education and science grants, but we invest far too little in reinventing and redesigning the institutions that we have.
我们生活在一个信息和社交网络突然大爆炸的年代 所以直到最近我们才真正有这样的机会 来重新设计我们的政府机构 想想看,在其他你所熟知的行业里 在经济的其他板块,尤其是和公共经济一样大的板块 有哪一个不是在不断地 创新自己的商业模式? 确实,我们在创新上投资的不少 我们提高网络速度,强调科学教育,进行学术拨款 但是在政府机构的重塑和创新上 我们做得还太少太少
Now, it's very easy to complain, of course, about partisan politics and entrenched bureaucracy, and we love to complain about government. It's a perennial pastime, especially around election time, but the world is complex. We soon will have 10 billion people, many of whom will lack basic resources. So complain as we might, what actually can replace what we have today? What comes the day after the Arab Spring?
人们很容易去抱怨 党派政治和官僚主义,也很喜欢抱怨政府 这几乎成了人们茶余饭后的娱乐活动 在选举期间更是如此 但这个世界是很复杂的,很快我们就将达到100亿人口 这其中很多人缺乏基本的资源 我们可以抱怨,但我们更该想想 该怎样去改变现状? “阿拉伯之春”之后又会发生什么?
Well, one attractive alternative that obviously presents itself to us is that of networks. Right? Networks like Facebook and Twitter. They're lean. They're mean. You've got 3,000 employees at Facebook governing 900 million inhabitants. We might even call them citizens, because they've recently risen up to fight against legislative incursion, and the citizens of these networks work together to serve each other in great ways. But private communities, private, corporate, privatizing communities, are not bottom-up democracies. They cannot replace government. Friending someone on Facebook is not complex enough to do the hard work of you and I collaborating with each other and doing the hard work of governance. But social media do teach us something. Why is Twitter so successful? Because it opens up its platform. It opens up the API to allow hundreds of thousands of new applications to be built on top of it, so that we can read and process information in new and exciting ways. We need to think about how to open up the API of government, and the way that we're going to do that, the next great superpower is going to be the one who can successfully combine the hierarchy of institution -- because we have to maintain those public values, we have to coordinate the flow -- but with the diversity and the pulsating life and the chaos and the excitement of networks, all of us working together to build these new innovations on top of our institutions, to engage in the practice of governance.
当然,还有一个明显很吸引人的选择 那就是网络。是不是? 例如facebook和twitter之类的网络做着面对任何挑战的准备。 facebook有3000名员工 却要管理9亿用户 我们甚至应该把他们称作“网络公民” 因为他们最近联合起来反对政府的行政干预 而且这些公民利用网络 以不同的方式进行合作,互助互利 但是这种相互写作的私人化的社区 并不是自下而上的民主 它并不能取代政府 在facebook上加个好友并不能 取代你和我现在共同努力所做的工作 并不能教会你怎么管理人民 但社交媒体确实给我们很大的启示 为什么推特这么成功?因为它开放了一个平台 它开放了一个应用程序市场 使成百上千的新应用能够以此为基础进行运作 使我们能够以新的方式来阅读和处理信息 我们需要思考如何开放政府机构的“应用平台” 以及这个平台上的运作方式 如果哪个国家能将 政府机构的层级模式—— 因为我们仍然需要维持公共价值观 需要引导“流”的动向—— 与生动多样的生活和新奇刺激的网络结合起来 所有人同心协力将这样的创新应用到 我们的政府机构和管理方式中 一定能称为全球下一个超级大国
We have a precedent for this. Good old Henry II here, in the 12th century, invented the jury. Powerful, practical, palpable model for handing power from government to citizens. Today we have the opportunity, and we have the imperative, to create thousands of new ways of interconnecting between networks and institutions, thousands of new kinds of juries: the citizen jury, the Carrotmob, the hackathon, we are just beginning to invent the models by which we can cocreate the process of governance.
历史上就有这样的先例,12世纪时 亨利二世发明了陪审团 这是一种将权力由政府下放到公民 非常有力且可行的模式 现在我们有机会 也有迫切的需求,构建上千种新的方式 将网络与政府机构联系起来 创造上千种全新的“陪审团” 有民众陪审团,也有“胡萝卜暴民”和“编程马拉松”这样的活动 我们正在开始创造使人们可以共同 进行管理的新模式
Now, we don't fully have a picture of what this will look like yet, but we're seeing pockets of evolution emerging all around us -- maybe not even evolution, I'd even start to call it a revolution -- in the way that we govern. Some of it's very high-tech, and some of it is extremely low-tech, such as the project that MKSS is running in Rajasthan, India, where they take the spending data of the state and paint it on 100,000 village walls, and then invite the villagers to come and comment who is on the government payroll, who's actually died, what are the bridges that have been built to nowhere, and to work together through civic engagement to save real money and participate and have access to that budget.
我们现在还不知道这个宏伟的蓝图具体是什么样子 但在我们身边已经有了一些 关于管理方式的进展,我甚至觉得 这不仅仅应该叫做“进展”,而应该叫做“革新” 有些科技含量很高, 有些则使用非常原始的方式 例如在印度的拉贾斯坦邦 工农权利组织(MKSS)将政府开支 贴在10万多个村庄的墙上 邀请村民来进行评判 谁可以继续留下来吃公家饭?谁应该收拾东西走人? 那个花了几百万也没建好的桥又是怎么回事? 这样做不仅节省了政府开支 还使民众能够真正地参与到预算的制定过程中
But it's not just about policing government. It's also about creating government. Spacehive in the U.K. is engaging in crowd-funding, getting you and me to raise the money to build the goalposts and the park benches that will actually allow us to deliver better services in our communities. No one is better at this activity of actually getting us to engage in delivering services, sometimes where none exist, than Ushahidi. Created after the post-election riots in Kenya in 2008, this crisis-mapping website and community is actually able to crowdsource and target the delivery of better rescue services to people trapped under the rubble, whether it's after the earthquakes in Haiti, or more recently in Italy. And the Red Cross too is training volunteers and Twitter is certifying them, not simply to supplement existing government institutions, but in many cases, to replace them.
不仅是政府政策的制定 政府的建设也是同样的道理 英国的Spacehive网站通过网上集资 让居民能够根据自己的意愿 选择为一个小足球场或是公园里的长椅投资 从而加强社区内的设施和服务 在向缺乏资源和服务的地区提供帮助这方面 做得最好的 莫过于Ushahidi这个开源软件了 它诞生于2008年肯尼亚大选后的暴乱时期 这个以危机地图为特点的网络社区 能够以众包的方式 对处于困境中的人们提供帮助 它在海地震后救灾以及最近意大利的森林火灾中 都功不可没 现在,红十字会也在训练志愿者 并在推特上对他们进行认证 他们不是作为政府机构的补充而是要取代政府的一部分职能
Now what we're seeing lots of examples of, obviously, is the opening up of government data, not enough examples of this yet, but we're starting to see this practice of people creating and generating innovative applications on top of government data. There's so many examples I could have picked, and I selected this one of Jon Bon Jovi. Some of you may or may not know that he runs a soup kitchen in New Jersey, where he caters to and serves the homeless and particularly homeless veterans. In February, he approached the White House, and said, "I would like to fund a prize to create scalable national applications, apps, that will help not only the homeless but those who deliver services [to] them to do so better." February 2012 to June of 2012, the finalists are announced in the competition. Can you imagine, in the bureaucratic world of yesteryear, getting anything done in a four-month period of time? You can barely fill out the forms in that amount of time, let alone generate real, palpable innovations that improve people's lives.
现在,我们已经看了很多 开放政府讯息的例子 现在我们再来看看 人们在政府信息平台的基础上 创造并运作新应用的例子 我有很多例子可以选择 但我想讲讲 Jon Bon Jovi 你们可能有人也听说过,他在新泽西开了一家“心灵厨房” 专为无家可归的流浪者提供食物 尤其是那些流浪的老兵 今年二月,他来到白宫 他说道“我想出资以创建具有扩展性的应用程序, 即能协助无家可归者, 亦能协助服务者以让他们表现的更好。” 於2012年2月至6月, 其比赛的入围者已公布 你能想象吗?去年,在官僚主义的世界里 他们在四个月的期间内完成该做的事! 你仅仅能在同样的时间内填写表格 更别提创建一个改善人民生活的 真正与明确的革新
And I want to be clear to mention that this open government revolution is not about privatizing government, because in many cases what it can do when we have the will to do so is to deliver more progressive and better policy than the regulations and the legislative and litigation-oriented strategies by which we make policy today. In the State of Texas, they regulate 515 professions, from well-driller to florist. Now, you can carry a gun into a church in Dallas, but do not make a flower arrangement without a license, because that will land you in jail. So what is Texas doing? They're asking you and me, using online policy wikis, to help not simply get rid of burdensome regulations that impede entrepreneurship, but to replace those regulations with more innovative alternatives, sometimes using transparency in the creation of new iPhone apps that will allows us both to protect consumers and the public and to encourage economic development.
我想明确地声明其开放政府革命 并不是私有化的政府 因为在诸多情况下,当我们有意愿完成这些事时, 我们会提交 比我们目前政策中的 规范和立法与以诉讼为导向的策略 一个更进取与更优秀的政策 在德克萨斯州 ,他们监管515种行业 从钻井员工到花商 目前,你能够带枪进入达拉斯的教堂 但若没有许可证,你无法进行插花行为 因为这将使你入狱 所以,德克萨斯怎么做?他们要求我们 用网上的政策百科不仅摆脱 阻碍企业发展的繁琐条文, 而且用更创新的规章来代替, 有时新应用开发的透明度 会使得我们 不仅保护消费者和公众 也能激励经济发展
That is a nice sideline of open government. It's not only the benefits that we've talked about with regard to development. It's the economic benefits and the job creation that's coming from this open innovation work. Sberbank, the largest and oldest bank in Russia, largely owned by the Russian government, has started practicing crowdsourcing, engaging its employees and citizens in the public in developing innovations. Last year they saved a billion dollars, 30 billion rubles, from open innovation, and they're pushing radically the extension of crowdsourcing, not only from banking, but into the public sector. And we see lots of examples of these innovators using open government data, not simply to make apps, but then to make companies and to hire people to build them working with the government.
这是对于开放政府是个不错的副业 它不仅有利于我们谈论到的发展 而且谈论到这方面的开放创新工作时 有利于经济和创造就业 作为俄罗斯最大最古老的俄罗斯联邦储蓄银行 它主要归俄罗斯政府所有 开始实践众包这种方式, 鼓励员工和市民创新 去年他们从开放创新中 省下了10亿美元,即300亿卢布,并且他们很激进的推进 众包的范围,不仅限于银行 还有公共部门 我们看到很多这样创新者用开放政府数据的例子, 不仅用了开发应用, 而且用来开公司, 雇员工来与政府合作
So a lot of these innovations are local. In San Ramon, California, they published an iPhone app in which they allow you or me to say we are certified CPR-trained, and then when someone has a heart attack, a notification goes out so that you can rush over to the person over here and deliver CPR. The victim who receives bystander CPR is more than twice as likely to survive. "There is a hero in all of us," is their slogan.
所以很多创新者都是本地的 在加州的圣拉蒙,有人开发了一个iphone应用 允许我们上传CPR训练的认证, 并且有人突发心脏病时, 就会有消息推送给你 这样你就可以赶过去进行CPR 接受CPR的病人 有两倍的机会存活下来 他们的口号是“我们身边就有英雄”
But it's not limited to the local. British Columbia, Canada, is publishing a catalogue of all the ways that its residents and citizens can engage with the state in the cocreation of governance.
但对于地区来说并没有受到限制 加拿大的英属哥伦比亚发布了一个目录 目录里包含了居民和市民可以参与的 州发起的政府创新。
Let me be very clear, and perhaps controversial, that open government is not about transparent government. Simply throwing data over the transom doesn't change how government works. It doesn't get anybody to do anything with that data to change lives, to solve problems, and it doesn't change government. What it does is it creates an adversarial relationship between civil society and government over the control and ownership of information. And transparency, by itself, is not reducing the flow of money into politics, and arguably, it's not even producing accountability as well as it might if we took the next step of combining participation and collaboration with transparency to transform how we work.
我要澄清一点 这可能会引起争议 那就是“政府开放”并不是 等同于“政府工作透明” 简单的把数据公开并没有改变 政府的工作方式 仅仅是做到透明并不能让任何人利用这些数据 来解决问题,这也不能使政府 发生改变 它所做的是在公民社会和政府之间 围绕着对信息的所有权和使用权的争夺 创造出一种相互敌对的关系。 并且透明化本身并不减少政治的经济成本 一个尚有争议的观点是 它甚至不会如预期的那样明确政府的责任, 除非我们通过接下来要提到的方式携手合作 并结合透明性来革新我们工作的协同方式。
We're going to see this evolution really in two phases, I think. The first phase of the open government revolution is delivering better information from the crowd into the center. Starting in 2005, and this is how this open government work in the U.S. really got started, I was teaching a patent law class to my students and explaining to them how a single person in the bureaucracy has the power to make a decision about which patent application becomes the next patent, and therefore monopolizes for 20 years the rights over an entire field of inventive activity. Well, what did we do? We said, we can make a website, we can make an expert network, a social network, that would connect the network to the institution to allow scientists and technologists to get better information to the patent office to aid in making those decisions. We piloted the work in the U.S. and the U.K. and Japan and Australia, and now I'm pleased to report that the United States Patent Office will be rolling out universal, complete, and total openness, so that all patent applications will now be open for citizen participation, beginning this year.
我想我们将会看到这个革命将会有两个阶段, 开放政府革命的第一阶段 是从公众传递更好的信息 到中心。 从2005年开始,在美国 这也是开放政府如何真正开始的 当时我给学生们教专利法 并解释在官僚主义里的个人 如何有权利做 那个专利应用成为专利的决定 并在整个创造性活动的领域内 能单独拥有20年的权利 那我们怎么做?我们说可以做网站 做一个专家的网络,社会的网络 把机构连接到网络上 使得科学家和科技家们能 得到更好的专利局的消息 来帮助做出这些决定 我们在美国,英国,日本和澳大利亚开展了这个工作, 现在我很高兴的宣布 美国专利局将会变得 全球化,全面化和全面的开放, 今年开始,所有的专利申请将会对 市民开放参与。
The second phase of this evolution — Yeah. (Applause) They deserve a hand. (Applause)
这个革命的第二阶段——(掌声) 他们值得这掌声(掌声)
The first phase is in getting better information in. The second phase is in getting decision-making power out. Participatory budgeting has long been practiced in Porto Alegre, Brazil. They're just starting it in the 49th Ward in Chicago. Russia is using wikis to get citizens writing law together, as is Lithuania. When we start to see power over the core functions of government — spending, legislation, decision-making — then we're well on our way to an open government revolution.
第一阶段是更高效的收集民意 第二阶段是将决策权下放 在巴西的阿雷格里港 参与式预算已经存在已久。 在芝加哥的49区则正开始。 俄罗斯用百科让市民一起写法律 立陶宛也有类似的形式。 当我们看到政府核心作用的权利 ——消费,立法,决策—— 然后我们开始走上开放政府革命的道路
There are many things that we can do to get us there. Obviously opening up the data is one, but the important thing is to create lots more -- create and curate -- lots more participatory opportunities. Hackathons and mashathons and working with data to build apps is an intelligible way for people to engage and participate, like the jury is, but we're going to need lots more things like it. And that's why we need to start with our youngest people. We've heard talk here at TED about people biohacking and hacking their plants with Arduino, and Mozilla is doing work around the world in getting young people to build websites and make videos. When we start by teaching young people that we live, not in a passive society, a read-only society, but in a writable society, where we have the power to change our communities, to change our institutions, that's when we begin to really put ourselves on the pathway towards this open government innovation, towards this open government movement, towards this open government revolution.
我们可以做很多事情使我们走到这条路。 很明显开放数据是其中之一 但更重要的事情是创造更多 更多参与的机会 编程马拉松和用数据开发应用 是个很好的方式让人们有兴趣参与其中, 就好像审判团一样。 但我们需要更多想这样的事 这就是为什么我们要从娃娃抓起 我们在TED上听到有人利用Arduino设备 (译注:一种可以自己动手定制的“电脑”) 做生物实验(biohacking)并改造他们的植物, 而 Mozilla 在全球范围内 鼓励年轻人动手制作网站和视频 当我们开始教育年轻人我们并不生活在 一个被动的、以接受为主的社会 而是可以动手改变的社会时,我们有力量来 改变我们的社区,改变我们的机构 那也是我们开始真正让我们走上那条路 一条通往开放政府创新的道路 一条通过开放政府运动的道路 一条通往开放政府革命的道路
So let me close by saying that I think the important thing for us to do is to talk about and demand this revolution. We don't have words, really, to describe it yet. Words like equality and fairness and the traditional elections, democracy, these are not really great terms yet. They're not fun enough. They're not exciting enough to get us engaged in this tremendous opportunity that awaits us. But I would argue that if we want to see the kinds of innovations, the hopeful and exciting innovations that we hear talked about here at TED, in clean energy, in clean education, in development, if we want to see those adopted and we want to see those scaled, we want to see them become the governance of tomorrow, then we must all participate, then we must get involved. We must open up our institutions, and like the leaf, we must let the nutrients flow throughout our body politic, throughout our culture, to create open institutions to create a stronger democracy, a better tomorrow. Thank you. (Applause)
让我以下面这段话结尾:我认为对我们来说 最重要的事情是谈论并号召这次革命 我们还没有伟大的作品来描述它。 像平等、公平、传统选举、民主等议题都已经有了 伟大的作品,但是开放政府还没有。 它们还不够有趣,还不够激动人心到促使我们 投入到这一巨大的机会中。 但我认为如果我们想要实现 其它的创新,那些在TED听到的 关于洁净能源,教育和发展的 充满希望和激情的创新 如果我们想要使这些技术被采纳 想要这些创新成果被规模化 想要这些成果成为未来政府的一部分 那么我们必须人人参与 我们必须参与其中 我们必须开放我们的机构,像叶子一样 我们必须让营养完全的流经我们的政治团体 流经我们的文化,创造开放的机构 创造更稳固的民主和更美好的明天 谢谢(掌声)