Chris Anderson: The rights of citizens, the future of the Internet. So I would like to welcome to the TED stage the man behind those revelations, Ed Snowden. (Applause) Ed is in a remote location somewhere in Russia controlling this bot from his laptop, so he can see what the bot can see. Ed, welcome to the TED stage. What can you see, as a matter of fact?
克里斯‧安德森:公民的权利, 互联网的未来。 让我们欢迎, 将这一切公诸于世的人 来到 TED 的讲台, 爱德华‧斯诺登 (鼓掌) 爱德华位于遥远的俄罗斯某处 他通过笔记本电脑 操控这个网络机器人, 他能看到这个网络机器人 能看到的一切。 爱德华,欢迎来到TED。 事实上,你都能看到些什么?
Edward Snowden: Ha, I can see everyone. This is amazing. (Laughter)
爱德华‧斯诺登: 哈,我能看到每一个人。 这太酷了。 (笑声)
CA: Ed, some questions for you. You've been called many things in the last few months. You've been called a whistleblower, a traitor, a hero. What words would you describe yourself with?
克里斯‧安德森:爱德华, 我想问你一些问题。 在过去的几个月里 人们给予你多种称谓。 你被称作是告密者、卖国贼、 英雄。 你会用怎样的字眼来形容自己?
ES: You know, everybody who is involved with this debate has been struggling over me and my personality and how to describe me. But when I think about it, this isn't the question that we should be struggling with. Who I am really doesn't matter at all. If I'm the worst person in the world, you can hate me and move on. What really matters here are the issues. What really matters here is the kind of government we want, the kind of Internet we want, the kind of relationship between people and societies. And that's what I'm hoping the debate will move towards, and we've seen that increasing over time. If I had to describe myself, I wouldn't use words like "hero." I wouldn't use "patriot," and I wouldn't use "traitor." I'd say I'm an American and I'm a citizen, just like everyone else.
爱德华‧斯诺登:那些卷入 这场争论的人 都纠结于我是谁, 我有怎样的性格 以及要如何描述我。 但当我想说, 我们不该纠结于这些问题。 我是谁,这真的不重要。 如果我是世界上最坏的人, 你可以恨我, 然后继续你的生活。 真正重要的是这些问题。 真正重要的是, 我们想要怎样的政府, 我们想要怎样的互联网, 我们想要怎样的 人与社会关系。 这些才是我所希望的讨论方向, 我们也看到, 有更多讨论正在进行中。 如果我要形容我自己, 我并不会用“英雄”这样的字眼。 我不是“爱国者”, 亦不是“叛国贼”。 我是一个美国人, 是一个公民, 就和大家一样。
CA: So just to give some context for those who don't know the whole story -- (Applause) — this time a year ago, you were stationed in Hawaii working as a consultant to the NSA. As a sysadmin, you had access to their systems, and you began revealing certain classified documents to some handpicked journalists leading the way to June's revelations. Now, what propelled you to do this? ES: You know, when I was sitting in Hawaii, and the years before, when I was working in the intelligence community, I saw a lot of things that had disturbed me. We do a lot of good things in the intelligence community, things that need to be done, and things that help everyone. But there are also things that go too far. There are things that shouldn't be done, and decisions that were being made in secret without the public's awareness, without the public's consent, and without even our representatives in government having knowledge of these programs. When I really came to struggle with these issues, I thought to myself, how can I do this in the most responsible way, that maximizes the public benefit while minimizing the risks? And out of all the solutions that I could come up with, out of going to Congress, when there were no laws, there were no legal protections for a private employee, a contractor in intelligence like myself, there was a risk that I would be buried along with the information and the public would never find out. But the First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees us a free press for a reason, and that's to enable an adversarial press, to challenge the government, but also to work together with the government, to have a dialogue and debate about how we can inform the public about matters of vital importance without putting our national security at risk. And by working with journalists, by giving all of my information back to the American people, rather than trusting myself to make the decisions about publication, we've had a robust debate with a deep investment by the government that I think has resulted in a benefit for everyone. And the risks that have been threatened, the risks that have been played up by the government have never materialized. We've never seen any evidence of even a single instance of specific harm, and because of that, I'm comfortable with the decisions that I made.
克里斯‧安德森:现在为那些 不了解完整事件的人介绍一下—— (鼓掌)—— 一年前,你驻扎在夏威夷 作为美国国家安全局的顾问。 作为系统管理员,你可以 进入他们的系统, 然后你开始将所获取的机密文件 发给你精心挑选的记者们, 随之而然,发生了 六月份的揭秘事件。 是什么使你有做这件事的动力呢? 爱德华‧斯诺登:你知道吗, 当我在夏威夷的时候, 和之前的一年, 那时我在情报系统工作, 我看到很多令我不安的事。 在情报系统, 我们做很多有益的事, 那些需要被完成的事, 那些可以帮助人们的事。 但是,有些事做得过头了。 不应该做那些事, 那些秘密做出的决定, 是在公众无意识到的情况下, 在公众未允许的情况下, 在甚至于政府内的代表 都不知道的情况下。 当我和这些事物斗争的时候, 我想, 要如何以最可靠地方式完成, 最大化公众利益 同时将风险最小化? 在我所能想到的所有解决方案 除了去国会, 当没有法律 也没有针对私人雇员的 合法保护的情况下, 像我这样在情报系统工作的合约人员, 存在着我会和情报一起消失 而公众永远都会被蒙在鼓里的风险。 但是美国宪法的第一条修正案 保证了我们的新闻自由, 这确保了有站在对立面的媒体, 来挑战政府, 但同时和政府合作, 进行对话,讨论我们要如何 将重要信息传达给公众 而不会将我们的国家安全置于危险中。 通过和记者合作, 通过将所有我搜集到的信息 还给美国人民, 而不是相信我自己来 做出有关于出版的决定, 我们有过一场热烈辩论 有关政府的一项深入投资, 我想这是对每个人都是有益的。 而政府恐吓的所谓风险, 政府宣扬的 所谓风险 从未成为现实。 我们没见到任何一个 具体伤害案例的证据 正因为这样 我对自己做出的决定感到合理。
CA: So let me show the audience a couple of examples of what you revealed. If we could have a slide up, and Ed, I don't know whether you can see, the slides are here. This is a slide of the PRISM program, and maybe you could tell the audience what that was that was revealed.
克里斯‧安德森: 让我展示给观众 你揭示的一些文件作为例子。 我们向前翻一页,爱德华, 我不知道你能不能看到 这里展示的幻灯片。 这个幻灯片展示的 是棱镜门项目, 也许你可以告诉观众 你揭示的是什么。
ES: The best way to understand PRISM, because there's been a little bit of controversy, is to first talk about what PRISM isn't. Much of the debate in the U.S. has been about metadata. They've said it's just metadata, it's just metadata, and they're talking about a specific legal authority called Section 215 of the Patriot Act. That allows sort of a warrantless wiretapping, mass surveillance of the entire country's phone records, things like that -- who you're talking to, when you're talking to them, where you traveled. These are all metadata events. PRISM is about content. It's a program through which the government could compel corporate America, it could deputize corporate America to do its dirty work for the NSA. And even though some of these companies did resist, even though some of them -- I believe Yahoo was one of them — challenged them in court, they all lost, because it was never tried by an open court. They were only tried by a secret court. And something that we've seen, something about the PRISM program that's very concerning to me is, there's been a talking point in the U.S. government where they've said 15 federal judges have reviewed these programs and found them to be lawful, but what they don't tell you is those are secret judges in a secret court based on secret interpretations of law that's considered 34,000 warrant requests over 33 years, and in 33 years only rejected 11 government requests. These aren't the people that we want deciding what the role of corporate America in a free and open Internet should be.
爱德华‧斯诺登: 了解棱镜门最好的方式, 因为存在些许论战, 就是来谈论棱镜门不是什么。 美国的很多争辩有关元数据。 他们说这只是 有关元数据,仅此而已, 他们谈论一个特殊的法定权利, 即爱国者法案的第215章节。 这个章节允许未经授权的窃听行为, 大面积监察整个国家的 电话记录,还有如下的事—— 你在和谁说话, 你什么时候和他们说话, 你去了哪里旅游。 这都是元数据事件。 棱镜门与内容息息相关。 通过这个项目政府能够 强迫美国的企业 能够代理美国企业 来为美国国家安全局做卑鄙的工作。 即使很多这些公司做出了抵抗, 即使这其中很多公司—— 我相信雅虎是其中一个—— 在法庭上做出了挑战, 但他们都失败了, 因为这一切辩论从不是 在公开法庭进行的。 而是只在秘密法庭中进行。 那些我们看到的事情, 那些棱镜门项目中 对我来说感到非常担忧的是, 美国政府的其中一条论据是 他们说15名联邦法院法官 审查过这些项目 并且认为这是合法的, 但他们没有告诉你的是 那些是秘密法官 在秘密法庭 基于对于法律的秘密解读, 在33年内共收到 34000件认证请求, 并且在33年内,仅拒绝了 11项政府请求。 我们不希望也不需要这些人来 决定美国在一个 自由开放的网路社会 所要扮演怎样的角色。
CA: Now, this slide that we're showing here shows the dates in which different technology companies, Internet companies, are alleged to have joined the program, and where data collection began from them. Now, they have denied collaborating with the NSA. How was that data collected by the NSA?
克里斯‧安德森: 现在,这张幻灯片 展示了 各个科技公司,互联网企业, 被指加入此项目的日期, 也就是从这些日期起, 这些公司经手的数据被搜集起来。 此时,它们否认了 与美国国家安全局有合作关系。 这些数据是如何 被美国国家安全局收集的呢?
ES: Right. So the NSA's own slides refer to it as direct access. What that means to an actual NSA analyst, someone like me who was working as an intelligence analyst targeting, Chinese cyber-hackers, things like that, in Hawaii, is the provenance of that data is directly from their servers. It doesn't mean that there's a group of company representatives sitting in a smoky room with the NSA palling around and making back-room deals about how they're going to give this stuff away. Now each company handles it different ways. Some are responsible. Some are somewhat less responsible. But the bottom line is, when we talk about how this information is given, it's coming from the companies themselves. It's not stolen from the lines. But there's an important thing to remember here: even though companies pushed back, even though companies demanded, hey, let's do this through a warrant process, let's do this where we actually have some sort of legal review, some sort of basis for handing over these users' data, we saw stories in the Washington Post last year that weren't as well reported as the PRISM story that said the NSA broke in to the data center communications between Google to itself and Yahoo to itself. So even these companies that are cooperating in at least a compelled but hopefully lawful manner with the NSA, the NSA isn't satisfied with that, and because of that, we need our companies to work very hard to guarantee that they're going to represent the interests of the user, and also advocate for the rights of the users. And I think over the last year, we've seen the companies that are named on the PRISM slides take great strides to do that, and I encourage them to continue.
爱德华‧斯诺登: 有关美国国家安全局的这些页面 指的是其对信息的直接涉入。 这对于一个真正的国安局分析师意味着, 像我这样从事情报分析的工作人员, 追踪,中国的网络骇客, 这类的工作,在夏威夷, 这些数据的出处 是直接来自他们的服务器的。 这并不是说 有一批各个公司的代表 坐在烟雾缭绕的房间里, 在国安局打得火热, 从事密室交易 探讨他们如何出卖这些数据。 每个公司都有不同的处理方式。 有些公司很负责任。 有些就不那么负责了。 但主要原則是,当我们讨论到 这些信息是如何提交给国安局, 是这些公司自己提供的。 并不是遭到窃取。 但有一点值得注意的是: 即使这些公司退回国安局的提案, 即使这些公司询问, 嘿,我们可以通过 正当的渠道做这些事, 我们这样处理 我们确实有一些法律审查, 一些类似移交 用户数据的基本条例, 我们看到华盛顿邮报去年的报道, 尽管没有像棱镜门事件这样详细, 其报道称,国家安全局闯入 谷歌的数据中心 将其连接入自己的数据库, 同时遭涉入的还有雅虎。 即使这些公司 至少是在被强迫, 但还是考量到法律因素的状况下 与国安局进行合作, 国安局仍对此不甚满意, 因为这样,我们需要这些公司 能够更加努力 来保证他们将会代表 用户的利益,并且 为用户的权益发声。 我认为,在过去的一年, 我们看到这些在棱镜门中 被点名的公司 做出巨大的努力, 我鼓励他们继续斗争。
CA: What more should they do?
克里斯‧安德森:你认为他们 还需要做哪些进一步的工作呢?
ES: The biggest thing that an Internet company in America can do today, right now, without consulting with lawyers, to protect the rights of users worldwide, is to enable SSL web encryption on every page you visit. The reason this matters is today, if you go to look at a copy of "1984" on Amazon.com, the NSA can see a record of that, the Russian intelligence service can see a record of that, the Chinese service can see a record of that, the French service, the German service, the services of Andorra. They can all see it because it's unencrypted. The world's library is Amazon.com, but not only do they not support encryption by default, you cannot choose to use encryption when browsing through books. This is something that we need to change, not just for Amazon, I don't mean to single them out, but they're a great example. All companies need to move to an encrypted browsing habit by default for all users who haven't taken any action or picked any special methods on their own. That'll increase the privacy and the rights that people enjoy worldwide.
爱德华‧斯诺登: 此时此刻,美国的网络公司 可以做的是, 无须与律师咨询, 保障全球范围内用户的权利, 在用户造访的每个网页 开启加密套接字协议层。 其重要的原因在于, 如果你在亚马逊网站上看1984 (译者注:英国作家乔治‧奥威尔的著作), 国安局可以看到这份浏览记录, 俄罗斯的情报机构 可以看到这份浏览记录, 中国的情报机关也能看到这份浏览记录, 法国的情报机构,德国的情报机构, 安道尔共和国的情报机构也能看到。 这些机构都能看到这份浏览记录, 因为它没有被加密保护起来。 亚马逊网站是世界图书馆, 但亚马逊既没有默认支持加密保护, 用户个人在浏览书籍的时候, 也无法选择使用加密保护。 我们需要改变, 不只是亚马逊, 我并不是想针对它, 但不得不说,它是个好例子。 所有的公司需要 默认加密保护 所有用户的浏览记录, 保护那些没有安装任何加密措施 或没有设置特殊选择的用户。 这将会加强隐私保护和 全球人民所应当享有的权利。
CA: Ed, come with me to this part of the stage. I want to show you the next slide here. (Applause) This is a program called Boundless Informant. What is that?
克里斯‧安德森:爱德华, 跟我一起来到舞台的这边, 我想展示下一张幻灯片。(鼓掌) 这个项目名叫“无限线人”。 那是什么?
ES: So, I've got to give credit to the NSA for using appropriate names on this. This is one of my favorite NSA cryptonyms. Boundless Informant is a program that the NSA hid from Congress. The NSA was previously asked by Congress, was there any ability that they had to even give a rough ballpark estimate of the amount of American communications that were being intercepted. They said no. They said, we don't track those stats, and we can't track those stats. We can't tell you how many communications we're intercepting around the world, because to tell you that would be to invade your privacy. Now, I really appreciate that sentiment from them, but the reality, when you look at this slide is, not only do they have the capability, the capability already exists. It's already in place. The NSA has its own internal data format that tracks both ends of a communication, and if it says, this communication came from America, they can tell Congress how many of those communications they have today, right now. And what Boundless Informant tells us is more communications are being intercepted in America about Americans than there are in Russia about Russians. I'm not sure that's what an intelligence agency should be aiming for.
爱德华‧斯诺登: 我想要感谢国安局 为它们自己的这个项目 起了合适的名字。 这是我最喜欢的国安局假名。 “无限线人” 是国安局隐瞒国会的一个项目。 之前,国会曾问过国家安全局, 有没有任何方法 能够给一个大概的估算, 估算出美国的通讯 有多少是被窃听的。 他们说没有。他们说, 我们不会追踪那些数据, 并且我们也不能 追踪那些数据。 我们无法告诉你们, 我们在全球范围内 正在窃听多少通讯资料, 因为如果告知你们的这个行为 是侵犯你们隐私的。 现在,我非常感谢他们的节操, 但现实是,你看到的这张幻灯片, 不仅说明了他们有这样的能力, 这样的能力早已存在了。 已经在实施了。 国安局有自己的内部数据格式, 能够追踪通讯的两端, 如果显示, 通讯是源自美国本土的, 他们可以告知国会, 有多少通讯信息 此时此刻在他们掌握之中。 “无限线人”这个项目告诉我们, 被国安局窃听的通讯信息, 多发生在美国本土, 就在美国人民之间。 比窃听到的在俄罗斯的 俄罗斯人的通讯情报要多。 我不认为情报机关 应该以窃听本土民众通讯为目标。
CA: Ed, there was a story broken in the Washington Post, again from your data. The headline says, "NSA broke privacy rules thousands of times per year." Tell us about that.
克里斯‧安德森:爱德华, 华盛顿邮报又爆出了新的故事, 还是从你提供的数据。 其标题称, “美国国家安全局每年 违反隐私条例数千次。” 请谈一谈你的观点。
ES: We also heard in Congressional testimony last year, it was an amazing thing for someone like me who came from the NSA and who's seen the actual internal documents, knows what's in them, to see officials testifying under oath that there had been no abuses, that there had been no violations of the NSA's rules, when we knew this story was coming. But what's especially interesting about this, about the fact that the NSA has violated their own rules, their own laws thousands of times in a single year, including one event by itself, one event out of those 2,776, that affected more than 3,000 people. In another event, they intercepted all the calls in Washington, D.C., by accident. What's amazing about this, this report, that didn't get that much attention, is the fact that not only were there 2,776 abuses, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Dianne Feinstein, had not seen this report until the Washington Post contacted her asking for comment on the report. And she then requested a copy from the NSA and received it, but had never seen this before that. What does that say about the state of oversight in American intelligence when the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee has no idea that the rules are being broken thousands of times every year?
爱德华‧斯诺登: 去年的国会证言也提到过, 这太令人吃惊了, 像我这样为国安局工作的人, 看过这些真实内部资料的人, 知道事情内幕的人, 看到官员们誓称 没有滥用权力, 没有违反国安局的条例, 那时已经知晓 这一切即将被公诸于世。 但是,特别有趣的事实是, 美国国家安全局违反了 他们自己的条例,自己的法律 一年中高达数千次, 包括自身的一个事件, 2776件中的一个, 影响了超过3000个人。 在另一事件中, 他们无意中窃听了 华盛顿特区的所有电话。 令人惊讶的是, 这份报告,并没有得到 很大程度的关注, 因为事实上, 远不止那2776起滥用职权, 参议院情报委员会主席, 丹妮·费恩斯坦, 在华盛顿邮报联系她 请她就此事做出评论前, 她还未看过这份报告。 随后她向国安局索取了这份材料, 她收到了, 但她此前从未见过这份材料。 这意味着什么呢? 美国情报机关 得到了怎样的监管? 甚至连参议院情报委员会主席 都不知道每年这些规则 都被破坏了数千次?
CA: Ed, one response to this whole debate is this: Why should we care about all this surveillance, honestly? I mean, look, if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to worry about. What's wrong with that point of view? ES: Well, so the first thing is, you're giving up your rights. You're saying hey, you know, I don't think I'm going to need them, so I'm just going to trust that, you know, let's get rid of them, it doesn't really matter, these guys are going to do the right thing. Your rights matter because you never know when you're going to need them. Beyond that, it's a part of our cultural identity, not just in America, but in Western societies and in democratic societies around the world. People should be able to pick up the phone and to call their family, people should be able to send a text message to their loved ones, people should be able to buy a book online, they should be able to travel by train, they should be able to buy an airline ticket without wondering about how these events are going to look to an agent of the government, possibly not even your government years in the future, how they're going to be misinterpreted and what they're going to think your intentions were. We have a right to privacy. We require warrants to be based on probable cause or some kind of individualized suspicion because we recognize that trusting anybody, any government authority, with the entirety of human communications in secret and without oversight is simply too great a temptation to be ignored.
克里斯·安德森:爱德华, 对于这整场辩论的一个回应这样说道: 老实说,我们为什么 要在乎这样的监督? 我的意思是,如果你没做坏事, 你就不值得对此感到担忧。 这样的观点有怎样的错误? 爱德华·斯诺登:首先, 你放弃了自己的权利。 你说,嘿,你知道, 我不认为自己需要这样的权利, 所以我决定信任他们, 无所谓,没关系, 这些人(国安局)在做正确的事。 你的权利是重要的, 因为你永远不知道, 在未来的某个时刻, 你很可能需要这样的权利。 除此之外,这是我们 文化认同的一个组成部分, 不只在美国, 而是在整个西方社会 还有全球范围内的民主社会。 人们应该能够拿起电话 打给他们的家人, 人们应该能够发短信 给他们的爱人, 人们应该能够在网上买书, 人们应该能够乘坐火车去旅行, 人们应该能够去买机票, 而不需要想着,这些行为 将会被政府的机构监察, 说不定在未来 这些监察你的 甚至都不是你的政府, 他们将会怎样曲解 他们会怎样揣测你的意图。 我们有隐私权。 我们需要正当的理由,合理的根据, 或者比方说窃听某些个别的嫌疑人, 因为我们意识到,相信他人, 任何政府机构, 将通讯的全部内容交予他们, 在秘密地,不被监管的情况下, 实在是无法忽略的诱惑。
CA: Some people are furious at what you've done. I heard a quote recently from Dick Cheney who said that Julian Assange was a flea bite, Edward Snowden is the lion that bit the head off the dog. He thinks you've committed one of the worst acts of betrayal in American history. What would you say to people who think that?
克里斯‧安德森:有些人 对你所做的一切感到暴怒。 我最近听说,迪克‧切尼说道, (美国副总统 2001-2009) 朱利安‧阿桑奇所做的事 (维基解密)仅能称作跳蚤叮咬, 而爱德华‧斯诺登则是 把狗头咬掉的狮子。 他认为,你所做的是 美国历史上 最恶劣的叛国罪。 你要对持有这样观点的人 做出怎样的回应呢?
ES: Dick Cheney's really something else. (Laughter) (Applause) Thank you. (Laughter) I think it's amazing, because at the time Julian Assange was doing some of his greatest work, Dick Cheney was saying he was going to end governments worldwide, the skies were going to ignite and the seas were going to boil off, and now he's saying it's a flea bite. So we should be suspicious about the same sort of overblown claims of damage to national security from these kind of officials. But let's assume that these people really believe this. I would argue that they have kind of a narrow conception of national security. The prerogatives of people like Dick Cheney do not keep the nation safe. The public interest is not always the same as the national interest. Going to war with people who are not our enemy in places that are not a threat doesn't make us safe, and that applies whether it's in Iraq or on the Internet. The Internet is not the enemy. Our economy is not the enemy. American businesses, Chinese businesses, and any other company out there is a part of our society. It's a part of our interconnected world. There are ties of fraternity that bond us together, and if we destroy these bonds by undermining the standards, the security, the manner of behavior, that nations and citizens all around the world expect us to abide by.
爱德华‧斯诺登: 迪克‧切尼可真了不起。 (笑声)(掌声) 谢谢。(笑声) 我认为这很惊人,因为当 朱利安‧阿桑奇做那些伟大工作的时候, 迪克‧切尼曾说 阿桑奇会让世界范围内的政府终结, 天空会被点燃 海洋会蒸发消失, 现在他又说阿桑奇的行为 只是跳蚤叮咬。 所以我们应该对于这种 过分宣扬国家安全易受到破坏 的政府官员保持怀疑。 但是,让我们假设, 这类人真的坚信这样的想法。 我想他们对于国家安全 有一个非常狭隘的概念。 像迪克‧切尼这样有特权的人, 没有保障国家的安全。 公众利益并不永远和 国家利益保持一致。 与那些不是我们敌人的人 进行战争, 战争的地点也 不对我国形成任何威胁, 这并没有让人民更加安全, 这个道理适用于伊拉克战争 和互联网上的监听行为。 互联网不是敌人。 我们的经济不是敌人。 美国的商业活动, 中国的商业活动, 那些商业公司 是我们社会的一个部分。 这是我们全球范围交流的 一个组成部分。 这些连结就像互助会一样, 把我们联系在一起, 如果我们摧毁这些纽带 以毁坏标准,安全, 行为方式, 上述这些正是全世界 其它国家和公民 期待美国能够遵守的准则。
CA: But it's alleged that you've stolen 1.7 million documents. It seems only a few hundred of them have been shared with journalists so far. Are there more revelations to come?
克里斯‧安德森: 但是,据说你窃取了 一百七十多万份资料。 至今,看似只有其中数百份文件 是分享给记者们的。 是不是未来还会有 更多的揭秘呢?
ES: There are absolutely more revelations to come. I don't think there's any question that some of the most important reporting to be done is yet to come.
爱德华‧斯诺登:未来 绝对会有更多的揭秘。 我认为一些最重要的 必须要揭露的材料 仍旧尚未公布。
CA: Come here, because I want to ask you about this particular revelation. Come and take a look at this. I mean, this is a story which I think for a lot of the techies in this room is the single most shocking thing that they have heard in the last few months. It's about a program called "Bullrun." Can you explain what that is?
克里斯‧安德森: 来这边,我想要问你 有关此特定的启示。 过来看看这个。 这是一个故事,我觉得 对很多在这个房间里面的技术员来说 是过去的几个月中听到 最令人震惊的事情。 这个项目叫做“布尔溪”。 你能解释一下什么是吗?
ES: So Bullrun, and this is again where we've got to thank the NSA for their candor, this is a program named after a Civil War battle. The British counterpart is called Edgehill, which is a U.K. civil war battle. And the reason that I believe they're named this way is because they target our own infrastructure. They're programs through which the NSA intentionally misleads corporate partners. They tell corporate partners that these are safe standards. They say hey, we need to work with you to secure your systems, but in reality, they're giving bad advice to these companies that makes them degrade the security of their services. They're building in backdoors that not only the NSA can exploit, but anyone else who has time and money to research and find it can then use to let themselves in to the world's communications. And this is really dangerous, because if we lose a single standard, if we lose the trust of something like SSL, which was specifically targeted by the Bullrun program, we will live a less safe world overall. We won't be able to access our banks and we won't be able to access commerce without worrying about people monitoring those communications or subverting them for their own ends.
爱德华‧斯诺登: 布尔溪, (译注:美国南北战争始于布尔溪战役) 这里我们再次感谢 国安局将此事开诚布公, 这个程序以一次内战名字命名。 英国人称之为刀锋山, (译注:第一次英国内战开始于刀锋山战役) 这是英国内战战场。 因此,我认为他们的这种命名方式 是由于他们的目标是国内设施。 这些程序是国安局 故意误导合作的企业伙伴的。 他们告诉合作企业伙伴 这是符合安全标准的。 他们说,嗨,让我们一起工作 以确保你的系统安全, 但事实上,他们给予的建议 非常糟糕, 使得这些公司 降低了其服务的安全性。 他们搭建的程序后门 不仅国安局可以进入, 任何其他有钱有闲的人 都能研究并搜索到。 使得他们自己 能够进入全球通信平台。 这是很危险的, 因为当我们失去一个 单一标准的时候, 如果我们失去对 加密套接字协议层(SSL)的信任, 这正是 布尔溪项目的主要目标, 我们将生活在不那么安全的世界。 我们不能够访问我们的银行 我们不能够从事商务活动 而无需担心有人监测这些通信 或根据他们自己的目的而改变这些通信。
CA: And do those same decisions also potentially open America up to cyberattacks from other sources?
克里斯‧安德森:那么 这样的决定是否可能 会将美国网络置于危险境地, 开放给来自其它源头的攻击吗?
ES: Absolutely. One of the problems, one of the dangerous legacies that we've seen in the post-9/11 era, is that the NSA has traditionally worn two hats. They've been in charge of offensive operations, that is hacking, but they've also been in charge of defensive operations, and traditionally they've always prioritized defense over offense based on the principle that American secrets are simply worth more. If we hack a Chinese business and steal their secrets, if we hack a government office in Berlin and steal their secrets, that has less value to the American people than making sure that the Chinese can't get access to our secrets. So by reducing the security of our communications, they're not only putting the world at risk, they're putting America at risk in a fundamental way, because intellectual property is the basis, the foundation of our economy, and if we put that at risk through weak security, we're going to be paying for it for years.
爱德华‧斯诺登: 绝对是这样。 其中一个问题, 最危险的结果之一 我们已经看到在后911时代, 国安局传统上来说有两个责任。 他们一直负责进攻性行动, 也就是黑客入侵, 但它们也一直负责防御行动 传统上他们习惯于总是优先 采用防御手段, 其所基于的原则是, 美国机密有更高的价值。 如果我们侵入中国商业系统 偷盗他们的秘密, 如果我们侵入柏林某个政府办事处 偷盗了他们的秘密, 这对美国人来说价值不高, 更重要的是确保中国 无法发掘到我们的秘密。 这样降低了我们的通信安全系数, 他们不仅把全球网络置于风险中, 并且把美国置于风险中, 因为知识产权是基本, 是经济的基础, 如果因为安全薄弱 而把知识产权置于危险境地, 我们会为此而付出多年的代价。
CA: But they've made a calculation that it was worth doing this as part of America's defense against terrorism. Surely that makes it a price worth paying.
克里斯‧安德森: 但是他们做了一个计算 认为这是值得的 作为美国反恐的一部分。 当然,使得这成为值得付出的代价。
ES: Well, when you look at the results of these programs in stopping terrorism, you will see that that's unfounded, and you don't have to take my word for it, because we've had the first open court, the first federal court that's reviewed this, outside the secrecy arrangement, called these programs Orwellian and likely unconstitutional. Congress, who has access to be briefed on these things, and now has the desire to be, has produced bills to reform it, and two independent White House panels who reviewed all of the classified evidence said these programs have never stopped a single terrorist attack that was imminent in the United States. So is it really terrorism that we're stopping? Do these programs have any value at all? I say no, and all three branches of the American government say no as well.
爱德华‧斯诺登:嗯,当你看看 这些程序在阻止恐怖主义活动中 所发挥的作用, 你会发现,这是毫无根据的, 你不必相信我的话, 因为我们有过第一次公开法庭, 第一联邦法院审查了这一点, 超出保密协议, 这些程序被称为奥威尔, 并且这有可能违反了宪法。 国会有权涉入 要求国安局介绍解释这些事情, 现在希望去 起草条例草案审议并进行改革, 并且有两个独立的白宫评审会议 审查了所有机密证据, 指出这些行动从来没有阻止过 任何一次即将在美国 发生的恐怖袭击。 我们真的成功阻止了恐怖主义吗? 这些程序具有任何价值吗? 我认为没有, 美国政府中的三个部门也说没有。
CA: I mean, do you think there's a deeper motivation for them than the war against terrorism?
克里斯‧安德森: 我的意思是,你认为有一个 比反恐战争更深层的动机吗?
ES: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you, say again?
爱德华‧斯诺登: 很抱歉, 我没听清,你能再说一遍吗?
CA: Sorry. Do you think there's a deeper motivation for them other than the war against terrorism?
克里斯‧安德森: 抱歉。 你认为有一个更深层的动机, 除了反恐战争之外的原因吗?
ES: Yeah. The bottom line is that terrorism has always been what we in the intelligence world would call a cover for action. Terrorism is something that provokes an emotional response that allows people to rationalize authorizing powers and programs that they wouldn't give otherwise. The Bullrun and Edgehill-type programs, the NSA asked for these authorities back in the 1990s. They asked the FBI to go to Congress and make the case. The FBI went to Congress and did make the case. But Congress and the American people said no. They said, it's not worth the risk to our economy. They said it's worth too much damage to our society to justify the gains. But what we saw is, in the post-9/11 era, they used secrecy and they used the justification of terrorism to start these programs in secret without asking Congress, without asking the American people, and it's that kind of government behind closed doors that we need to guard ourselves against, because it makes us less safe, and it offers no value.
爱德华‧斯诺登:是的。原则上,恐怖主义 一直是我们在情报界 拿来当做采取行动的外壳。 恐怖主义是具有挑衅性的词语, 它使人们产生情绪反应, 从而合理化授权权力和程序, 这是除恐怖主义外他们不会认同的。 布尔溪和刀锋山这样的项目, 国家安全局要求这样的授权 回到1990年代。 他们要求联邦调查局向国会备案, 联邦调查局去到国会备案, 但国会和美国人民说不要。 他们说,这不值得让 我们的经济去冒险。 他们说为得到这些,会对我们的社会 造成过大的伤害。 但我们看到的是, 在后911时代, 他们使用保密和以对抗恐怖主义为理由 秘密启动这些程序, 不过问国会, 不过问美国人民, 就是那种躲在紧闭大门后的政府 人们需要保护自己去反对它, 因为它使我们越发危险, 并且没有提供任何价值。
CA: Okay, come with me here for a sec, because I've got a more personal question for you. Speaking of terror, most people would find the situation you're in right now in Russia pretty terrifying. You obviously heard what happened, what the treatment that Bradley Manning got, Chelsea Manning as now is, and there was a story in Buzzfeed saying that there are people in the intelligence community who want you dead. How are you coping with this? How are you coping with the fear?
克里斯‧安德森: 好的,请跟我来这儿, 我想要问你一些个人问题。 说到恐惧, 大多数人认为你现在 在俄罗斯的处境非常可怕。 你显然听说过曾经发生过的那些事, 布拉德利‧曼宁得到了怎样的对待, 他现在改名为切尔西‧曼宁, Buzzfeed 上有这样一个故事, 情报系统的一些人 希望你死。 你要怎样应付? 你怎样应对恐惧?
ES: It's no mystery that there are governments out there that want to see me dead. I've made clear again and again and again that I go to sleep every morning thinking about what I can do for the American people. I don't want to harm my government. I want to help my government, but the fact that they are willing to completely ignore due process, they're willing to declare guilt without ever seeing a trial, these are things that we need to work against as a society, and say hey, this is not appropriate. We shouldn't be threatening dissidents. We shouldn't be criminalizing journalism. And whatever part I can do to see that end, I'm happy to do despite the risks.
爱德华‧斯诺登:这不奇怪 很多国家的政府想要我死。 我已经一次又一次地表明 每天早上我去睡觉 都想着我可以为美国人民做些什么。 我不想伤害我的政府。 我想要帮助我的政府, 但事实是,他们更愿意 选择忽视适当程序, 他们选择在没有一次审判的情况下 宣布我有罪, 这些都是我们需要联合起来反对的 告诉他们说,嘿,这是不合理的。 我们不应该威胁持不同政见者。 我们现在不应该定为犯罪新闻。 为了尽可能使它结束, 我很高兴这么做,尽管存在风险。
CA: So I'd actually like to get some feedback from the audience here, because I know there's widely differing reactions to Edward Snowden. Suppose you had the following two choices, right? You could view what he did as fundamentally a reckless act that has endangered America or you could view it as fundamentally a heroic act that will work towards America and the world's long-term good? Those are the two choices I'll give you. I'm curious to see who's willing to vote with the first of those, that this was a reckless act? There are some hands going up. Some hands going up. It's hard to put your hand up when the man is standing right here, but I see them.
克里斯‧安德森:所以我其实想听到 这里观众们的反馈, 因为我知道对于爱德华‧斯诺登 有很多争议。 假设您有以下两个选择,好吗? 您可以认为他所做的事 从根本上说是鲁莽的行为, 将美国置于危险境地, 或者你认为它是英勇的行为, 将对美国以及全世界 带来长远的利好? 这是我给你的两个选择。 我很好奇,谁愿意投一票 给第一种, 认为这是一种鲁莽的行为? 我看到有手举起来了。 又有一些人举起了手。 当这个人站在这里的时候 很难举手, 但我看到他们。
ES: I can see you. (Laughter)
爱德华‧斯诺登: 我能看到你哦。(笑声)
CA: And who goes with the second choice, the fundamentally heroic act?
克里斯‧安德森:谁选择第二项, 从根本上说英雄行为?
(Applause) (Cheers)
(掌声)(欢呼)
And I think it's true to say that there are a lot of people who didn't show a hand and I think are still thinking this through, because it seems to me that the debate around you doesn't split along traditional political lines. It's not left or right, it's not really about pro-government, libertarian, or not just that. Part of it is almost a generational issue. You're part of a generation that grew up with the Internet, and it seems as if you become offended at almost a visceral level when you see something done that you think will harm the Internet. Is there some truth to that?
事实上,有很多人 并没有举手,我认为 他们都还在思考这件事, 在我看来,围绕你的辩论 不会跟随传统政治逻辑。 它不左亦不右,它不是关于 亲政府、自由主义论者,或其他的什么。 它几乎可以算是一代人的问题。 你是和互联网共同成长的 那代人之一,似乎 你感到被强烈地冒犯到了 当你看到某些事 会损害互联网的时候。 是这样的吗?
ES: It is. I think it's very true. This is not a left or right issue. Our basic freedoms, and when I say our, I don't just mean Americans, I mean people around the world, it's not a partisan issue. These are things that all people believe, and it's up to all of us to protect them, and to people who have seen and enjoyed a free and open Internet, it's up to us to preserve that liberty for the next generation to enjoy, and if we don't change things, if we don't stand up to make the changes we need to do to keep the Internet safe, not just for us but for everyone, we're going to lose that, and that would be a tremendous loss, not just for us, but for the world.
爱德华‧斯诺登: 是。非常正确。 这不是左或右的问题。 我们的基本自由,当我说“我们”, 我指的不仅仅是美国人, 我是指世界各地的人们, 它不是一个党派问题。 这些是人们的共同信仰的信念, 并且应该由我们来保护它, 对那些享受 一个自由开放的网络的人们, 应该由我们来保护这样的自由 让我们下一代继续享有, 如果我们不做出改变, 如果我们不有所行动做出改变 我们要努力保持互联网的安全, 不只为自己,而是为每一个人, 否则我们会失去这样的安全和自由, 那就会是一个巨大的损失, 对我们和全世界而言。
CA: Well, I have heard similar language recently from the founder of the world wide web, who I actually think is with us, Sir Tim Berners-Lee. Tim, actually, would you like to come up and say, do we have a microphone for Tim?
克里斯‧安德森: 嗯,我最近 从万维网的创始人那里 听到类似的言论, 他就在会议现场, 蒂姆‧伯纳斯-李爵士。 蒂姆,你愿意过来参与讨论吗? 请为蒂姆拿麦克风。
(Applause)
(掌声)
Tim, good to see you. Come up there. Which camp are you in, by the way, traitor, hero? I have a theory on this, but --
蒂姆,很高兴见到你。请来这里。 顺便问一句,你站在哪边, 叛徒、英雄?我有一个理论,但是
Tim Berners-Lee: I've given much longer answers to that question, but hero, if I have to make the choice between the two.
蒂姆‧伯纳斯-李:我已经给出了 这个问题的答案,英雄, 如果我要在这两个之间 作出选择的话。
CA: And Ed, I think you've read the proposal that Sir Tim has talked about about a new Magna Carta to take back the Internet. Is that something that makes sense? ES: Absolutely. I mean, my generation, I grew up not just thinking about the Internet, but I grew up in the Internet, and although I never expected to have the chance to defend it in such a direct and practical manner and to embody it in this unusual, almost avatar manner, I think there's something poetic about the fact that one of the sons of the Internet has actually become close to the Internet as a result of their political expression. And I believe that a Magna Carta for the Internet is exactly what we need. We need to encode our values not just in writing but in the structure of the Internet, and it's something that I hope, I invite everyone in the audience, not just here in Vancouver but around the world, to join and participate in.
克里斯‧安德森: 爱德华,我想你看过 蒂姆爵士说到的提案, 用大宪章夺回互联网。 这样的东西有意义吗? 爱德华‧斯诺登: 绝对有。 我的意思是,我这一代 不只是随着互联网一起成长, 而是成长于互联网, 虽然我从未想过有机会 用如此直接又实际的方式 来保卫它, 并且以这种不寻常的, 几乎阿凡达的方式, 我想有些诗意的事是, 互联网的孩子之一 由于他们的政治表达, 已实际上和互联网非常亲近了。 我相信,关于互联网的大宪章 正是我们所需要的。 我们需要加入我们的价值观, 不只是以书面形式, 也是在互联网的结构方面, 这是我所希望看到的, 我邀请每位观众, 不只是在温哥华这里的, 也包括世界各地的人 加入和参与进来。
CA: Do you have a question for Ed?
克里斯‧安德森:你还有 什么问题想问爱德华吗?
TBL: Well, two questions, a general question —
蒂姆‧伯纳斯-李: 嗯,两个问题, 一个一般的问题——
CA: Ed, can you still hear us?
克里斯‧安德森:爱德华, 你还能听到我们吗?
ES: Yes, I can hear you. CA: Oh, he's back.
爱德华‧斯诺登:是,我可以听到。 克里斯‧安德森: 哦,他回来了。
TBL: The wiretap on your line got a little interfered with for a moment. (Laughter)
蒂姆‧伯纳斯-李:你线上的窃听器 这会儿有点儿被干扰了。 (笑声)
ES: It's a little bit of an NSA problem.
爱德华‧斯诺登: 是有点儿国安局的问题。
TBL: So, from the 25 years, stepping back and thinking, what would you think would be the best that we could achieve from all the discussions that we have about the web we want?
蒂姆‧伯纳斯-李: 那么,从 25 年, 回过头来思考, 你认为 基于现在的讨论, 关于想要怎样的网络环境, 我们能做到的最好状态是什么?
ES: When we think about in terms of how far we can go, I think that's a question that's really only limited by what we're willing to put into it. I think the Internet that we've enjoyed in the past has been exactly what we as not just a nation but as a people around the world need, and by cooperating, by engaging not just the technical parts of society, but as you said, the users, the people around the world who contribute through the Internet, through social media, who just check the weather, who rely on it every day as a part of their life, to champion that. We'll get not just the Internet we've had, but a better Internet, a better now, something that we can use to build a future that'll be better not just than what we hoped for but anything that we could have imagined.
爱德华‧斯诺登:当我们想到 我们能走多远, 我认为这个问题仅仅是关于 我们愿意投入些什么。 我想我们过去所享受的互联网 也正是我们作为一个国家的人民 和世界各地的人们所需要的, 开展合作,不只是让 技术部分参与进来, 而是正如你所说的,用户们, 全世界那些使用互联网, 通过互联网,通过社会媒体, 哪怕只是看看天气的人, 那些将互联网视作生活一部分 依靠互联网度过每一天的人, 来达到目标。 我们将得到的不只是 我们已拥有的互联网, 而是一个更好的互联网, 更好的当下, 我们可以用来建立未来的东西 比我们所期待的好, 比我们所能想象的好。
CA: It's 30 years ago that TED was founded, 1984. A lot of the conversation since then has been along the lines that actually George Orwell got it wrong. It's not Big Brother watching us. We, through the power of the web, and transparency, are now watching Big Brother. Your revelations kind of drove a stake through the heart of that rather optimistic view, but you still believe there's a way of doing something about that. And you do too.
克里斯‧安德森: TED 创建于 30 年前,1984 年, 自那时以来,许多的对话 是关于 其实,乔治‧奥威尔错了。 不是老大哥在看着我们。 我们,通过网络的力量, 和透明度,正在看着老大哥。 你的揭示正如一个木桩 穿过乐观看法的心脏, 但你仍然相信有办法 对此做出反应。 你也这样做了。
ES: Right, so there is an argument to be made that the powers of Big Brother have increased enormously. There was a recent legal article at Yale that established something called the Bankston-Soltani Principle, which is that our expectation of privacy is violated when the capabilities of government surveillance have become cheaper by an order of magnitude, and each time that occurs, we need to revisit and rebalance our privacy rights. Now, that hasn't happened since the government's surveillance powers have increased by several orders of magnitude, and that's why we're in the problem that we're in today, but there is still hope, because the power of individuals have also been increased by technology. I am living proof that an individual can go head to head against the most powerful adversaries and the most powerful intelligence agencies around the world and win, and I think that's something that we need to take hope from, and we need to build on to make it accessible not just to technical experts but to ordinary citizens around the world. Journalism is not a crime, communication is not a crime, and we should not be monitored in our everyday activities.
爱德华‧斯诺登:对的, 有这样的说法, 老大哥的权力 得到了大幅度增长。 耶鲁大学有最近有篇法律文章 建立了 Bankston-Soltani 原则, 意思是,我们对私隐的期望 在当政府监控能力的 成本变得越发低廉的时候 被违反了, 每次发生这类状况时, 我们需要重新审视 和重新平衡我们的隐私权利。 现在,政府的监控权力 增加了数个级别, 然而我们什么都没做。 这就是我们今天 所遇到的问题, 但,仍然是有希望的, 因为个人的力量 也因科技得到了增强。 我就是活生生的例子 个人可以去和 全世界范围内 最强大的对手 最强大的情报机构 正面交锋并且赢得胜利, 我认为这就是 我们希望的来源, 我们要继续建立 让从技术专家 世界各地的普通公民 都能访问。 新闻不是一种犯罪, 沟通不是一种犯罪, 我们的日常生活不应当被监视。
CA: I'm not quite sure how you shake the hand of a bot, but I imagine it's, this is the hand right here. TBL: That'll come very soon. ES: Nice to meet you, and I hope my beam looks as nice as my view of you guys does.
克里斯‧安德森:我不太清楚 如何和你的移动机器人握手, 但我想象手放在这里。 蒂姆‧伯纳斯-李:很快就会实现。 爱德华‧斯诺登: 很高兴见到你, 我希望我看起来很好, 正如我看到你们的样子。
CA: Thank you, Tim.
克里斯‧安德森: 谢谢你,蒂姆。
(Applause)
(掌声)
I mean, The New York Times recently called for an amnesty for you. Would you welcome the chance to come back to America?
纽约时报最近呼吁对你大赦。 你会接受回到美国的机会吗?
ES: Absolutely. There's really no question, the principles that have been the foundation of this project have been the public interest and the principles that underly the journalistic establishment in the United States and around the world, and I think if the press is now saying, we support this, this is something that needed to happen, that's a powerful argument, but it's not the final argument, and I think that's something that public should decide. But at the same time, the government has hinted that they want some kind of deal, that they want me to compromise the journalists with which I've been working, to come back, and I want to make it very clear that I did not do this to be safe. I did this to do what was right, and I'm not going to stop my work in the public interest just to benefit myself. (Applause)
爱德华‧斯诺登: 绝对。真的没有问题, 这一项目所基于的 原则 是公众利益 以及那建基于美国以及世界各地 新闻业基石 的原则, 我觉得如果现在媒体说, 我们支持这些, 这是会发生, 也是需要发生的, 这是一个有力的论据, 但不是最终论据, 我认为这是该交由公众决定的。 但在同一时间, 政府曾暗示他们想要 某种交易, 他们想让我妥协 一直以来和我一起工作的记者们 回来, 我想要清楚地表明 我这么做不是为了安全。 我做的是正确的事, 我不会停止我的工作 放弃公众利益, 只是为了使自己受益。 (鼓掌)
CA: In the meantime, courtesy of the Internet and this technology, you're here, back in North America, not quite the U.S., Canada, in this form. I'm curious, how does that feel?
克里斯‧安德森:与此同时, 感谢网络和这项科技成果, 你在这里,以这种形式,回到了北美, 不是美国,而是加拿大。 我很好奇,你感觉怎样?
ES: Canada is different than what I expected. It's a lot warmer. (Laughter)
爱德华‧斯诺登: 加拿大和我所期待的不同。 温暖多了。 (笑声)
CA: At TED, the mission is "ideas worth spreading." If you could encapsulate it in a single idea, what is your idea worth spreading right now at this moment? ES: I would say the last year has been a reminder that democracy may die behind closed doors, but we as individuals are born behind those same closed doors, and we don't have to give up our privacy to have good government. We don't have to give up our liberty to have security. And I think by working together we can have both open government and private lives, and I look forward to working with everyone around the world to see that happen.
克里斯‧安德森:在 TED, 我们的宗旨是“值得传播的思想”, 如果你能精华到一个想法, 什么是当下你认为 值得传播的思想呢? 爱德华‧斯诺登:我想说, 去年发生的事提醒我们 在紧闭的门前,民主也许已经覆灭, 但我们作为个体 在紧闭的门后出生, 我们没必要为了好的政府 而放弃自己的隐私。 我们没必要为了安全 而放弃我们的自由。 并且我认为,通过合作 我们可以同时拥有开放的政府 和私人的生活, 我想和世界上的每一位共同努力 来期待这天的到来。
Thank you very much.
非常感谢。
CA: Ed, thank you.
克里斯‧安德森:爱德华,谢谢你。
(Applause)
(鼓掌)