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 (Chris Anderson): 要談公民權 還有網路的未來發展 就想到這位揭露一切真相的人 讓我們歡迎他上臺 愛德華‧史諾登(Edward Snowden) (觀眾鼓掌) 他目前藏身俄羅斯偏鄉 以筆電操控這個機器人 藉著機器人觀看現場 愛德華,歡迎蒞臨TED講壇 你目前實際能見範圍有多少?
Edward Snowden: Ha, I can see everyone. This is amazing. (Laughter)
愛德華.史諾登:我看得到所有人 好神奇! (笑聲)
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:請教一下 過去5個月來 有各種稱呼你的方式: 像告密者、叛國賊 還有英雄 你又是如何看待自己的?
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.
愛德華:所有就這件事 爭論過的人 總是針對我和我的人格 以及如何來形容我 而爭辯不休 但我仔細一想 這根本不該是爭辯的問題 我是誰一點也不重要 若我是這世上最差勁的人 你們大可恨我並繼續過生活 以下這些議題才是重點 : 真正重要的是我們要何種政府? 還有我們想要什麽樣的網路? 甚至我們希望人與社會間 存在何種關係? 這才是我認為社會公論 應該進行的方向 這樣的討論趨勢也 越來越明顯 若要我描述自已 我不會用英雄這類字眼 也不會自稱愛國者或叛國賊 我會說自己跟大家没兩樣 都是美國公民
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:為了讓不了解 事件過程的人 了解來龍去脈 (掌聲響起) 一年前的此時你還是 美國國家安全局 派駐夏威夷的顧問 因為你是系統管理師 有權限進入該局系統 所以你將特定機密檔案 透露給指定的媒體 在2013年6月率先揭發內幕 這樣做是基於何種動機? 愛德華:你知道嗎? 多年前我派駐夏威夷 從事情治工作時 見過不少讓我不安的事 我們在情治單位 其實也有不少貢獻 而且都是必要 對公眾有益的 但也有過分踰矩的作為 更有一些根本不該去做的事 還有黑箱決策 大眾根本不知情 更別說同意 就連代表民意的國會議員 也被矇在鼓裡 當這些問題 讓我陷入天人交戰時 我暗自思索 該怎樣以最負責任的方式 為大眾謀取最大福利 並將風險減到最低? 不管是我自己絞盡腦汁 想辦法也好 透過國會程序也好 由於事發當時 還沒有相關條文 也沒有法律救濟 來保護像我這樣的體制外僱員 像我一樣的情報單位合約僱員 只要有動作 就有和情報一起消失的危險 大眾永遠不會知情 但美國憲法第一修正案 保障新聞自由的原因 就是要賦予媒體抗辯權 能夠挑戰政府的作為 同時也與政府合作 就如何在不危及 國家安全的條件下 告知大眾切身攸關的大事 進行對談與辯論 靠著與媒體記者合作 我將掌握到的資訊 歸還美國人民 而非靠我自己判斷 是否要公開 大家對此已經有過相當 踴躍的辯論 政府方面的鼓勵大家關心 的投入也不惶多讓 我認為這對大家都好 而那些政府 警告和過分強調的 種種危機 從來沒應驗過 目前從未有證據 顯示任何相關危害的案例 正因如此 我對自己的決定很放心
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:我想讓觀眾看一下 兩個你揭發過的案例 可以幫我放一下投影片嗎? 不知愛德華你是否看得到? 投影片巳打在瑩幕上 這張是有關稜鏡計畫 (PRISM) 的 也許你可以跟觀眾解釋 已公開的資訊有哪些內容
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.
愛德華:因為有些爭議 所以了解此計畫最好的方式 就是先排除不相關的部份 在美國引發辯論的大多是 中繼資料 (metadata) 官方也始終宣稱只是中繼資料 目前他們援引的法理是 《愛國者法案》第215款 該條文形同容許非法監聽 並能廣泛地監控全國通聯紀錄 或施行類似的手段 像通話對象 通聯時間 和旅行地點 都是中繼資料搜集的範圍 「稜鏡」涉及的是通訊內容 這計畫讓美國政府 得以驅使美國企業 並授權給他們 為國家安全局做些不法勾當 儘管有些企業確實抗拒過 即使雅虎(Yahoo)等 這些公司曾訴諸法律 不過都鍛羽而歸 因為都不是在公開庭審理 而僅以不公開方式 進行審判 我們目睹過稜鏡計畫中的 某些部分 有些部分格外令我憂心 美國政府內部曾存在一種論據 說有15位聯邦法官 重審過這些計畫 並判決計劃屬於合法行動 不過政府不會告訴你 審判程序其實是 秘密進行 在不公開庭當中 基於政府對法律的片面解讀 過去33年中 政府申請過3萬4千筆搜索票 33年中 僅有11件申請被駁回 我們認為不應該由 這些仲裁者決定 美國企業 在自由開放的網路中 扮演的角色
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:接下來的投影片顯示 各家科技和網路公司 據傳涉入稜鏡計畫 以及資料蒐集活動 起始的日期 不過他們都否認與美國 國家安全局合作 到底國家安全局是 怎樣蒐集資料的?
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.
愛德華:是這樣的, 在他們的簡報中 這叫遠端存取 對我們美國國安局 情報分析師 也就是像我一樣 分析情報資料 例如在夏威夷鎖定 中國網路駭客 或做其他 類似工作的人來說 遠端存取就是 直接從他人伺服器攫取資料 這並不表示 有一大群公司代表 與國安局的人同坐在 煙霧繚繞的房間裡 套交情搞暗盤 商議著該如何移轉資料 各公司的做法都有所不同 有些採取負責任的方式 有些就比較輕忽 不過重點是 當談到資料如何移轉 其實是公司自己交出的 並非從線上竊取 不過有一點是必須記得的 就算公司抵制這樣的做法 甚至要求依法行事,像是 「我們透過正當搜索程序 來進行吧」 「就這麼辦吧!」 為此我們真的研究過相關法律 好確定交出資料是合法的 關於這些用戶資訊 去年華盛頓郵報就報過了好幾則 不過稜鏡計畫的報導比較精彩 其中提到美國國安局侵入 企業資訊伺服器中心 竊取Google內部的資訊溝通 對雅虎也如法炮製 有此可見,即使公司勉強 在法律邊緣 配合美國國安局行事 但國安局要得其實更多 因此我們呼籲公司 竭盡全力 確保他們會堅守 捍衛使用權利益的立場 並且極力倡導 使用者的權益維護 去年一整年我都在想 剛才那張稜鏡計畫簡報 點名的公司 已經放手去做這件事 而我鼓勵他們持續下去
CA: What more should they do?
克里斯:他們還有哪些事該做?
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.
愛德華:目前美國的網路公司 在保護全球用戶權利上 不需涉及法律層面 又最能著力的一點 就是為每個網頁 啟用傳輸安全層機制 這很重要的理由是: 如果今天 你上亞馬遜網路書店流覽 《1984》這本小說 美國國安局看得到瀏覽記錄 俄國也能 中國也是 德法也不例外 甚至安道拉親王國(歐洲) 都辦得到 沒有加密保護 就無法防範這些窺視 亞馬遜是全球書庫 但他們不是唯一 沒預設加密保護的 你甚至不能選擇以加密方式 上網瀏覽書籍 這樣的事必須有所改變 這不是針對亞馬遜 我不是要找他們碴 不過他們是個明顯的例子 事實上所有公司 都得付出行動 預設加密的網路瀏覽 對尚未採取任何行動 或主動使用特定措施的用戶 加密可強化隱私 同時保護全球用戶權利
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:愛德華請跟我來 我想給你看下一張投影片(掌聲) 這程式叫《神通線民》 (Boundless Informant) 是什麼樣的程式呢?
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.
愛德華:我得佩服美國國安局 取了這麼貼切的名字 在他們取的代號中 這算我最愛的一個 美國國安局對國會隱瞞 《神通線民》這個程式 美國國會質詢過國安局 國家是否有能力 就美國境內 通訊監聽的數量 作粗略的估計? 國安局回答:不行 因為他們不追蹤相關統計 也無法追蹤相關資料 所以全球有多少通訊 遭到監聽 他們無可奉告 因為透露這項資訊 等同侵犯隱私 我尊重他們對此事的意見 不過實際上 若你仔細研究這張投影片 國安局不但 早就有監聽能力 而且已經這樣做了 國安局內部的資料格式 可監控通訊雙方 若資料顯示 通訊由美國本土發出 國安局等便可向國會說明 目前掌握多少通訊內容 而「神通線民的」所透露的 就是通訊內容被監聽的狀況 與俄國境內的俄國人相較 美國人在國內受害更深 我不確定情治單位 是否該致力於此
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:但愛德華我跟你說 華盛頓郵報曾報導 同樣是根據你的資料 標題是這樣的: 「美國國安局觸犯隱私的頻率 每年多達數千次」 跟我們解釋一下吧
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?
愛德華:去年我們也參與了 國會聽證會 當時感覺真奇妙 ! 當我們來自國安局的人 以及看過實際內部文件 知曉內容的人 看著官員 眼睜睜立誓擔保: 國安局沒有濫用監聽權 沒有任何違反國安局的規定 與此同時,我們也知道 華盛頓郵報這篇報導即將公開 不過特別令人玩味的是 關於國安局 違反業務相關規定 及法律的情形 一年之中高達上千次 有個特殊的個案 在2,776件案例之中 這個單一案件 就牽連了3,000人以上 在另一個事件中 國安局 在意外的情況下 截聽到華盛頓首府的所有電話 令人訝異的是 這份沒有引發太多關注的報告 揭露的不只是監聽權濫用案 高達2,776件 而是連參議院情報委員會主席 黛安.范士丹(Dianne Feinstein) 都沒看過該份報告 直到華盛頓郵報聯絡上她 請她就此發表看法 她才從美國國安局 要到一份副本 不過之前她毫不知情 美國情治單位 怠忽職守的程度 由此可見一般 竟連參議院情報委員會主席 都不知道 每年有數千件的違規情事
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:人們對相關爭議的 其中一個反應是 坦白說,我們為何要在意 這些監控措施? 我的意思是,若問心無愧 有什麼好擔心的? 這樣的觀點有何不妥? 愛德華:首先 這種態度 等於放棄自身權利 好像在說: 「我應該不需要加密功能啦, 信任網路環境就好了吧 不用管那麼多啦, 沒什麼大不了的吧? 政府會規規矩矩做事啦。」 其實個人權利很重要 說不定哪天會派上用場 除此以外 這也關係著我們的文化認同 不只是美國 還有整體西方社會 和全球民主化社會 的文化認同 民眾應該能 撥電話給家人 民眾應該能傳送簡訊 給摯愛的人們 應該能上網買書 坐火車旅行 線上訂機票 而無須顧慮 未來數年內 這些通訊可能會被 本國政府單位 甚至是外國政府窺視 還有內容會如何被曲解? 讓自己的意圖遭到質疑 我們有權保護隱私 要求正當理由的合法搜索 或是針對特定人的 犯罪嫌疑搜索 這是因為我們了解 將所有人際通訊 託付給任何個人或政府 而期望上述個人或政府 能守密並且毫不懈怠 實在是一個令人無法忽視 的強大誘惑
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:你做的事讓某些人很憤怒 我最近才聽過 迪克.錢尼(Dick Cheney)的說法 他說朱利安.阿桑奇(Julian Assange) 像是惱人的跳蚤 反觀愛德華.史諾登 卻造成莫大傷害 他認為你所犯下的 是一種美國有史以來 惡行最重大的叛國罪 對那些有同感的人 你有話要說嗎?
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.
愛德華:迪克.錢尼果真很另類! (觀眾會心一笑夾雜掌聲) (笑著說)謝謝大家! 我覺得很詫異 朱利安.阿桑奇在從事一些 貢獻宏偉的工作時 當時迪克.錢尼說 他會把所有的政府搞垮 到時將風雲變色 怒海翻騰 現在反被說得微不足道 因此對於相關官員 把對國家安全危害誇大的說法 我們應該有所保留 不過姑且假設這些人真這麼想 那我認為 他們對國家安全的概念很狹隘 像迪克.錢尼 這些位高權重的人 並未善盡保衛國家安全 的重責大任 大眾利益不會總是 和國家利益相同 跟並不敵對的他國人民交戰 在不構成威脅的地域交戰 不會讓大家更安全 這道理不管在伊拉克 還是網路上都適用 網絡不是敵人 美國的經濟也不是 美國和中國的企業 還有世界上任何公司 都是我們社會的一部分 構成我們所處的世界 邦誼拉近我們的關係 但若我們破壞那些標準、規範 還有那些各國政府和公民 期待我們遵守的 行為規範 就會破壞了這樣的關係
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:據傳 你"盜取"了170萬份文件 不過目前看來 透露給媒體的不過幾百份 之後還會有更多消息曝光嗎?
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.
愛德華:當然有! 我非常確定 一些最關键的報告 尚未曝光
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:過來看!關於這個曝光的消息 我有事請教 你來看一下! 接著要談的這則新聞,我認為 是現場許多科技行家 過去數月來所聽過最驚人的事情 是有關牛奔程式(Bullrun)的 你能解釋一下那是什麼嗎?
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.
愛德華:這命名同樣讓我們 不得不感謝美國國安局的坦率 這程式是以美國內戰的 戰役名稱命名的 在英國類似的軟體叫刃峰(Edgehill) 是以英國內戰戰役命名 而我認為之所以如此命名 是因為這些程式都鎖定 國內的基礎設施 美國國安局用這類軟體 蓄意誤導企業伙伴 他們向企業聲稱 這些都是安全規範 國安局說:「為了強化貴公司的系統安全, 我們得合作。」 不過實際上這建議很惡質 這些公司被誤導後 降低自身產品的安全層級 他們還趁機嵌入後門程式 不僅讓美國國安局有機可趁 任何有時間和資金 投入研究和搜尋的人 都可藉此侵入 全球通訊 此事非同小可 因為我們若没有共同基準 而且因為牛奔程式 衝著傳輸安全層(SSL)而來 就不再信任類似的安全機制 那我們身處的世界將 不再那麼安全 我們與銀行往來 還有洽商時 將不免擔心通訊已被監控 或另一端為其目的搞破壞
CA: And do those same decisions also potentially open America up to cyberattacks from other sources?
克里斯:另一個可能後果是不是 會讓美國暴露於 其他網路攻擊?
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.
愛德華:正是! 其中一個問題 也是911恐怖攻擊之後 遺留的一個後遺症 美國國安局身兼二職 一方面發動入侵網路 的攻擊行動 但也負責資訊國防 而且照慣例 他們更重視資訊國防 而如此判斷的標準是 美國的機密比較珍貴 若入侵一家中國企業網路 竊取機密 或對德國政府單位施以同樣手段 盗取其機密 對美國人而言 還不如確保中國無法對美國下手 來的有價值 因此通訊安全層級弱化 不只增加全球風險 也讓美國陷入重大危機 因為智慧財產 就是美國的經濟命脈 若此命脈因安全太差而受遷累 我們將會吃上好幾年的苦頭
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:不過當局計算過 為了防堵恐怖主義 值得放手一搏 當然這樣說風險也就不為過了
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.
愛德華:以這些方案 遏止恐怖主義的成效來看 就能明白這種說法毫無根據 各位也不用採信我的話 因為聯邦法庭對此 捨棄祕密審查 首度改採公開審理後 認定這些方案係屬社會控制 而且可能違憲 有權要求簡報說明的 美國國會 目前正有此意 且已提案改革制度 白宮的二個獨立小組 審查過所有機密證據後 表示相關專案 對遏止美國境內迫切的恐怖攻擊 毫無效果 這樣我們真的在 防堵恐怖行動嗎? 這些方案又有何價值? 我認為没有 三個美國政府部門 也都這麽認為
CA: I mean, do you think there's a deeper motivation for them than the war against terrorism?
克里斯:你認為除了 對抗恐怖主義外 他們這麼做還隱含 其他動機嗎?
ES: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you, say again?
愛德華:抱歉,我聽不到 再說一次
CA: Sorry. Do you think there's a deeper motivation for them other than the war against terrorism?
克里斯:抱歉 我是說除了對抗恐怖主義 你認為他們這麼做 還有其他動機嗎?
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.
愛德華:有的,追根究柢 對情資界而言 恐怖主義向來就是 掩飾行動的藉口 也是用來挑起情緒反應的方式 因此特權和方案的授權 本來大眾是不允許的 在如此情緒下也變得理所當然 美國國安局早在1990年代 就要求對「牛奔」和「刃峰」 這類程式 予以授權 他們請聯邦調查局到國會遊說 而後者也照辦了 可惜國會和人民不吃這套 他們說:「不值得拿我們的經濟去冒險。」 還說為了證明值得 對社會的衝擊太大了 不過911事件後我們目睹的卻是 有關當局藉口恐怖主義與 國家機密 未經國會批准 也沒徵詢美國大眾 就暗中進行這些方案 我們要防範的 就是這種密門政治的政府 因為這樣的政府讓我們 更不安全 也無價值可言
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:好,請跟我來一下 我有些私人問題請教 說到恐怖活動 大多數人會覺得 你目前在俄國的處境十分駭人 有關布拉德利.曼寧(Bradley Manning) 遭受的待遇 你顯然已有所聞 他已改名為切爾西.曼寧 (Chelsea Manning) Buzzfeed網站刊載一則新聞 提到情報界 有些人想要你的命 你如何應付這麻煩? 又該如何處理自身的恐懼?
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.
愛德華:眾所皆知 有好多政府巴不得我死 而我一再表明的是 每天早上我就寢時 都在想能為祖國同胞做什麽 我不想傷害祖國政府 而且想幫忙 但事實是 他們寧願無視正當程序 而且未經番判 便將人定罪 有些事,社會群體該挺身抗拒 並且表態:「這麼做不對!」 「我們不該威脅異議人士。」 「新聞業不該被冠上罪名。」 即使有風險,若能停止這一切 任何事我都樂意做
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:我真的很想知道 現場觀眾的意見 因為我知道各界對愛德華.史諾登 看法頗多不同 假設各位可有以下兩種選擇 把愛德華所做的事 當成根本就是給美國帶來危機 的魯莽行為 或者,也可說這是 能為美國及世界的長遠利益 有所貢獻的偉大英雄事蹟 這是我給各位的兩個選項 我很好奇 誰會選第一個 認為是魯莽行為的 有人舉手 真有幾票呢 當事人在場 要舉手可真難啊 但的確有人這麼認為
ES: I can see you. (Laughter)
愛德華:我看得到你們這些人喔! (帶笑)
CA: And who goes with the second choice, the fundamentally heroic act?
克里斯:有人選第二種看法嗎? 認為這行為令人欽佩的
(Applause) (Cheers)
(掌聲中夾雜著加油打氣)
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?
真的有很多人没表態 我想還在考慮吧! 在我看來,有關你的辯論 並非以傳統的政治分野區分的 非關左派右派,支持政府者 自由主義者或其他種種 其中有些幾乎可說是 世代議題 身為自小與網路為伍的一代 當你見到有些事 未來將對網路有所傷害 你似乎 變得義憤填膺 這樣說正確嗎?
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.
愛德華:我覺得這樣說很對 這議題無關左派右派 而是我們的基本自由 這裡所說的「我們」 不只是是美國人 而是全世界的人 這也不是黨派議題 有些事是所有人都相信 而且我們都有責任保護的 對目睹並享受過 自由開放網路的人來說 我們有責任為下一代 保留享有自由的機會 如果我們不做些改變 如果我們不挺身促成改變 為自己和所有人 維護網路安全 我們將失去這些 那對我們和全世界而言 都將是嚴重損失
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:這話我最近也聽過 網際網路的創建者說過 我想蒂姆.柏納斯李爵士 (Sir Tim Berners-Lee)在場 蒂姆,您要上來說幾句嗎? 能給他麥克風嗎?
(Applause)
(掌聲)
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 --
很高興看到你,蒂姆!過來一點 順便問一下 你是站在那一邊的? 叛國賊或英雄? 我可以說明一下,不過. . .
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.柏納斯李: 我曾更詳細地回答過這問題 不過若只有兩個選擇 我說他是英雄
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:愛德華 我想你應該讀過有關 蒂姆爵士提出 制定新版大憲章(Magna Carta) 收復網路的提議 你認為有道理嗎? 愛德華:當然! 我是說我們這一代- 我從小到大不只想過網路 也在網路世界成長 儘管我從未預料會有機會 以這樣直接實際的方式 捍衛網路 並以這種特殊 而且近乎化身的方式 體現網路 我認為身為網路世代的一員 拜其所屬世代的政治意見 得以與網路臨近 這還頗深遠的 我相信為網路制定的大憲章 正是我們所需要的 我們不僅需要將價值觀 訴諸文字,也要將之融入網路架構 這件事我希望 我邀請在座的各位觀眾加入 不只是溫哥華這裡的 還有全球的觀眾 共襄盛舉
CA: Do you have a question for Ed?
克里斯:蒂姆你有甚麼要問愛德華嗎?
TBL: Well, two questions, a general question —
蒂姆.柏納斯李:我有兩個問題請教 一個普通問題-
CA: Ed, can you still hear us?
克里斯:愛德華你還聽得見 我們說話嗎?
ES: Yes, I can hear you. CA: Oh, he's back.
愛德華:可以! 克里斯:好,又連上了
TBL: The wiretap on your line got a little interfered with for a moment. (Laughter)
蒂姆.柏納斯李: 你電話線上的竊聽器 暫時受到干擾 (笑聲)
ES: It's a little bit of an NSA problem.
愛德華: 是有一點國安局搞出來的麻煩!
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.柏納斯李: 暫且撇開網路問世的這25年發展 另作思考 再考量我們對於 理想網路環境的所以討論內容 你認為 我們應可達成的最佳境界是. . .
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.
愛德華:每當思考 我們能做多少 我認為這取決於 我們願意投入多少 我認為過去我們享有的網路 不只正是國家整體 更是地球公民共同所需 透過合作,並且讓社會中 技術專家以外的群體也加入 不過就像你提過的 若全球的網路使用者 無論是透過全球網路和 社群媒體 或只是查詢氣象的用戶也好 甚至日常生活極度 依賴網路的人 都付出貢獻促成 我們得到的網路絕非只有這樣 而是更好的網路環境和現勢 有了這些我們便可創造一個 不僅超乎預期 而且符合各種想像的未來
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:30年前,也就是1984 TED論壇創立 從那時起,許多討論便循著 連喬治.歐威爾(George Orwell) 都料錯的方向發展 不是我們被政府監控 而是有了網路影響力和公開性 我們反而得以監督政府 不過這種較樂觀的看法 或多或少 因為你的揭發而 挨了一記悶棍 不過你依然相信 有辦法解決 而且蒂姆也能辦到
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.
愛德華:沒錯,所以說政府權力大增 是有根據的 耶魯大學最近發表一篇 法律專文 創立了一套所謂的 Bankston-Soltani法則 也就是當政府監控的能力 其成本降低一個級數 我們對隱私的期盼便會破滅 每當這種事發生,我們便要 重新思考並權衡隱私權 儘管政府監控的能力 早已三級跳 相關的省察卻從來沒發生 才導致我們現在得 面對這樣的問題 不過事情仍有轉機 因為科技 個人影響力也增加了 我就是活生生的例子 即使單槍匹馬 也可和超強勁敵 與全球情報單位正面對戰 最後還獲勝 我認為那就是 可給我們希望的利證 我們需要從這點開始 不只讓技術專家可利用這點 甚至全世界的普通人也有機會 新聞不是罪惡 通訊也不是 而且我們的日常活動 不該受到監視
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:我不太確定該如何 與機器人握手 不過假設這有一隻手。 蒂姆.柏納斯:很快就會發展出來的。 愛德華:幸會了! 但願我的微笑 像各位的一樣親切
CA: Thank you, Tim.
克里斯:謝謝你,蒂姆
(Applause)
(掌聲)
I mean, The New York Times recently called for an amnesty for you. Would you welcome the chance to come back to America?
好,紐約時報最近呼籲 該給你特赦 你會把握機會回到美國嗎?
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)
愛德華:當然! 毫無疑問地 這個提案 是本著公共利益所提出的 而美國和全世界的新聞界 能有如今規模 也是以這個的原則為基礎 我認為如果新聞業現在表態 他們對此表示支持 且認為特赦是必要的 那的確很有說服力,不過尚未定論 而我認為這必須由大眾決定 不過與此同時 美國政府曾暗示 他們希望達成某種協議 他們要我供出 目前為止我合作過的那些記者 作為我回國的交換條件 我必須講明的是 我這一路走來不是為了自保 而是為所當為 而且我會持續這樣做 這是為了公共利益 而不是為我自己的好處打算 (掌聲)
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:現在看來 拜網路及機器人科技所賜 你回到北美和我們在一起 不過是加拿大而不是美國 而且是透過遙控機器人 我想知道你有什麼感想?
ES: Canada is different than what I expected. It's a lot warmer. (Laughter)
愛德華:出乎意料的 加拿大比我想像的溫暖多了! (笑聲)
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:TED論壇的宗旨是 「值得傳佈的思想」 如果你能用一個概念 簡述這個宗旨 此時此刻 您認為該傳佈何種思想? 愛德華:我認為2013年 讓我們體認到 密室政治足以扼殺民主 但也是這種隱密性 讓個人得以誕生 我們不需要放棄個人隱私 來建立好政府 我們也不需要放棄自由 來換取安全 我認為只要大家共同努力 開放的政府和私生活 是可以兼得的 我希望能與全世界的人合作 來實現這件事
Thank you very much.
非常謝謝大家!
CA: Ed, thank you.
克里斯:謝謝你!愛德華
(Applause)
(掌聲)