Bryn Freedman: So you said that in the 20th century, global power was in the hands of government. At the beginning of this digital century, it really moved to corporations and that in the future, it would move to individuals. And I've interviewed a lot of people, and they say you're wrong, and they are betting on the companies. So why are you right, and why are individuals going to win out?
布林 · 弗里德曼: 你說過,在二十世紀, 全球的權力掌握在政府的手中。 在這個數位世紀的初期, 權力實際上移向了企業, 而在未來,權力將會移向個人。 我訪談過很多人, 他們都說你錯了, 他們都把權力押在公司手上。 所以,為什麼你是對的? 為什麼個人將會勝出?
Fadi Chehadé: Because companies cater to individuals, and we as the citizenry need to start understanding that we have a big role in shaping how the world will be governed, moving forward. Yes, indeed, the tug of war right now is between governments, who lost much of their power to companies because the internet is not built around the nation-state system around which governments have power. The internet is transnational. It's not international, and it's not national, and therefore the companies became very powerful. They shape our economy. They shape our society. Governments don't know what to do. Right now, they're reacting. And I fear that if we do not, as the citizenry -- which are, in my opinion, the most important leg of that stool -- don't take our role, then you are right. The detractors, or the people telling you that businesses will prevail, are right. It will happen.
法迪 · 切哈德: 因為公司會迎合個人, 而我們身為公民, 需要開始了解:要決定這個 世界會如何被管理、如何發展, 我們扮演著重要的角色。 是的,的確,目前的角力 發生在各國政府之間, 政府有大量的權力被公司奪走, 是因為網際網路並不是以 民族國家為中心來建立的, 而政府的權力卻是。 網路是跨國的。 它不是國際的,也不是國家的, 因此,公司變得非常強大。 它們塑造了我們的經濟。 它們塑造了我們的社會。 政府不知道該怎麼做。 現在,它們正作出反應。 而我擔心,我們身為公民—— 依我的看法, 這是凳子最重要的一隻腳—— 卻不扮演我們的角色, 那麼,你就是對的。 那些抨擊者,或者那些 告訴你企業會勝出的人, 他們是對的,企業的確會勝出。
BF: So are you saying that individuals will force businesses or business will be forced to be responsive, or is there a fear that they won't be?
布:所以,你的意思是, 個人會迫使企業, 也就是企業會被迫回應, 或者擔憂「事實並非會如此發展」?
FC: I think they will be. Look at two weeks ago, a small company called Skip winning over Uber and Lyft and everyone to actually get the license for the San Francisco scooter business. And if you read why did Skip win, because Skip listened to the people of San Francisco, who were tired of scooters being thrown everywhere, and actually went to the city and said, "We will deploy the service, but we will respond to the people's requirements that we organize ourselves around a set of rules." They self-governed their behavior, and they won the contract over some very powerful companies.
法:我認為企業會回應。 看看兩週前 有一間叫做 Skip 的小公司, 打敗了 Uber 和 Lyft 以及所有人, 取得了舊金山摩托車事業的執照。 如果你細讀 Skip 為何會贏, 那是因為 Skip 傾聽舊金山市民的意見: 他們厭倦了摩托車被到處亂丟。 實際上 Skip 跑到城市裡,並宣佈: 「我們會將這服務部署出去, 但我們會回應人民的需求, 我們會根據一系列規定 來管理好自身。 他們自我行為管理, 擊敗了一些很龐大的公司, 贏得了合約。
BF: So speaking of guidelines and self-governance, you've spent an entire lifetime creating guidelines and norms for the internet. Do you think those days are over? Who is going to guide, who is going to control, and who is going to create those norms?
布:既然談到準則和自我管理, 你花了一輩子的時間 為網際網路制訂準則和標準。 你認為那些日子已經過去了嗎? 誰會來領導? 誰會來控制? 誰會來制訂那些標準?
FC: The rules that govern the technology layers of the internet are now well put in place, and I was very busy for a few years setting those rules around the part of the internet that makes the internet one network. The domain-name system, the IP numbers, all of that is in place. However, as we get now into the upper layers of the internet, the issues that affect me and you every day -- privacy, security, etc. -- the system to create norms for those unfortunately is not in place. So we do have an issue. We have a system of cooperation and governance that really needs to be created right now so that companies, governments and the citizenry can agree how this new digital world is going to advance.
法:用來管理網際網路 技術層面的那些規定 都已經很完善了, 有幾年我非常忙碌, 一直在建立一些規定 讓網際網路能夠統一。 域名系統、IP 地址表白呀, 這些通通都就緒了。 然而,隨著我們現在進入了 網際網路更加抽象的層級, 每天會影響我們的那些議題—— 隱私、安全性等—— 不幸的是,為這些議題 建立標準的系統還沒有就緒。 所以,我們確實有問題。 現在我們真的非常需要 創造一個合作和管理的系統, 讓公司、政府和公民 能對於這個數位新世界的 發展方向有所共識。
BF: So what gives a digital company any incentive? Let's say -- Facebook comes to mind -- they would say they have their users' best interests at heart, but I think a lot of people would disagree with that.
布:所以,是什麽 讓數位公司有了動機? 比如說——我想到臉書—— 他們會說他們心中都想著 用戶的最佳利益, 但我想很多人都不會同意這個說法。
FC: It's been very difficult to watch how tech companies have reacted to the citizenry's response to their technologies. And some of them, two or three years ago, basically dismissed it. The word that I heard in many board rooms is, "We're just a technology platform. It's not my issue if my technology platform causes families to go kill their girls in Pakistan. It's not my issue. It's their problem. I just have a technology platform." Now, I think we are now entering a stage where companies are starting to realize this is no longer sustainable, and they're starting to see the pushback that's coming from people, users, citizens, but also governments that are starting to say, "This cannot be."
法:看著科技公司如何對於 「公民對其科技的反應」 而作出反應,是蠻困難的。 兩、三年前,有些科技公司 基本上還不理會這些呢。 我在許多會議室中聽到的說法是: 「我們只是一個科技平台。 那不關我的事,如果我的科技平台 造成巴基斯坦的家庭殺害他們的女兒。 那不關我的事。那是他們的問題。 我只是擁有一個科技平台而已。」 我想我們現在進入了一個階段, 在這個階段,公司開始了解 這樣做並不永續, 他們開始看見負面的反應, 這些來自人們、用戶、公民, 但也來自政府。 他們開始說:「不能這樣。」
So I think there is a maturity that is starting to set, especially in that Silicon Valley area, where people are beginning to say, "We have a role." So when I speak to these leaders, I say, "Look, you could be the CEO, a very successful CEO of a company, but you could also be a steward." And that's the key word. "You could be a steward of the power you have to shape the lives and the economies of billions of people. Which one do you want to be?" And the answer is, it's not one or the other. This is what we are missing right now. So when an adult like Brad Smith, the president of Microsoft, said a few months ago, "We need a new set of Geneva Conventions to manage the security of the digital space," many of the senior leaders in Silicon Valley actually spoke against his words. "What do you mean, Geneva Convention? We don't need any Geneva Conventions. We self-regulate." But that mood is changing, and I'm starting to see many leaders say, "Help us out." But here lies the conundrum. Who is going to help those leaders do the right thing?
所以,我認為成熟期開始出現了, 特別是在矽谷地區, 在那裡,大家開始說: 「我們發揮著作用。」 當我和這些領導者交談時,我說: 「瞧,你可以是一間公司中 非常成功的執行長, 但你也可以當個管家。」 那就是關鍵字。 「你能當個管家,用你擁有的力量, 來塑造數十億人的生活和經濟。 你想要當哪一種人?」 答案是,這並不是二選一的。 這正是我們現在所缺乏的。 當像微軟的總裁布拉德 · 史密斯 這樣的成人在幾個月前說: 「我們需要一套新的日內瓦公約 來管理數位空間的安全性。」 矽谷的許多資深領導者 其實是跟他唱反調的。 「你說日內瓦公約是什麼意思? 我們不需要什麼日內瓦公約, 我們會做自我規範。」 但那種氣氛正在改變, 我開始看到許多領導者說: 「幫我們擺脫困難。」 但難題就在這裡。 誰會協助那些領導者做正確的事?
BF: So who is going to help them? Because I'd love to interview you for an hour, but give me your biggest fear and your best hope for how this is going to work out.
布:所以,誰會協助他們? 雖然我很想訪問你一個小時, 但請告訴我, 針對這個問題要如何解, 你最大的恐懼 和最大的希望是什麼。
FC: My biggest hope is that we will become each stewards of this new digital world. That's my biggest hope, because I do think, often, we want to put the blame on others. "Oh, it's these CEOs. They're behaving this way." "These governments are not doing enough." But how about us? How is each of us actually taking the responsibility to be a steward of the digital space we live in? And one of the things I've been pushing on university presidents is we need every engineering and science and computer science student who is about to write the next line of code or design the next IoT device to actually have in them a sense of responsibility and stewardship towards what they're building. So I suggested we create a new oath, like the Hippocratic Oath, so that every student entering an engineering program takes a technocratic oath or a wisdom oath or some oath of commitment to the rest of us. That's my best hope, that we all rise. Because governments and businesses will fight over this power game, but where are we? And unless we play into that power table, I think we'll end up in a bad place.
法:我最大的希望是 我們都會變成 這個數位新世界的管家。 那是我最大的希望, 因為,我確實認為, 通常,我們想要怪罪他人。 「喔,都怪這些執行長。 因為他們這樣做。」 「這些政府做得還不夠。」 但我們呢? 我們每個人是怎樣真正承擔起責任, 在我們所居住的數位 空間中行使管家的職責? 我一直在催促大學校長 去做的事情之一, 就是我們需要每一位工程、 自然科學和計算機科學的學生, 在他們將要寫下一行程式碼之前, 或設計出下一個物聯網裝置之前, 就要對他們在打造的東西 真正地懷有責任感和管家的精神。 所以,我建議我們創造新的誓詞, 就像希波克拉底誓詞 (醫生誓詞), 讓參與工程計畫的每一位學生 都要先唸一段 技術專家誓詞或智慧誓詞, 或是某種我們對其他人 有所承諾的誓詞。 那是我最大的希望: 我們通通都能站起來。 因為政府和企業 會為了這場權力遊戲而戰, 但我們在哪裡? 除非我們也參加這場權力遊戲, 不然我們最後會淪落到很糟的處境。
My biggest fear? My biggest fear, to be very tactical today, what is keeping me up at night is the current war between the West, the liberal world, and China, in the area of artificial intelligence. There is a real war going on, and for those of us who have lived through the nuclear nonproliferation age and saw how people agreed to take some very dangerous things off the table, well, the Carnegie Endowment just finished a study. They talked to every country that made nuclear weapons and asked them, "Which digital 'weapon' would you take off the table against somebody else's schools or hospitals?" And the answer -- from every nuclear power -- to this question was, nothing. That's what I'm worried about ... The weaponization of the digital space, and the race to get there.
我最大的恐懼? 現在我最大的恐懼, 非常戰術性地來說, 讓我晚上難以入眠的, 是目前西方自由世界 和中國之間 在人工智慧領域的戰爭。 有一場真實的戰爭正在發生。 我們這些人,經歷過 防止核武器擴散時代, 看見過大家都同意 將一些非常危險的東西收起來。 嗯,卡內基基金會 剛完成一項研究。 他們和每一個製造 核武的國家談過, 問他們: 「在對抗其他國家的學校 或醫院時,如果要你選擇, 你會將哪一項數位『武器』收起來?」 而這個問題的答案, 握有核武的強權的答案,就是 沒有。 那就是我在擔心的…… 數位空間被武器化, 以及為了這個目標所做的競爭。
BF: Well, it sounds like you've got a lot of work to do, and so do the rest of us. Fadi, thank you so much. I really appreciate it.
布:聽起來你還有好多工作要做, 我們其他人也一樣。 法迪,非常感謝你。十分感謝。
FC: Thank you.
法:謝謝你。
(Applause)
(掌聲)