There is an entire genre of YouTube videos devoted to an experience which I am certain that everyone in this room has had. It entails an individual who, thinking they're alone, engages in some expressive behavior — wild singing, gyrating dancing, some mild sexual activity — only to discover that, in fact, they are not alone, that there is a person watching and lurking, the discovery of which causes them to immediately cease what they were doing in horror. The sense of shame and humiliation in their face is palpable. It's the sense of, "This is something I'm willing to do only if no one else is watching."
Postoji cijeli žanr YouTube videa posvećenih iskustvu za koje sam siguran da su ga doživjeli svi u ovoj sobi. Ono podrazumijeva pojedince koji se, smatrajući da su sami, upuštaju u određeno ekspresivno ponašanje — divlje pjevanje, zvrkasto plesanje, neku blagu seksualnu aktivnost — tek da bi otkrili da, zapravo, nisu sami, da postoji osoba koja ih promatra i uhodi, otkriće čega uzrokuje da istog trenutka prestanu s time što su radili u užasu. Osjećaj srama i poniženja na njihovom licu opipljiv je. To je osjećaj koji kaže ''Ovo sam spreman napraviti samo ako nitko drugi ne gleda.''
This is the crux of the work on which I have been singularly focused for the last 16 months, the question of why privacy matters, a question that has arisen in the context of a global debate, enabled by the revelations of Edward Snowden that the United States and its partners, unbeknownst to the entire world, has converted the Internet, once heralded as an unprecedented tool of liberation and democratization, into an unprecedented zone of mass, indiscriminate surveillance.
Ovo je srž posla kojemu sam bio isključivo posvećen tijekom posljednjih 16 mjeseci, pitanju zašto je privatnost bitna, pitanju koje je postavljeno u kontekstu globalne debate omogućene otkrićima Edwarda Snowdena da su SAD i njihovi partneri, skrivajući to od cijeloga svijeta, pretvorile Internet, nekoć slavljen kao oruđe bez presedana za oslobođenje i demokratizaciju, u područje masovnog neselektivnog nadzora, bez presedana.
There is a very common sentiment that arises in this debate, even among people who are uncomfortable with mass surveillance, which says that there is no real harm that comes from this large-scale invasion because only people who are engaged in bad acts have a reason to want to hide and to care about their privacy. This worldview is implicitly grounded in the proposition that there are two kinds of people in the world, good people and bad people. Bad people are those who plot terrorist attacks or who engage in violent criminality and therefore have reasons to want to hide what they're doing, have reasons to care about their privacy. But by contrast, good people are people who go to work, come home, raise their children, watch television. They use the Internet not to plot bombing attacks but to read the news or exchange recipes or to plan their kids' Little League games, and those people are doing nothing wrong and therefore have nothing to hide and no reason to fear the government monitoring them.
Postoji vrlo učestao dojam koji se pojavi u toj debati, čak i među ljudima koji osjećaju neugodu radi masovnog nadzora, a koji kaže da zapravo nema neke stvarne štete koja proizlazi iz te invazije širokih razmjera jer jedino ljudi uključeni u loše radnje imaju razloga da se žele sakriti i brinu o svojoj privatnosti. Taj pogled na svijet prešutno je utemeljen u pretpostavci da postoje dvije vrste ljudi na svijetu, dobri ljudi i loši ljudi. Loši su ljudi oni koji planiraju terorističke napade ili su uključeni u nasilna kaznena djela i stoga imaju razloge zašto žele sakriti što rade, razloge zašto brinu o svojoj privatnosti. Suprotno tome, dobri ljudi oni su koji idu na posao, dolaze doma, odgajaju svoju djecu, gledaju televiziju. Oni koriste Internet ne da bi planirali bombaške napade već za čitanje vijesti i razmjenu recepata ili kako bi planirali utakmice svoje djece, i ti ljudi ne rade ništa krivo te stoga nemaju ništa za sakriti ni razloge za strah od vladinog nadzora.
The people who are actually saying that are engaged in a very extreme act of self-deprecation. What they're really saying is, "I have agreed to make myself such a harmless and unthreatening and uninteresting person that I actually don't fear having the government know what it is that I'm doing." This mindset has found what I think is its purest expression in a 2009 interview with the longtime CEO of Google, Eric Schmidt, who, when asked about all the different ways his company is causing invasions of privacy for hundreds of millions of people around the world, said this: He said, "If you're doing something that you don't want other people to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
Ljudi koji uistinu tako govore podliježu vrlo ekstremnom obliku samo-podcjenjivanja. Ono što zapravo govore jest, ''Pristao sam učiniti se toliko bezopasnom i neprijetećom i nezanimljivom osobom da se doista ne bojim da vlada zna što sve radim.''+ Ovaj mentalni sklop je pronašao što smatram njegovim najčišćim izričajem u intervjuu iz 2009 godine s čelnikom Googla, Ericom Schmidtom, koji je, kada su ga pitali o različitim načinima kako njegova tvrtka uzrokuje invazije u privatnost stotina milijuna ljudi diljem svijeta, rekao sljedeće. Rekao je ''Ako radite nešto za što ne želite da drugi ljudi znaju, možda to ni ne biste trebali raditi.''
Now, there's all kinds of things to say about that mentality, the first of which is that the people who say that, who say that privacy isn't really important, they don't actually believe it, and the way you know that they don't actually believe it is that while they say with their words that privacy doesn't matter, with their actions, they take all kinds of steps to safeguard their privacy. They put passwords on their email and their social media accounts, they put locks on their bedroom and bathroom doors, all steps designed to prevent other people from entering what they consider their private realm and knowing what it is that they don't want other people to know. The very same Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, ordered his employees at Google to cease speaking with the online Internet magazine CNET after CNET published an article full of personal, private information about Eric Schmidt, which it obtained exclusively through Google searches and using other Google products. (Laughter) This same division can be seen with the CEO of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, who in an infamous interview in 2010 pronounced that privacy is no longer a "social norm." Last year, Mark Zuckerberg and his new wife purchased not only their own house but also all four adjacent houses in Palo Alto for a total of 30 million dollars in order to ensure that they enjoyed a zone of privacy that prevented other people from monitoring what they do in their personal lives.
Sad, može se svašta reći o takvom mentalitetu, prvo to da ljudi koji kažu da privatnost nije jako važna, u to zapravo ne vjeruju, a možete znati da u to ne vjeruju zato što iako to govore svojim riječima, njihova djela govore o različitim koracima koje poduzimaju da zaštite privatnost. Postavljaju lozinke na svoje e-mailove i račune na društvenim mrežama, postavljaju lokote na vrata spavaćih soba i kupaonica a sve je to usmjereno na spriječavanje drugih ljudi od ulaska u prostor kojeg smatraju svojim, znajući pritom što ne žele otkriti drugima. Isti taj Eric Schmidt, čelnik Googla, naredio je svojim zaposlenicima u Googlu da prestanu razgovarati s online Internetskim časopisom CNET nakon što je CNET objavio članak pun osobnih, privatnih podataka o Ericu Schmidtu, koje je dobio isključivo pretražujući kroz Google i koristeći ostale Googlove proizvode. (Smijeh) Ista ova podjela vidljiva je kod Marka Zuckerberga, koji je u zloglasnom intervjuu iz 2010. izrekao da privatnost više ne predstavlja ''društvenu normu''. Prošle su godine Mark i njegova nova žena kupili ne samo vlastitu kuću već i sve četiri obližnje kuće u Palo Altu za ukupno 30 milijuna dolara kako bi osigurali uživanje u zoni privatnosti koja je onemogućila druge ljude da promatraju što oni rade u svojim osobnim životima.
Over the last 16 months, as I've debated this issue around the world, every single time somebody has said to me, "I don't really worry about invasions of privacy because I don't have anything to hide." I always say the same thing to them. I get out a pen, I write down my email address. I say, "Here's my email address. What I want you to do when you get home is email me the passwords to all of your email accounts, not just the nice, respectable work one in your name, but all of them, because I want to be able to just troll through what it is you're doing online, read what I want to read and publish whatever I find interesting. After all, if you're not a bad person, if you're doing nothing wrong, you should have nothing to hide."
Zadnjih 16 mjeseci, u debatama o ovoj temi diljem svijeta, baš svaki puta kada bi mi netko rekao, ''Ne brinem se zapravo o narušavanju privatnosti jer nemam ništa za sakriti.'' ja bih im rekao istu stvar. Izvadio bih olovku, napisao svoju e-mail adresu. Rekao bih, ''Evo moje e-mail adrese.'' Želim da mi, kada dođeš doma, pošalješ e-mailom lozinke svih tvojih e-mail računa, ne samo lijepog, poštovanja vrijednog poslovnog e-maila već svih njih, jer želim tek baciti pogled na to što radiš online, pročitati što želim pročitati i objaviti ono što nađem zanimljivim. Na kraju krajeva, ako nisi loša osoba i ako ne radiš ništa krivo ne bi trebao imati što za sakriti.''
Not a single person has taken me up on that offer. I check and — (Applause) I check that email account religiously all the time. It's a very desolate place. And there's a reason for that, which is that we as human beings, even those of us who in words disclaim the importance of our own privacy, instinctively understand the profound importance of it. It is true that as human beings, we're social animals, which means we have a need for other people to know what we're doing and saying and thinking, which is why we voluntarily publish information about ourselves online. But equally essential to what it means to be a free and fulfilled human being is to have a place that we can go and be free of the judgmental eyes of other people. There's a reason why we seek that out, and our reason is that all of us — not just terrorists and criminals, all of us — have things to hide. There are all sorts of things that we do and think that we're willing to tell our physician or our lawyer or our psychologist or our spouse or our best friend that we would be mortified for the rest of the world to learn. We make judgments every single day about the kinds of things that we say and think and do that we're willing to have other people know, and the kinds of things that we say and think and do that we don't want anyone else to know about. People can very easily in words claim that they don't value their privacy, but their actions negate the authenticity of that belief.
Niti jedna jedina osoba nije mi odgovorila na ponudu. Provjerim i — (Pljesak) provjerim opet taj račun, religiozno, svako malo. To vam je jedno prilično osamljeno mjesto. I postoji razlog zašto je tome tako, a taj je da mi kao ljudska bića, čak i oni od nas koji riječima osporavaju važnost vlastite privatnosti instinktivno razumijemo njezinu duboku važnost. Istina je da smo, kao ljudska bića, društvene životinje, što znači da imamo potrebu da drugi ljudi znaju što radimo, govorimo i mislimo i iz tog razloga dobrovoljno objavljujemo podatke o sebi online. No jednako je važno, da bismo bili slobodna i ispunjena ljudska bića, imati mjesto gdje možemo otići i biti slobodni od prosuđujućih pogleda ljudi. Postoji razlog zašto to tražimo i taj je da svi mi — ne samo teroristi i kriminalci, svi mi — imamo stvari koje želimo sakriti. Postoje najrazličitije stvari koje radimo i o kojima razmišljamo, koje smo spremni reći svojem liječniku ili svojem odvjetniku ili psihologu ili supružniku ili najboljem prijatelju no koje bi nas zatravnile da ih sazna ostatak svijeta. Baš svakoga dana donosimo odluke o stvarima koje kažemo, mislimo i napravimo koje smo spremni otkriti drugima, i o onima koje kažemo, mislimo i napravimo i ne želimo da itko drugi za njih sazna. Ljudi će vrlo lako ustvrditi da ne vrednuju svoju privatnost, no njihova djela poriču autentičnost tog uvjerenja.
Now, there's a reason why privacy is so craved universally and instinctively. It isn't just a reflexive movement like breathing air or drinking water. The reason is that when we're in a state where we can be monitored, where we can be watched, our behavior changes dramatically. The range of behavioral options that we consider when we think we're being watched severely reduce. This is just a fact of human nature that has been recognized in social science and in literature and in religion and in virtually every field of discipline. There are dozens of psychological studies that prove that when somebody knows that they might be watched, the behavior they engage in is vastly more conformist and compliant. Human shame is a very powerful motivator, as is the desire to avoid it, and that's the reason why people, when they're in a state of being watched, make decisions not that are the byproduct of their own agency but that are about the expectations that others have of them or the mandates of societal orthodoxy.
Postoji razlog zašto je privatnost žuđena toliko univerzalno i instinktivno. Nije to samo refleksivan pokret poput udisanja zraka ili ispijanja vode. Razlog je taj da u stanju u kojem nas se može pratiti, u kojem nas se može promatrati, mijenjamo svoje ponašanje drastično. Raspon načina ponašanja koje primjenjujemo kada mislimo da smo promatrani ozbiljno se smanjuje. Ovo je tek činjenica o ljudskoj prirodi koja je priznata u društvenim znanostima i u literaturi i u religiji i doslovce u svakom području. Postoje brojne psihološke studije koje dokazuju da kada netko zna da bi mogao biti promatran njegovo ponašanje postaje znatno više prilagođeno i poslušno. Ljudski sram je moćan motivator, kao i želja da ga se izbjegne, što je razlog zašto ljudi, kada su promatrani donose odluke koje nisu rezultat njihovog djelovanja već odraz očekivanja koje drugi imaju od njih ili naloga društvenog pravovjerja.
This realization was exploited most powerfully for pragmatic ends by the 18th- century philosopher Jeremy Bentham, who set out to resolve an important problem ushered in by the industrial age, where, for the first time, institutions had become so large and centralized that they were no longer able to monitor and therefore control each one of their individual members, and the solution that he devised was an architectural design originally intended to be implemented in prisons that he called the panopticon, the primary attribute of which was the construction of an enormous tower in the center of the institution where whoever controlled the institution could at any moment watch any of the inmates, although they couldn't watch all of them at all times. And crucial to this design was that the inmates could not actually see into the panopticon, into the tower, and so they never knew if they were being watched or even when. And what made him so excited about this discovery was that that would mean that the prisoners would have to assume that they were being watched at any given moment, which would be the ultimate enforcer for obedience and compliance. The 20th-century French philosopher Michel Foucault realized that that model could be used not just for prisons but for every institution that seeks to control human behavior: schools, hospitals, factories, workplaces. And what he said was that this mindset, this framework discovered by Bentham, was the key means of societal control for modern, Western societies, which no longer need the overt weapons of tyranny — punishing or imprisoning or killing dissidents, or legally compelling loyalty to a particular party — because mass surveillance creates a prison in the mind that is a much more subtle though much more effective means of fostering compliance with social norms or with social orthodoxy, much more effective than brute force could ever be.
Ovu je spoznaju najmoćnije iskoristio u pragmatičke svrhe krajem 18. stoljeća filozof Jeremy Bentham koji si je postavio za zadaću riješiti važan problem nadošao s industrijskim dobom u kojemu su, po prvi puta, institucije postale tako velike i centralizirane da više nisu bile u stanju pratiti i kontrolirati svakog svojeg pojedinog člana i rješenje do kojega je došao bio je arhitektonski dizajn originalno zamišljen za zatvore, kojega je on nazvao panoptikon, a primarna mu je odlika bila konstrukcija ogromnog tornja posred institucije kojim je tkogod bi kontrolirao instituciju mogao u svakom trenutku promatrati svakog zatvorenika iako ih nije mogao promatrati sve u svakome trenutku. Ključna odlika tog dizajna bila je da zatvorenici nisu mogli vidjeti u panopticon, u toranj, tako da nikada nisu znali gleda li ih se ili kada. Ono radi čega ga je uzbudilo to otkiće bilo je to da su zatvorenici morali pretpostaviti da jesu promatrani u bilo kojem trenutku, što bi postalo najvažnije za postizanje poslušnosti i poštivanja pravila. Francuski filozof 20. stoljeća Michel Foucault shvatio je da je taj model primjenjiv ne tek u zatvorima već u svakoj ustanovi koja želi kontrolirati ljudsko ponašanje: u školama, bolnicama, tvornicama, na radnim mjestima. Rekao je da taj način razmišljanja, taj okvir kojeg je otkrio Bentham, predstavlja ključan način društvene kontrole u modernim društvima Zapada koja više nisu trebala otvorena oružja tiranije — kažnjavanje ili zatvaranje ili ubijanje disidenata, ili pravno obvezivanje na odanost određenoj stranci — jer je masovni nadzor stvorio zatvor u umu, daleko suptilniji ali daleko učinkovitiji način ostvarivanja usklađenosti s društvenim normama ili društvenim pravovjerjem, daleko učinkovitiji no što bi gola sila ikada mogla biti.
The most iconic work of literature about surveillance and privacy is the George Orwell novel "1984," which we all learn in school, and therefore it's almost become a cliche. In fact, whenever you bring it up in a debate about surveillance, people instantaneously dismiss it as inapplicable, and what they say is, "Oh, well in '1984,' there were monitors in people's homes, they were being watched at every given moment, and that has nothing to do with the surveillance state that we face." That is an actual fundamental misapprehension of the warnings that Orwell issued in "1984." The warning that he was issuing was about a surveillance state not that monitored everybody at all times, but where people were aware that they could be monitored at any given moment. Here is how Orwell's narrator, Winston Smith, described the surveillance system that they faced: "There was, of course, no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment." He went on to say, "At any rate, they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live, did live, from habit that became instinct, in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard and except in darkness every movement scrutinized."
Najznačajnije književno djelo o nadzoru i privatnosti je roman Georgea Orwella ''1984'', o kojem svi učimo u školi te je gotovo postao kliše. Zapravo, kada god ga spomenete u debati o nadzoru, ljudi ga istog trenutka odbace kao neprimjenjivog, i kažu, ''Oh, pa u '1984-toj' ljudi su imali monitore u kućama, bili su promatrani u kojem god trenutku, i to nema nikakve veze s nadzirućom državom s kojom se mi susrećemo.'' To je doista temeljito pogrešno shvaćanje upozorenja koje je Orwell dao u ''1984''-toj. Upozorenje koje je dao bilo je o nadzirućoj državi koja nije promatrala sve u svakom trenutku već u kojoj su ljudi bili svjesni da mogu biti promatrani u bilo kojem trenutku. Evo kako Orwellov pripovjedač, Winston Smith, opisuje nadzorni sustav s kojim se suočava: ''Nije postojao, dakako, nikakav način da saznaš promatraju li te u nekom trenutku.'' Dalje govori, ''U svakom slučaju, mogli su se priključiti na tvoju žicu kad god su željeli Morao si živjeti, živio si, uz naviku koja je postala instinkt, uz pretpostavku da svaki zvuk kojeg napraviš načut i, osim u tami, svaki pokret ispitan.''
The Abrahamic religions similarly posit that there's an invisible, all-knowing authority who, because of its omniscience, always watches whatever you're doing, which means you never have a private moment, the ultimate enforcer for obedience to its dictates.
Abrahamske religije na sličan način pretpostavljaju nevidljiv, sveznajuć autoritet koji, radi svoje svemogućnosti, uvijek gleda što god radiš, što znači da nikada nemaš ni trenutak privatnosti, i postaje krajnji primjenjivač poslušnosti koju zapovjeda.
What all of these seemingly disparate works recognize, the conclusion that they all reach, is that a society in which people can be monitored at all times is a society that breeds conformity and obedience and submission, which is why every tyrant, the most overt to the most subtle, craves that system. Conversely, even more importantly, it is a realm of privacy, the ability to go somewhere where we can think and reason and interact and speak without the judgmental eyes of others being cast upon us, in which creativity and exploration and dissent exclusively reside, and that is the reason why, when we allow a society to exist in which we're subject to constant monitoring, we allow the essence of human freedom to be severely crippled.
Ono što sva ova naizgled raznorodna djela prepoznaju, zaključak do kojeg dolaze, je da društvo u kojem ljudi mogu biti promatrani u svakom trenutku jest društvo koje potiče konformizam, poslušnost i podređivanje, i zato svaki tiranin, od najotvorenijeg do najsuptilnijeg, žudi za tim sustavom. S druge je strane, čak važnije, domena privatnosti, sposobnost otići tamo gdje možemo misliti i razlagati i imati odnose i razgovarati bez prosuđujućih očiju drugih na nama, gdje kreativnost i istraživanje i neslaganje isključivo prebivaju, i iz tog razloga, kada dopustimo postojanje društva u kojem smo podložni stalnom promatranju dopuštamo da suština ljudske slobode bude ozbiljno obogaljena.
The last point I want to observe about this mindset, the idea that only people who are doing something wrong have things to hide and therefore reasons to care about privacy, is that it entrenches two very destructive messages, two destructive lessons, the first of which is that the only people who care about privacy, the only people who will seek out privacy, are by definition bad people. This is a conclusion that we should have all kinds of reasons for avoiding, the most important of which is that when you say, "somebody who is doing bad things," you probably mean things like plotting a terrorist attack or engaging in violent criminality, a much narrower conception of what people who wield power mean when they say, "doing bad things." For them, "doing bad things" typically means doing something that poses meaningful challenges to the exercise of our own power.
Zadnje što želim reći o ovome načinu razmišljanja, o ideji da jedino ljudi koji rade nešto krivo imaju stvari za sakriti i stoga razloga za brigu o privatnosti, je da prenosi dvije izrazito destruktive poruke, dvije destruktivne lekcije, od kojih je prva da su jedino oni ljudi koji brinu o privatnosti, jedino ljudi koji traže privatnost, po definiciji loši ljudi. Ovaj zaključak govori da trebamo imati sve moguće razloge za izbjegavanje, najvažniji od kojih je da kada kažeš, ''netko tko radi loše stvari'', vrlo vjerojatno misliš stvari poput planiranja terorističkog napada ili upuštanja u nasilna kaznena djela, što je mnogo uža koncepcija od one koju ljudi na pozicijama moći imaju na umu kada kažu ''raditi loše stvari''. Za njih, ''raditi loše stvari'' tipično znači raditi nešto što postavlja smislen izazov prakticiranju vlastite moći.
The other really destructive and, I think, even more insidious lesson that comes from accepting this mindset is there's an implicit bargain that people who accept this mindset have accepted, and that bargain is this: If you're willing to render yourself sufficiently harmless, sufficiently unthreatening to those who wield political power, then and only then can you be free of the dangers of surveillance. It's only those who are dissidents, who challenge power, who have something to worry about. There are all kinds of reasons why we should want to avoid that lesson as well. You may be a person who, right now, doesn't want to engage in that behavior, but at some point in the future you might. Even if you're somebody who decides that you never want to, the fact that there are other people who are willing to and able to resist and be adversarial to those in power — dissidents and journalists and activists and a whole range of others — is something that brings us all collective good that we should want to preserve. Equally critical is that the measure of how free a society is is not how it treats its good, obedient, compliant citizens, but how it treats its dissidents and those who resist orthodoxy. But the most important reason is that a system of mass surveillance suppresses our own freedom in all sorts of ways. It renders off-limits all kinds of behavioral choices without our even knowing that it's happened. The renowned socialist activist Rosa Luxemburg once said, "He who does not move does not notice his chains." We can try and render the chains of mass surveillance invisible or undetectable, but the constraints that it imposes on us do not become any less potent.
Druga izrazito destruktivna i, smatram, još više podla lekcija koja dolazi s prihvaćanjem ovog načina razmišljanja je da postoji implicitna pogodba na koju pristaju ljudi koji tako razmišljaju, a ta je pogodba sljedeća: Ako si spreman pretvoriti sebe u nekoga dostatno bezopasnog, dostatno neprijetećeg, za one koji imaju političku moć, tada i samo tada bit ćeš slobodan od opasnosti nadziranja. Samo oni koji su disidenti, oni koji se opiru moći, imaju razloga za brigu. Postoje brojni razlozi zašto bismo trebali željeti izbjeći i tu lekciju. Možda ste osoba koja, u ovom trenutku, ne želi biti uključena u takvo ponašanje, no možda ćete nekad u budućnosti željeti. Čak i ako ste netko tko odlučuje nikada ne željeti to, činjenica da postoje drugi ljudi koji su voljni i spremni oduprijeti se i protiviti onima na poziciji moći — disidenti i novinari i aktivisti i cijeli niz drugih — ona je koja nam svima donosi zajedničku dobrobit koju bismo trebali željeti sačuvati. Jednako kritično je da je mjera slobode našeg društva ne kako se odnosi prema svojim dobrim, poslušnim, popustljivim građanima, već kako se odnosi prema svojim disidentima i onima koji se opiru pravovjerju, No najvažniji razlog jest da sustav masovnog nadzora potiskuje našu slobodu na brojne načine. Stavlja izvan granica razne odabire oblika ponašanja čak i bez da smo svjesni što se dogodilo. Uvažena socijalistkinja Rosa Luxembourg jednom je rekla, ''Onaj tko se ne kreće, ni ne primjećuje svoje lance.'' Možemo pokušati pretvoriti lance masivnog nadzora u nešto nevidljivo, neprimjetljivo, no ograničenja koja nam postavljaju ne postaju time ništa manje moćna.
Thank you very much.
Hvala vam puno.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
Thank you.
Hvala vam.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
Thank you.
Hvala.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
Bruno Giussani: Glenn, thank you. The case is rather convincing, I have to say, but I want to bring you back to the last 16 months and to Edward Snowden for a few questions, if you don't mind. The first one is personal to you. We have all read about the arrest of your partner, David Miranda in London, and other difficulties, but I assume that in terms of personal engagement and risk, that the pressure on you is not that easy to take on the biggest sovereign organizations in the world. Tell us a little bit about that.
Bruno Giussani: Glenn, hvala ti. Zvučiš vrlo uvjerljivo, moram reći, no htio bih te vratiti unatrag na zadnjih 16 mjeseci i Edwarda Snowdena radi nekoliko pitanja, ako se slažeš. Prvo je za tebe, osobno. Svi smo čitali o uhićenju tvoga partnera, Davida Mirande u Londonu, i ostalim poteškoćama, no pretpostavljam da, u smislu osobnog angažmana i rizika, pritisak kojeg osjećaš nije lagan, kada napadaš najveće suverene organizacije svijeta. Reci nam nešto malo više o tome.
Glenn Greenwald: You know, I think one of the things that happens is that people's courage in this regard gets contagious, and so although I and the other journalists with whom I was working were certainly aware of the risk — the United States continues to be the most powerful country in the world and doesn't appreciate it when you disclose thousands of their secrets on the Internet at will — seeing somebody who is a 29-year-old ordinary person who grew up in a very ordinary environment exercise the degree of principled courage that Edward Snowden risked, knowing that he was going to go to prison for the rest of his life or that his life would unravel, inspired me and inspired other journalists and inspired, I think, people around the world, including future whistleblowers, to realize that they can engage in that kind of behavior as well.
Glenn Greenwald: Znaš, mislim da je jedna od stvari koja se događa je da ljudska hrabrost u ovom slučaju postaje zarazna i premda ja i drugi novinari s kojima sam radio sigurno jesmo bili svjesni rizika — Sjedinjene države i dalje su najmoćnija država na svijetu i ne cijene kada otkrijete tisuće njihovih tajni na Internetu, svojevoljno — vidjeti nekoga tko je 29-godišnja obična osoba odrasla u vrlo običnim okolnostima kako prakticira stupanj principijelne hrabrosti kakvu je riskirao Snowden, znajući da će otići u zatvor do kraja života ili da će mu se čitav život raspasti, nadahnulo me i nadahnulo druge novinare i nadahnulo, smatram, ljude diljem svijeta, uključujući buduće zviždače, da shvate kako se i oni mogu uključiti u takav oblik ponašanja.
BG: I'm curious about your relationship with Ed Snowden, because you have spoken with him a lot, and you certainly continue doing so, but in your book, you never call him Edward, nor Ed, you say "Snowden." How come?
BG: Zanima me kakav je tvoj odnos s Edom Snowdenom, jer si mnogo razgovarao s njim, i sigurno nastavljaš to činiti, no u svojoj ga knjizi nikada ne nazivaš Edward, ni Ed, već ''Snowden''. Kako to?
GG: You know, I'm sure that's something for a team of psychologists to examine. (Laughter) I don't really know. The reason I think that, one of the important objectives that he actually had, one of his, I think, most important tactics, was that he knew that one of the ways to distract attention from the substance of the revelations would be to try and personalize the focus on him, and for that reason, he stayed out of the media. He tried not to ever have his personal life subject to examination, and so I think calling him Snowden is a way of just identifying him as this important historical actor rather than trying to personalize him in a way that might distract attention from the substance.
GG: Znaš, vjerujem da je to nešto što bi tim psihologa mogao ispitati. (Smijeh) Ne znam zašto, zapravo. Mislim da je zato što je jedan od važnih ciljeva koje je imao, jedna od njegovih najvažnijih taktika, bila da je znao da će jedan od načina za skretanje pozornosti sa sadržaja njegovih otkrića biti pokušaj da se fokus postavi na njega osobno, i iz tog razloga odlučio ostati podalje od medija. Pokušao je izbjeći da se njegov osobni život počne ispitivati i mislim da je zvati ga Snowden tek način na koji ga identificiram kao važnog povijesnog dionika radije nego da ga personaliziram što bi moglo odvući pozornost sa sadržaja.
Moderator: So his revelations, your analysis, the work of other journalists, have really developed the debate, and many governments, for example, have reacted, including in Brazil, with projects and programs to reshape a little bit the design of the Internet, etc. There are a lot of things going on in that sense. But I'm wondering, for you personally, what is the endgame? At what point will you think, well, actually, we've succeeded in moving the dial?
Moderator: Njegova otkrića, tvoja analiza, rad drugih novinara, sve je to razvilo debatu, i mnoge su vlade, primjerice, reagirale, uključujući Brazil, s projektima i programima namijenjenima preoblikovanju izgleda Interneta, itd. Mnoge se stvari događaju u tom smjeru. No pitam se, za tebe osobno, što će biti kraj igre? U kojem ćeš trenutku pomisliti, pa, zapravo smo uspjeli pomaknuti kazaljku?
GG: Well, I mean, the endgame for me as a journalist is very simple, which is to make sure that every single document that's newsworthy and that ought to be disclosed ends up being disclosed, and that secrets that should never have been kept in the first place end up uncovered. To me, that's the essence of journalism and that's what I'm committed to doing. As somebody who finds mass surveillance odious for all the reasons I just talked about and a lot more, I mean, I look at this as work that will never end until governments around the world are no longer able to subject entire populations to monitoring and surveillance unless they convince some court or some entity that the person they've targeted has actually done something wrong. To me, that's the way that privacy can be rejuvenated.
GG: Pa, kraj igre za mene kao novinara je vrlo jednostavan, to je osigurati da svaki pojedini vijesti vrijedan dokument koji mora biti objavljen završi objavljen, i da tajne koje to nikada nisu trebale biti završe otkrivene. Za mene, to je suština novinarstva i ono čemu sam posvećen. Kao netko kome je masovni nadzor odbojan iz svih razloga o kojima sam govorio, i mnogih drugih, mislim, smatram da moj rad neće stati dok vlade diljem svijeta više ne budu mogle podložiti čitave narode praćenju i nadzoru osim ako uvjere neki sud ili entitet da je osoba koju ciljaju zaista napravila nešto krivo. Za mene, to je put kroz koji privatnost može biti pomlađena.
BG: So Snowden is very, as we've seen at TED, is very articulate in presenting and portraying himself as a defender of democratic values and democratic principles. But then, many people really find it difficult to believe that those are his only motivations. They find it difficult to believe that there was no money involved, that he didn't sell some of those secrets, even to China and to Russia, which are clearly not the best friends of the United States right now. And I'm sure many people in the room are wondering the same question. Do you consider it possible there is that part of Snowden we've not seen yet?
BG: Snowden se jako, kako smo i vidjeli u TED-u, jako izričito predstavlja kao branitelj demokratskih vrijednosti i demokratskih načela. No mnogi ljudi nalaze teškim povjerovati da je to jedina njegova motivacija. Teško im je vjerovati da nije bilo novca posrijedi, da nije prodao neke od tih tajni, čak i Kini ili Rusiji, koje sasvim jasno nisu najbolji prijatelji Sjedinjenih država u ovom trenutku. I siguran sam da mnogi ljudi u sobi sebi postavljaju ista pitanja. Smatraš li mogućim da postoji taj dio Snowdena kojeg još nismo vidjeli?
GG: No, I consider that absurd and idiotic. (Laughter) If you wanted to, and I know you're just playing devil's advocate, but if you wanted to sell secrets to another country, which he could have done and become extremely rich doing so, the last thing you would do is take those secrets and give them to journalists and ask journalists to publish them, because it makes those secrets worthless. People who want to enrich themselves do it secretly by selling secrets to the government, but I think there's one important point worth making, which is, that accusation comes from people in the U.S. government, from people in the media who are loyalists to these various governments, and I think a lot of times when people make accusations like that about other people — "Oh, he can't really be doing this for principled reasons, he must have some corrupt, nefarious reason" — they're saying a lot more about themselves than they are the target of their accusations, because — (Applause) — those people, the ones who make that accusation, they themselves never act for any reason other than corrupt reasons, so they assume that everybody else is plagued by the same disease of soullessness as they are, and so that's the assumption. (Applause)
GG: Ne, smatram to apsurdnim i idiotskim. (Smijeh) Ako biste željeli, a znam da se igrate đavoljeg odvjetnika, no ako biste željeli prodati tajne drugoj zemlji, što je on mogao napraviti i postati iznimno bogat time, zadnja stvar koju biste napravili je uzeli te tajne i dali ih novinarima i zamolili ih da ih objave, jer biste ih tako učinili bezvrijednima. Ljudi koji se žele obogatiti to učine u tajnosti, prodajući tajne izravno vladama, no mislim da je jedno bitno napomenuti to da optužbe dolaze od ljudi iz vlade SAD-a, od ljudi u medijima koji su lojalisti tih različitih vlada, i mislim da mnogo puta kada ljudi, iznose takve optužbe o drugim ljudima - ''O, on to sigurno ne radi samo iz principa, sigurno mora imati pokvarene, opake razloge'' — oni kažu mnogo više o sebi samima nego o metama njihovih napada, jer — (Pljesak) — ti ljudi, koji iznose takve optužbe, oni sami nikada ne djeluju ni iz kakvih drugih doli pokvarenih razloga, tako da pretpostavljaju da su svi ostali zaraženi istom bolešću bezdušnosti kao i oni sami, tako da to postaje njihova pretpostavka. (Pljesak)
BG: Glenn, thank you very much. GG: Thank you very much.
BG: Glenn, hvala ti puno. GG: Puno hvala vama.
BG: Glenn Greenwald. (Applause)
BG: Glenn Greenwald. (Pljesak)