Once upon a time, the world was a big, dysfunctional family. It was run by the great and powerful parents, and the people were helpless and hopeless naughty children. If any of the more rowdier children questioned the authority of the parents, they were scolded. If they went exploring into the parents' rooms, or even into the secret filing cabinets, they were punished, and told that for their own good they must never go in there again.
很久以前,世界就像是一個大且運作不良的家庭。 由一對強而有力的父母經營, 而人們是無助 且不懷抱希望的調皮小孩。 如果有比較吵鬧的小孩 質疑父母的權威,他們會被責罵。 如果他們跑到父母的房間裡探險, 或者甚至跑到隱密的檔案室內,他們會被處罰, 且被提醒為了他們好, 他們絕對不能再走進去。
Then one day, a man came to town with boxes and boxes of secret documents stolen from the parents' rooms. "Look what they've been hiding from you," he said. The children looked and were amazed. There were maps and minutes from meetings where the parents were slagging each other off. They behaved just like the children. And they made mistakes, too, just like the children. The only difference was, their mistakes were in the secret filing cabinets. Well, there was a girl in the town, and she didn't think they should be in the secret filing cabinets, or if they were, there ought to be a law to allow the children access. And so she set about to make it so.
有一天,一個男人到鎮上來, 帶著從父母的房間裡偷來的 裝著秘密檔案的好幾個箱子。 「看他們一直對你們隱瞞的是什麼」他說。 小孩們看了感到很驚奇。 這些是他們父母彼此怒罵過程的 圖像和會議記錄。 他們的舉止就像小孩。 而且他們也會犯錯,就像小孩一樣。 唯一的差異是,他們的錯誤 放在秘密資料庫內。 鎮上有一個女孩,她不認為 這些資料應該放在秘密資料庫內, 就算放在那裡,應該要有條法律 允許小孩們能取得資料。 所以她打算要這麼做。
Well, I'm the girl in that story, and the secret documents that I was interested in were located in this building, the British Parliament, and the data that I wanted to get my hands on were the expense receipts of members of Parliament. I thought this was a basic question to ask in a democracy. (Applause) It wasn't like I was asking for the code to a nuclear bunker, or anything like that, but the amount of resistance I got from this Freedom of Information request, you would have thought I'd asked something like this.
我就是故事中的女孩,而我感興趣的秘密文件 就位於這座建築物中, 也就是英國國會大廈,我要取得的資料 是國會議員的 開支收據。 我想這是民主社會中要問的基本問題。(掌聲) 我不是在問核子避難所的密碼, 或者那類的事情,但我出自於尋求資訊的自由 而遭遇到的種種阻力 會讓人以為我在問那種機密的問題。
So I fought for about five years doing this, and it was one of many hundreds of requests that I made, not -- I didn't -- Hey, look, I didn't set out, honestly, to revolutionize the British Parliament. That was not my intention. I was just making these requests as part of research for my first book. But it ended up in this very long, protracted legal battle and there I was after five years fighting against Parliament in front of three of Britain's most eminent High Court judges waiting for their ruling about whether or not Parliament had to release this data. And I've got to tell you, I wasn't that hopeful, because I'd seen the establishment. I thought, it always sticks together. I am out of luck.
於是我花了大概五年在爭取, 而這只是我所提的好幾百個請求中的一個。 事實上,我的本意不是要 徹底改革英國國會。 那不是我的原本企圖,我只是為我第一本書的研究 提了這些請求。 但卻演變成冗長,拖延的法律戰, 於是過了五年跟國會抗戰後 我站在英國最有名望的三位高等法院法官前, 等待他們裁定國會是否必須釋出這些資料。 我必須誠實以告,當時我沒抱什麼希望。 因為我已經見識過這些機關組織。我心想, 他們會聯合起來。我沒那麼幸運。
Well, guess what? I won. Hooray. (Applause)
猜猜看?我贏了。萬歲。(掌聲)
Well, that's not exactly the story, because the problem was that Parliament delayed and delayed releasing that data, and then they tried to retrospectively change the law so that it would no longer apply to them. The transparency law they'd passed earlier that applied to everybody else, they tried to keep it so it didn't apply to them. What they hadn't counted on was digitization, because that meant that all those paper receipts had been scanned in electronically, and it was very easy for somebody to just copy that entire database, put it on a disk, and then just saunter outside of Parliament, which they did, and then they shopped that disk to the highest bidder, which was the Daily Telegraph, and then, you all remember, there was weeks and weeks of revelations, everything from porn movies and bath plugs and new kitchens and mortgages that had never been paid off. The end result was six ministers resigned, the first speaker of the house in 300 years was forced to resign, a new government was elected on a mandate of transparency, 120 MPs stepped down at that election, and so far, four MPs and two lords have done jail time for fraud. So, thank you. (Applause)
但故事不是到此結束,因為問題是 國會一再拖延釋出資料的時間, 接著他們試著回顧性地改變法律 以致於法律不適用於他們。 他們較早前通過的透明法適用於其他所有人, 但他們試著保存這法律以致於他們能置身事外。 他們沒想到的是數位化, 因為這代表著所有紙張收據 都經過電子掃描存檔,於是若有人要 複製整個資料檔,這是易如反掌的事, 插入一個磁碟,資料就流到國會外了, 有人確實這麼做了,接著他們將磁碟 賣給出價最高的競標者,也就是《每日電訊報》, 於是,你也都記得,接下來持續好幾周的披露, 什麼都有,從色情電影 浴缸塞和新的廚房 還有從來沒有付清的貸款。 結果是六個大臣辭職, 300年以來,第一個下議院議長被強迫辭職, 根據透明化的指令,一個新政府被推選成立了, 120個國會議員在此選舉中下台, 截至目前為止,四個國會議員和兩個上議院議員 因詐欺被而坐牢。 謝謝。(掌聲)
Well, I tell you that story because it wasn't unique to Britain. It was an example of a culture clash that's happening all over the world between bewigged and bestockinged officials who think that they can rule over us without very much prying from the public, and then suddenly confronted with a public who is no longer content with that arrangement, and not only not content with it, now, more often, armed with official data itself.
我講這個故事是因為這並不只發生在英國。 這是文化衝突的例子, 發生在全世界戴假髮和穿襪子的官員身上, 他們認為他們可以統治我們 而不用受到大眾的窺探, 接著突然間受到不滿於此種安排的 社會大眾對質, 社會大眾不只是不滿足現狀,更常見地, 還有官方資料當靠山。
So we are moving to this democratization of information, and I've been in this field for quite a while. Slightly embarrassing admission: Even when I was a kid, I used to have these little spy books, and I would, like, see what everybody was doing in my neighborhood and log it down. I think that was a pretty good indication about my future career as an investigative journalist, and what I've seen from being in this access to information field for so long is that it used to be quite a niche interest, and it's gone mainstream. Everybody, increasingly, around the world, wants to know about what people in power are doing. They want a say in decisions that are made in their name and with their money. It's this democratization of information that I think is an information enlightenment, and it has many of the same principles of the first Enlightenment. It's about searching for the truth, not because somebody says it's true, "because I say so." No, it's about trying to find the truth based on what you can see and what can be tested. That, in the first Enlightenment, led to questions about the right of kings, the divine right of kings to rule over people, or that women should be subordinate to men, or that the Church was the official word of God.
於是我們進入資訊民主化的時代, 而我已經在這領域有一段時間。 有點難為情的自白:當我還是個孩子的時候, 我有小本的間諜筆記本,我所做的是 看在我家附近每個人在做什麼,記錄下來。 我想那是我未來選擇 作為一個調查型記者的好指標, 而我在這個要取得資訊的領域待了這麼久,所看到的是 過去大家為的是利基利益, 現在這已經成為主流。全世界裡,愈來愈多人 想要知道有權力的人在做什麼。 對於以他們之名和花他們金錢下所做的決定, 他們有權表達意見。 我認為資訊民主化 就像是資訊的啟蒙期, 它跟第一個啟蒙時代有很多相同的原則。 都是要尋找真相, 不是因為有人說那是真的,「因為我這麼說。」 不是的,而是根據你所看到的, 還有可以被驗證的,來試圖找出真相。 在第一個啟蒙時代,這點引發種種問題, 像是國王的權利,國王統治人民的神聖正當性, 或者女性應該順從男性, 或者教會是上帝的官方語言。
Obviously the Church weren't very happy about this, and they tried to suppress it, but what they hadn't counted on was technology, and then they had the printing press, which suddenly enabled these ideas to spread cheaply, far and fast, and people would come together in coffee houses, discuss the ideas, plot revolution.
顯然教會不樂見此情形, 於是他們試著壓制它, 但他們沒想到的是科技, 接著報紙印刷出現了, 突然間這些想法可以很便宜地散播出去,又遠又快, 於是人們會聚集在咖啡店, 討論這些想法,策畫革命。
In our day, we have digitization. That strips all the physical mass out of information, so now it's almost zero cost to copy and share information. Our printing press is the Internet. Our coffee houses are social networks. We're moving to what I would think of as a fully connected system, and we have global decisions to make in this system, decisions about climate, about finance systems, about resources. And think about it -- if we want to make an important decision about buying a house, we don't just go off. I mean, I don't know about you, but I want to see a lot of houses before I put that much money into it. And if we're thinking about a finance system, we need a lot of information to take in. It's just not possible for one person to take in the amount, the volume of information, and analyze it to make good decisions.
在我們的時代,我們有數位化。 刪減了資訊的實體體積, 所以現在複製和分享資訊幾乎是不需要成本的。 我們的報紙印刷是網際網路, 我們的咖啡店是社群網路。 我們進入我所認為的一個完整連接的系統, 在這個系統內,我們可以作全球的決定, 關於氣候、關於財政系統、 關於資源等的決定。仔細想想 -- 如果我們要做買房子的重大決定, 我們不會一次決定。我不清楚你們會怎麼做, 但在我花了這麼多錢之前,我會去看很多房子。 如果我們想到一個財政系統, 我們需要吸收很多的資訊。 一個人不可能吸收這麼大量的資訊, 進行分析而下對決定。
So that's why we're seeing increasingly this demand for access to information. That's why we're starting to see more disclosure laws come out, so for example, on the environment, there's the Aarhus Convention, which is a European directive that gives people a very strong right to know, so if your water company is dumping water into your river, sewage water into your river, you have a right to know about it. In the finance industry, you now have more of a right to know about what's going on, so we have different anti-bribery laws, money regulations, increased corporate disclosure, so you can now track assets across borders. And it's getting harder to hide assets, tax avoidance, pay inequality. So that's great. We're starting to find out more and more about these systems.
這也是為什麼我們可看到日漸增加的 取得資訊的需求。 這也是為什麼我們開始看到愈來愈多的 揭露法出現,舉例來說,在環境方面, 有奧胡斯公約, 這是一個歐洲的指令,賦予人們強烈的 可得知的權力,於是如果你的自來水公司 將汙水排放到你的河流裡, 你有知道的權力。 在金融業裡,你絕對有權力 知道目前發生什麼事,於是我們有 不同的反賄絡法,金錢管制, 增加的企業揭露,所以現在你可以跨界追蹤資產。 而且要隱藏資產,避稅,支付不平等工資都日漸困難。 這很棒。我們正開始要在這些系統中 挖掘愈來愈多的東西。
And they're all moving to this central system, this fully connected system, all of them except one. Can you guess which one? It's the system which underpins all these other systems. It's the system by which we organize and exercise power, and there I'm talking about politics, because in politics, we're back to this system, this top-down hierarchy. And how is it possible that the volume of information can be processed that needs to in this system? Well, it just can't. That's it. And I think this is largely what's behind the crisis of legitimacy in our different governments right now.
而且這些都往中央系統移動, 這個完全連接的系統, 只缺了一個就完整了。你猜得到是哪一個嗎? 它是所有其它的系統的基礎。 是我們組織且操用權力的根據, 我指的是政治,因為在政治方面, 我們回歸到這個系統,這個綜合的等級制度。 於是需要在此系統中的大量資訊, 怎麼有可能會被分析呢? 嗯,答案就是不可能。就是如此。 我認為這是大量隱藏在我們現有不同政府的 合法性的危機底下。
So I've told you a bit about what I did to try and drag Parliament, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century, and I'm just going to give you a couple of examples of what a few other people I know are doing.
我已經跟你們分享一些我做過的事, 無所不用其極地想把國會帶進 21世紀,我要再說兩個 其他我認識的人正在做的事 的例子。
So this is a guy called Seb Bacon. He's a computer programmer, and he built a site called Alaveteli, and what it is, it's a Freedom of Information platform. It's open-source, with documentation, and it allows you to make a Freedom of Information request, to ask your public body a question, so it takes all the hassle out of it, and I can tell you that there is a lot of hassle making these requests, so it takes all of that hassle out, and you just type in your question, for example, how many police officers have a criminal record? It zooms it off to the appropriate person, it tells you when the time limit is coming to an end, it keeps track of all the correspondence, it posts it up there, and it becomes an archive of public knowledge. So that's open-source and it can be used in any country where there is some kind of Freedom of Information law. So there's a list there of the different countries that have it, and then there's a few more coming on board. So if any of you out there like the sound of that and have a law like that in your country, I know that Seb would love to hear from you about collaborating and getting that into your country.
有的名叫 Seb Bacon 的人。他是個電腦程式 設計師,他架了一個叫做 Alaveteli 的網站, 這網站是一個資訊自由的平台。 它是開放原始碼的,有文件資料, 且允許人們提出資訊自由的請求, 詢問相關大眾一個問題, 它把所有的麻煩都刪去,我跟你保證 提出這些請求就是有很多麻煩, 它把麻煩省了,而你所做的只是輸入你的問題, 舉例來說,多少警察有犯罪前科? 網站會將問題轉移到合適的人身上, 當期限快到的時候,你會被網站告知,網站也會持續 追蹤所有的相關通信資訊,將資訊發布在網站上, 變成大眾知識的檔案庫。 因為這網站是開放原始碼的,它可被應用在 任何有資訊自由法的國家。 這裡有一張列出擁有資訊自由法的各個不同的國家清單, 還有幾個國家正要加入。 如果你們當中有人欣賞這個想法 且在你們的國家也有類似的法律, 我想 Seb 會很開心你和他聯絡, 一起合作將網站推廣到你的國家。
This is Birgitta Jónsdóttir. She's an Icelandic MP. And quite an unusual MP. In Iceland, she was one of the protesters who was outside of Parliament when the country's economy collapsed, and then she was elected on a reform mandate, and she's now spearheading this project. It's the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative, and they've just got funding to make it an international modern media project, and this is taking all of the best laws around the world about freedom of expression, protection of whistleblowers, protection from libel, source protection, and trying to make Iceland a publishing haven. It's a place where your data can be free, so when we think about, increasingly, how governments want to access user data, what they're trying to do in Iceland is make this safe haven where it can happen.
這是 Birgitta Jónsdóttir 。她是冰島的國會議員。 可說是位相當不尋常的國會議員。在冰島, 當國家的經濟崩裂時, 她是站在國會外的抗議群眾之一, 接著她被選為改革的代表, 現在她是這個企劃的先鋒部隊。 此企劃就是冰島現代傳媒倡議, 而且他們剛取得資金可以將它推廣成 國際的現代傳媒企劃,也就是吸取 世界上最好的法律,包括表達的自由, 保護告密者,不受毀謗的防護, 來源防護,還有嘗試將冰島變成一個發布消息的避難所。 在那裏你的資訊可以自由, 當我們愈來愈常想到政府多麼想要取得使用者資訊, 在冰島他們正在做的是建造一個可能成真的 安全避難所。
In my own field of investigative journalism, we're also having to start thinking globally, so this is a site called Investigative Dashboard. And if you're trying to track a dictator's assets, for example, Hosni Mubarak, you know, he's just funneling out cash from his country when he knows he's in trouble, and what you want to do to investigate that is, you need to have access to all of the world's, as many as you can, companies' house registrations databases. So this is a website that tries to agglomerate all of those databases into one place so you can start searching for, you know, his relatives, his friends, the head of his security services. You can try and find out how he's moving out assets from that country.
在我所從事的調查型新聞領域, 我們也必須有全球型思維,於是有個叫作 調查儀表版的網站。如果你要查詢 一個獨裁者的資產,舉例來說, Hosni Mubarak , 你也知道,當他知道他身陷麻煩, 他將錢從他的國家流出去,而你要調查時, 你必需竭盡所能地 取得全世界的 公司的房屋註冊資料庫。 所以這是個試著凝聚所有資料庫 到一個網站,所以你可以查詢 他的親戚,他的朋友,他的國家安全部門的首長。 你可以試著找出他如何將資產 移出國內。
But again, when it comes to the decisions which are impacting us the most, perhaps, the most important decisions that are being made about war and so forth, again we can't just make a Freedom of Information request. It's really difficult. So we're still having to rely on illegitimate ways of getting information, through leaks. So when the Guardian did this investigation about the Afghan War, you know, they can't walk into the Department of Defense and ask for all the information. You know, they're just not going to get it. So this came from leaks of tens of thousands of dispatches that were written by American soldiers about the Afghan War, and leaked, and then they're able to do this investigation.
但當我們講到影響我們最劇烈的決定, 或許最重要的決定是 有關戰爭等等, 我們不可能只是個提出資訊自由的請求。 這是非常困難的。所以我們仍須依靠 不合法的手段或洩漏的消息來取來資訊。 於是當英國《衛報》調查 阿富汗戰爭時,他們不能走進 國防部門要求取得所有的資訊。 資訊不可能這樣到手。 所以資訊來自美國軍人寫下的 幾萬則有關阿富汗戰爭的快信中, 而且被洩露, 接著他們才能進行調查。
Another rather large investigation is around world diplomacy. Again, this is all based around leaks, 251,000 U.S. diplomatic cables, and I was involved in this investigation because I got this leak through a leak from a disgruntled WikiLeaker and ended up going to work at the Guardian. So I can tell you firsthand what it was like to have access to this leak. It was amazing. I mean, it was amazing. It reminded me of that scene in "The Wizard of Oz." Do you know the one I mean? Where the little dog Toto runs across to where the wizard [is], and he pulls back, the dog's pulling back the curtain, and -- "Don't look behind the screen. Don't look at the man behind the screen." It was just like that, because what you started to see is that all of these grand statesmen, these very pompous politicians, they were just like us. They all bitched about each other. I mean, quite gossipy, those cables. Okay, but I thought it was a very important point for all of us to grasp, these are human beings just like us. They don't have special powers. They're not magic. They are not our parents. Beyond that, what I found most fascinating was the level of endemic corruption that I saw across all different countries, and particularly centered around the heart of power, around public officials who were embezzling the public's money for their own personal enrichment, and allowed to do that because of official secrecy.
另外一個相當大規模的調查是全球外交。 再一次地,這也是全部根據洩露的訊息, 251,000 份美國外交的越洋電報,我也參與 了這件調查,因為我從一個 很不開心的維基解密人員所洩漏的消息中取得資訊, 結果我到英國《衛報》工作。 所以我可以跟你說取得此洩密的 第一手感覺。我的意思是,感覺非常的奇妙。 讓我想起《綠野仙蹤》的場景。 你知道我的意思嗎?當小狗多多 跑到巫師旁,巫師後退, 多多折回跑到布簾旁,接著 -- 「不要偷瞄布簾,不要看布簾後面那個人。」 就像這樣,因為你開始看到的是 全部這些非常高貴的,浮誇的政治家, 他們就跟我們一樣。 他們都互相講彼此的壞話。我指的是這些電報 都滿八卦的。但我想我們應該要抓住 一個重點,這些人是跟我們一樣的人類。 他們沒有特別的權力。 他們沒有魔法。他們不是我們的父母。 除此之外,我發現最令人著迷的是 我在所有不同國家中看到的 每個地方特有的腐敗程度, 特別是集中在中心權力附近,盜用公眾財產 來提升個人財富的公務員, 因為官方機密, 他們可以下手。
So I've mentioned WikiLeaks, because surely what could be more open than publishing all the material? Because that is what Julian Assange did. He wasn't content with the way the newspapers published it to be safe and legal. He threw it all out there. That did end up with vulnerable people in Afghanistan being exposed. It also meant that the Belarussian dictator was given a handy list of all the pro-democracy campaigners in that country who had spoken to the U.S. government. Is that radical openness? I say it's not, because for me, what it means, it doesn't mean abdicating power, responsibility, accountability, it's actually being a partner with power. It's about sharing responsibility, sharing accountability. Also, the fact that he threatened to sue me because I got a leak of his leaks, I thought that showed a remarkable sort of inconsistency in ideology, to be honest, as well. (Laughs)
我已經提到維基解密,因為有什麼可以比 發布這些資訊更公開的事? 因為這就是 Julian Assange 所做的事。 他不滿足於報紙講求安全和合法的 發行方式。他將所有資訊釋出。 的確最後在阿富汗 容易受傷害的人們被曝光。 這也代表白俄羅斯獨裁者 有了一份方便的名單,列出所在國家內 和美國政府接洽過且支持民主的倡導者。 這是很激進的開放性嗎?我覺得不是,因為對我而言, 這代表的不是放棄權力, 責任,可靠性,這其實是代表著擁有權力的夥伴。 這是關於分享責任, 分享責任。還有, 他威脅要告我因為我有他的洩密的這項事實, 我想也這展現了一種值得注意的前後矛盾的意識, 老實說。(笑聲)
The other thing is that power is incredibly seductive, and you must have two real qualities, I think, when you come to the table, when you're dealing with power, talking about power, because of its seductive capacity. You've got to have skepticism and humility. Skepticism, because you must always be challenging. I want to see why do you -- you just say so? That's not good enough. I want to see the evidence behind why that's so. And humility because we are all human. We all make mistakes. And if you don't have skepticism and humility, then it's a really short journey to go from reformer to autocrat, and I think you only have to read "Animal Farm" to get that message about how power corrupts people.
另一件事是權力有令人不可置信的吸引力, 所以我想你一定要有兩種真的特質, 當你到桌前,當你操縱權力, 談論權力, 因為它的誘惑力。 你一定要能懷疑和保持謙卑。 懷疑,因為你一定要一直挑戰。 我要看到你剛剛這麼說的原因。那還不夠好。 我要看到為什麼那是這樣的證據。 而要謙虛是因為我們都是人類,我們都會犯錯。 如果你不懂得懷疑和謙虛, 改革者和獨裁者之間只有一線之隔, 我想你只要讀過《動物農莊》 就能明白權力如何腐蝕人心。
So what is the solution? It is, I believe, to embody within the rule of law rights to information. At the moment our rights are incredibly weak. In a lot of countries, we have Official Secrets Acts, including in Britain here. We have an Official Secrets Act with no public interest test. So that means it's a crime, people are punished, quite severely in a lot of cases, for publishing or giving away official information. Now wouldn't it be amazing, and really, this is what I want all of you to think about, if we had an Official Disclosure Act where officials were punished if they were found to have suppressed or hidden information that was in the public interest? So that -- yes. Yes! My power pose. (Applause) (Laughs) I would like us to work towards that.
那麼解決方案是什麼呢? 我相信是要在法律規定下, 將取得資訊的權力具體化。 當下我們的權力真是令人不可置信地渺小。 在很多國家,有實行官方機密法, 包括在英國。我們有不為大眾利益著想的 官方機密法。這代表著發布或者洩漏官方消息 是犯罪行為,在很多案例裡, 人們被嚴重地處罰。 試想這樣不是很好嗎? 我要你們思考的是 如果我們有個官方的揭露法 當官員被發現封鎖或者隱藏了 有關大眾利益的消息, 他們會被處罰。 對!這就是我的權力姿勢。(掌聲)(笑聲) 我希望我們能朝這個方向努力。
So it's not all bad news. I mean, there definitely is progress on the line, but I think what we find is that the closer that we get right into the heart of power, the more opaque, closed it becomes. So it was only just the other week that I heard London's Metropolitan Police Commissioner talking about why the police need access to all of our communications, spying on us without any judicial oversight, and he said it was a matter of life and death. He actually said that, it was a matter of life and death. There was no evidence. He presented no evidence of that. It was just, "Because I say so. You have to trust me. Take it on faith." Well, I'm sorry, people, but we are back to the pre-Enlightenment Church, and we need to fight against that.
所以並非全部都是壞消息。我的意思是, 當然有在進步,但我想我們發現了 當我們愈接近權力中心時, 它變得更模糊和封閉。 某一週我聽到 倫敦警察局局長講到 為什麼警察需要取得我們所有的通聯記錄, 不在司法監督下可監視我們, 他說這是攸關生死的事情。 他真的這麼說,攸關生死的事。 沒有證據。他沒有提出任何證據。 就像這樣,「因為我這麼說。 你必須相信我。有信心。」 嗯,我很抱歉,大家,但我們退化到 啟蒙時代前的教會中, 所以我們必需抵抗。
So he was talking about the law in Britain which is the Communications Data Bill, an absolutely outrageous piece of legislation. In America, you have the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act. You've got drones now being considered for domestic surveillance. You have the National Security Agency building the world's giantest spy center. It's just this colossal -- it's five times bigger than the U.S. Capitol, in which they're going to intercept and analyze communications, traffic and personal data to try and figure out who's the troublemaker in society.
他所提到的英國法律是 通訊資料法,一則相當可恥的立法。 在美國有網路情報分享及保護法。 無人飛機被使來作國土監控。 有一棟世界最大的監視中心 也就是國家安全局。非常龐大 -- 是美國國會大廈的五倍大, 他們在裡面攔截和分析 通聯紀錄、交通和個人資料, 試著找出誰是社會中製造麻煩的人。
Well, to go back to our original story, the parents have panicked. They've locked all the doors. They've kitted out the house with CCTV cameras. They're watching all of us. They've dug a basement, and they've built a spy center to try and run algorithms and figure out which ones of us are troublesome, and if any of us complain about that, we're arrested for terrorism. Well, is that a fairy tale or a living nightmare? Some fairy tales have happy endings. Some don't. I think we've all read the Grimms' fairy tales, which are, indeed, very grim. But the world isn't a fairy tale, and it could be more brutal than we want to acknowledge. Equally, it could be better than we've been led to believe, but either way, we have to start seeing it exactly as it is, with all of its problems, because it's only by seeing it with all of its problems that we'll be able to fix them and live in a world in which we can all be happily ever after. (Laughs) Thank you very much. (Applause) Thank you. (Applause)
回到我們原本的故事, 父母受了驚嚇。他們把全部的門都鎖起來。 他們在屋外都裝了 CCTV 監視攝影機。 他們在監控我們。他們挖了一個地下室, 而且建造一個監視中心,執行規則系統, 找出我們當中誰會找麻煩, 如果任何人抱怨,我們會因恐怖主義被逮捕。 這到底是童話故事還是活生生的夢靨呢? 有些童話故事有美好結局。有些沒有。 我想我們都讀過格林童話, 事實上是非常殘忍的。 但這個世界不是個童話故事,甚至有可能 比我們願意承認得來的更加殘酷。 相同地,世界可以比我們過去被引導而相信得還要好, 但不管是哪個方式,我們必須開始看清事情真相, 和所有的問題,因為只有藉著 看清所有的問題,我們才能解決它們, 且活在一個我們全部都可以過得 更快樂的世界。(笑聲) 謝謝大家。 (掌聲) 謝謝。(掌聲)