So I begin with an advertisement inspired by George Orwell that Apple ran in 1984.
I tako počinjem s promotivnim spotom inspiriranim Georgeom Orwellom koju je Apple pustio 1984.
(Video) Big Brother: We are one people with one will, one resolve, one cause. Our enemies shall talk themselves to death, and we will fight them with their own confusion. We shall prevail. Narrator: On January 24th, Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you'll see why 1984 won't be like "1984."
(Video) Big Brother: Mi smo jedan narod s jednom voljom, jednom odlučnošću, jednim ciljem. Naši neprijatelji će se zapričavati do smrti, i borit ćemo se protiv njih njihovom vlastitom zbunjenošću. Mi ćemo prevladati. Pripovjedač: 24. siječnja, Apple Computer će predstaviti Macintosh. I vidjet ćete zašto 1984. neće biti kao "1984".
Rebecca MacKinnon: So the underlying message of this video remains very powerful even today. Technology created by innovative companies will set us all free. Fast-forward more than two decades: Apple launches the iPhone in China and censors the Dalai Lama out along with several other politically sensitive applications at the request of the Chinese government for its Chinese app store. The American political cartoonist Mark Fiore also had his satire application censored in the United States because some of Apple's staff were concerned it would be offensive to some groups. His app wasn't reinstated until he won the Pulitzer Prize. The German magazine Stern, a news magazine, had its app censored because the Apple nannies deemed it to be a little bit too racy for their users, and despite the fact that this magazine is perfectly legal for sale on newsstands throughout Germany. And more controversially, recently, Apple censored a Palestinian protest app after the Israeli government voiced concerns that it might be used to organize violent attacks.
Rebecca MacKinnon: Temeljna poruka ovog videa još i danas ostaje vrlo snažna. Tehnologija koju kreiraju inovativne kompanije će nas osloboditi. Premotajmo više od dva desetljeća unaprijed: Apple predstavlja iPhone u Kini i cenzurira Dalai Lamu i još nekoliko politički osjetljivih aplikacija na zahtjev kineske vlade za kineski app store. Američki politički karikaturist Mark Fiore čija je satirična aplikacija cenzurirana u Sjedinjenim državama jer su neki članovi Appleovog osoblja bili zabrinuti kako bi aplikacija mogla biti uvredljiva nekim grupama. Njegova aplikacija nije vraćena dok nije osvojio nagradu Pulitzer. Njemačkom časopisu Stern cenzurirali su aplikaciju jer su dadilje iz Applea smatrale kako je malo prerasistička za njihove korisnike, unatoč činjenici da se ovaj časopis potpuno legalno prodaje na štandovima diljem Njemačke. I što je još kontroverznije, nedavno, Apple je cenzurirao palestinsku aplikaciju za proteste nakon što je izraelska vlada izjavila da je zabrinuta kako bi se mogla koristiti za organizaciju nasilnih napada.
So here's the thing. We have a situation where private companies are applying censorship standards that are often quite arbitrary and generally more narrow than the free speech constitutional standards that we have in democracies. Or they're responding to censorship requests by authoritarian regimes that do not reflect consent of the governed. Or they're responding to requests and concerns by governments that have no jurisdiction over many, or most, of the users and viewers who are interacting with the content in question.
Dakle stvar je ovakva. Imamo situaciju gdje privatne kompanije primjenjuju cenzuru prema standardima koji su često poprilično proizvoljni i općenito uži od ustavnih standarda slobode govora koje imamo u demokracijama. Ili odgovaraju na zahtjeve za cenzurom od strane autoritativnih režima s kojima se ne slaže narod. Ili odgovaraju na zahtjeve i brige vlada koje nemaju nadležnost nad većinom korisnika i gledatelja koji koriste predmetni sadržaj.
So here's the situation. In a pre-Internet world, sovereignty over our physical freedoms, or lack thereof, was controlled almost entirely by nation-states. But now we have this new layer of private sovereignty in cyberspace. And their decisions about software coding, engineering, design, terms of service all act as a kind of law that shapes what we can and cannot do with our digital lives. And their sovereignties, cross-cutting, globally interlinked, can in some ways challenge the sovereignties of nation-states in very exciting ways, but sometimes also act to project and extend it at a time when control over what people can and cannot do with information has more effect than ever on the exercise of power in our physical world. After all, even the leader of the free world needs a little help from the sultan of Facebookistan if he wants to get reelected next year.
Dakle, evo situacije. U svijetu prije Interneta, suverenost nad našim fizičkim slobodama, ili nedostatak dotične, gotovo u potpunosti kontrolirale su nacionalne države. Ali sada imamo ovaj novi sloj privatne suverenosti u cyberprostoru. I njihove odluke o kodiranju softvera, inženjeringu, dizajnu, uvjetima usluge se ponašaju kao zakon koji određuje što možemo, a što ne možemo s našim digitalnim životima. I njihovi suvereniteti, unakrsno, globalno povezani, na neke načine mogu osporiti suverenitete nacionalnih država na vrlo uzbudljive načine, ali ih isto tako katkad proširuju u vrijeme kada kontrola nad onim što ljudi mogu ili ne mogu s informacijama ima više utjecaja nego ikada na ostvarivanje moći u našem fizičkom svijetu. Na kraju, čak i vođa slobodnog svijeta treba malo pomoći od sultana Facebookistana ako želi biti ponovno izabran slijedeće godine.
And these platforms were certainly very helpful to activists in Tunisia and Egypt this past spring and beyond. As Wael Ghonim, the Google-Egyptian-executive by day, secret-Facebook-activist by night, famously said to CNN after Mubarak stepped down, "If you want to liberate a society, just give them the Internet." But overthrowing a government is one thing and building a stable democracy is a bit more complicated. On the left there's a photo taken by an Egyptian activist who was part of the storming of the Egyptian state security offices in March. And many of the agents shredded as many of the documents as they could and left them behind in piles. But some of the files were left behind intact, and activists, some of them, found their own surveillance dossiers full of transcripts of their email exchanges, their cellphone text message exchanges, even Skype conversations. And one activist actually found a contract from a Western company for the sale of surveillance technology to the Egyptian security forces. And Egyptian activists are assuming that these technologies for surveillance are still being used by the transitional authorities running the networks there.
I ove platforme su svakako bile vrlo korisne aktivistima u Tunisu i Egiptu ovog proljeća i kasnije. Kako je Wael Ghonim, šef egipatskog Googlea po danu, tajni Facebook aktivist po noći, slavno rekao CNN-u nakon što je Mumbarak odstupio, "Ako želite osloboditi društvo, samo im dajte Internet." Ali rušenje vlade je jedna stvar dok je izgradnja stabilne demokracije malo kompliciranija. S lijeva je fotografija koju je uslikao egipatski aktivist koji je bio dio napada na urede državne sigurnosti Egipta u ožujku. Puno je agenata uništavalo što su više dokumenata mogli i ostavili ih iza sebe na hrpama. Ali neki dokumenti ostali su netaknuti, i aktivisti, neki od njih, našli su svoje vlastite dosjee pune prijepisa razmjena svojih email poruka, svojih tekstualnih poruka mobitelima, čak i Skype razgovora. Jedan je aktivist pronašao ugovor jedne zapadne kompanije za prodaju tehnologije za nadgledanje egipatskoj službi sigurnosti. I egipatski aktivisti pretpostavljaju da te nadzorne tehnologije još uvijek koristi prijelazna vlada koja tamo upravlja mrežama.
And in Tunisia, censorship actually began to return in May -- not nearly as extensively as under President Ben Ali. But you'll see here a blocked page of what happens when you try to reach certain Facebook pages and some other websites that the transitional authorities have determined might incite violence. In protest over this, blogger Slim Amamou, who had been jailed under Ben Ali and then became part of the transitional government after the revolution, he resigned in protest from the cabinet. But there's been a lot of debate in Tunisia about how to handle this kind of problem.
U Tunisu se cenzura počela vraćati u svibnju -- ni približno opsežno kao pod predsjednikom Ben Alijem. Ali ovdje vidite blokiranu stranicu koja se prikaže kada pokušate pristupiti određenim Facebook i nekim drugim stranicama za koje su prijelazne vlasti utvrdile da bi mogle potaknuti nasilje. Iz protesta prema ovome, blogger Slim Amamou, koji je uhićen za vrijeme Ben Alija i kasnije postao dio prijelazne vlade nakon revolucije, on je iz protesta dao ostavku. Ali u Tunisu postoji dosta rasprava o tome kako se uhvatiti u koštac s ovim problemom.
In fact, on Twitter, there were a number of people who were supportive of the revolution who said, "Well actually, we do want democracy and free expression, but there is some kinds of speech that need to be off-bounds because it's too violent and it might be destabilizing for our democracy. But the problem is, how do you decide who is in power to make these decisions and how do you make sure that they do not abuse their power? As Riadh Guerfali, the veteran digital activist from Tunisia, remarked over this incident, "Before, things were simple: you had the good guys on one side and the bad guys on the other. Today, things are a lot more subtle." Welcome to democracy, our Tunisian and Egyptian friends.
U stvari, na Twitteru, bilo je dosta ljudi koji su podupirali revoluciju koji su rekli, "Pa ustvari, mi želimo demokraciju i slobodu govora, ali postoje neke vrste govora koje treba ograničiti jer su pre nasilne i mogle bi djelovati destabilizirajuće po našu demokraciju. Ali problem je, kako odlučiti tko ima vlast donositi takve odluke i kako se osigurati da ne zloupotrebljavaju svoju moć? Kao što je Riadh Guerfali, digitalni aktivist veteran iz Tunisa, primjetio u vezi ovog incidenta, "Prije su stvari bile jednostavne: imao si dobre momke na jednoj strani i loše na drugoj. Danas, stvari su puno suptilnije." Dobrodošli u demokraciju, naši tuniški i egipatski prijatelji.
The reality is that even in democratic societies today, we do not have good answers for how you balance the need for security and law enforcement on one hand and protection of civil liberties and free speech on the other in our digital networks. In fact, in the United States, whatever you may think of Julian Assange, even people who are not necessarily big fans of his are very concerned about the way in which the United States government and some companies have handled Wikileaks. Amazon webhosting dropped Wikileaks as a customer after receiving a complaint from U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman, despite the fact that Wikileaks had not been charged, let alone convicted, of any crime.
Stvarnost je da čak i u demokratskim društvima danas, nemamo dobre odgovore na pitanje kako uskladiti potrebu za sigurnosti i provedbom zakona s jedne strane i zaštitu građanskih sloboda i slobode govora s druge na našim digitalnim mrežama. U stvari, u Sjedinjenim državama, što god mislili o Julianu Assangeu, čak i ljudi koji nisu njegovi veliki fanovi vrlo su zabrinuti zbog načina na koji su vlada SAD-a i neke kompanije postupile u vezi Wikileaksa. Amazon webhosting je ukinio uslugu Wikileaksu nakon što su primili pritužbu od senatora Joea Liebermana, unatoč činjenici da Wikileaks nije bio optužen, a kamoli osuđen za bilo kakav zločin.
So we assume that the Internet is a border-busting technology. This is a map of social networks worldwide, and certainly Facebook has conquered much of the world -- which is either a good or a bad thing, depending on how you like the way Facebook manages its service. But borders do persist in some parts of cyberspace. In Brazil and Japan, it's for unique cultural and linguistic reasons. But if you look at China, Vietnam and a number of the former Soviet states, what's happening there is more troubling. You have a situation where the relationship between government and local social networking companies is creating a situation where, effectively, the empowering potential of these platforms is being constrained because of these relationships between companies and government.
Pa zaključujemo da je Internet tehnologija koja ruši granice. Ovo je karta društvenih mreža diljem svijeta, i Facebook je pokorio većinu svijeta -- što je ili dobra ili loša stvar, ovisno o tome koliko vam se sviđa način na koji Facebook upravlja svojom uslugom. Ali granice opstaju u nekim djelovima cyberprostora. U Brazilu i Japanu, razlog za to su jedinstven jezik i kultura. Ali pogledate li Kinu, Vjetnam i neke od bivših sovjetskih država, ono što se događa tamo je uznemiravajuće. Imate situaciju gdje odnosi između vlade i lokalnih kompanija za društveno umrežavanje stvaraju situaciju gdje se, efektivno, osnažujući potencijal tih platformi ograničava zbog tih odnosa između vlade i kompanija.
Now in China, you have the "great firewall," as it's well-known, that blocks Facebook and Twitter and now Google+ and many of the other overseas websites. And that's done in part with the help from Western technology. But that's only half of the story. The other part of the story are requirements that the Chinese government places on all companies operating on the Chinese Internet, known as a system of self-discipline. In plain English, that means censorship and surveillance of their users. And this is a ceremony I actually attended in 2009 where the Internet Society of China presented awards to the top 20 Chinese companies that are best at exercising self-discipline -- i.e. policing their content. And Robin Li, CEO of Baidu, China's dominant search engine, was one of the recipients.
Sada u Kini postoji "veliki vatrozid", kao što je poznat, koji blokira Facebook i Twitter i sada Google+ i mnoge od prekooceanskih web stranica. I to je izvedeno dijelom uz pomoć zapadne tehnologije. Ali to je samo polovica priče. Drugi dio priče su zahtjevi koje kineska vlada postavlja svim kompanijama koje djeluju na kineskom Internetu, koji su poznati kao sustav samodiscipline. Laički rečeno, to znači cenzuru i nadzor svojih korisnika A ovo je ceremonija kojoj sam stvarno prisustvovala 2009. kada je Internetsko društvo Kine dodijelilo nagrade dvadeset najvećih kineskih kompanija koje su najbolje pri provođenju samodiscipline -- to jest, nadzora sadržaja. I Robin Li, direktor Baidua, najpoznatije kineske tražilice, bio je jedan od dobitnika.
In Russia, they do not generally block the Internet and directly censor websites. But this is a website called Rospil that's an anti-corruption site. And earlier this year, there was a troubling incident where people who had made donations to Rospil through a payments processing system called Yandex Money suddenly received threatening phone calls from members of a nationalist party who had obtained details about donors to Rospil through members of the security services who had somehow obtained this information from people at Yandex Money. This has a chilling effect on people's ability to use the Internet to hold government accountable. So we have a situation in the world today where in more and more countries the relationship between citizens and governments is mediated through the Internet, which is comprised primarily of privately owned and operated services.
U Rusiji većinom ne blokiraju Internet i direktno cenzuriraju stranice. Ali ovo je stranica zvana Rospil to je anti-korupcijska stranica. I ranije ove godine, dogodio se uznemirujući incident gdje su ljudi koji su donirali Rospilu kroz sustav za naplatu zvan Yandex Money iznenada primali prijeteće pozive od članova nacionalističke stranke koji su pribavili detalje o donatorima Rospilu preko članova služba sigurnosti koji su nekako pribavili ove informacije od ljudi iz Yandex Moneya. Ovo ima loš utjecaj na sposobnost ljudi da koriste Internet kako bi vladu držali odgovornom. Tako da danas u svijetu imamo situaciju da se u sve više i više zemalja odnosu između građana i vlada posreduje preko Interneta, koji je sastavljen primarno od usluga koje su u privatnom vlasništvu.
So the important question, I think, is not this debate over whether the Internet is going to help the good guys more than the bad guys. Of course, it's going to empower whoever is most skilled at using the technology and best understands the Internet in comparison with whoever their adversary is. The most urgent question we need to be asking today is how do we make sure that the Internet evolves in a citizen-centric manner. Because I think all of you will agree that the only legitimate purpose of government is to serve citizens, and I would argue that the only legitimate purpose of technology is to improve our lives, not to manipulate or enslave us.
Pa ja mislim da važno pitanje, nije ova rasprava oko toga hoće li Internet više pomoći dobrim momcima nego lošim. Naravno da će dati moć onome tko zna najbolje koristiti tehnologiju i bolje razumije Internet u odnosu na svoje protivnike, tko god oni bili. Najhitnije pitanje koje trebamo pitati danas je kako osigurati da Internet evoluira na način koji je usredotočen na građane. Jer mislim da ćete se svi složiti kako je jedina legitimna svrha vlade da služi svojim građanima, i smatram kako je jedina legitimna svrha tehnologije da unaprijedi naše živote, a ne da nama manipulira ili nas porobi.
So the question is, we know how to hold government accountable. We don't necessarily always do it very well, but we have a sense of what the models are, politically and institutionally, to do that. How do you hold the sovereigns of cyberspace accountable to the public interest when most CEO's argue that their main obligation is to maximize shareholder profit?
Dakle, pitanje je, kako držati vladu odgovornom. Ne radimo to uvijek jako dobro, ali imamo osjećaj koji su modeli za to, politički i institucijski. Kako da sloboda cyberprostora bude odgovorna javnim interesima kada većina izvršnih menadžera tvrdi kako je njihova jedina obveza maksimizirati profit dioničara?
And government regulation often isn't helping all that much. You have situations, for instance, in France where president Sarkozy tells the CEO's of Internet companies, "We're the only legitimate representatives of the public interest." But then he goes and champions laws like the infamous "three-strikes" law that would disconnect citizens from the Internet for file sharing, which has been condemned by the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression as being a disproportionate violation of citizens' right to communications, and has raised questions amongst civil society groups about whether some political representatives are more interested in preserving the interests of the entertainment industry than they are in defending the rights of their citizens. And here in the United Kingdom there's also concern over a law called the Digital Economy Act that's placing more onus on private intermediaries to police citizen behavior.
I vladina regulacija često baš i ne pomaže. Imamo situacije, na primjer, u Francuskoj gdje predsjednik Sarkozy govori direktorima internetskih kompanija, "Mi smo jedini legitimni predstavnici javnog interesa." A onda podupire zakone poput zloglasnog "tri prijestupa" zakona koji građane odspaja sa Interneta za dijeljenje datoteka, kojeg je osudio UN-ov specijalni izvjestitelj o slobodi govora kao neproporcionalno kršenje prava na komunikaciju građana, i pokrenuo pitanja među građanskim grupama o tome zanima li neke političke predstavnike više očuvanje interesa industrije zabave nego obrana prava svojih građana. I ovdje u Ujedinjenom Kraljevstvu također postoji zabrinutnost zbog zakona zvanog "Digital Economy Act" koji stavlja teret na privatne posrednike da nadgledaju ponašanje građana.
So what we need to recognize is that if we want to have a citizen-centric Internet in the future, we need a broader and more sustained Internet freedom movement. After all, companies didn't stop polluting groundwater as a matter of course, or employing 10-year-olds as a matter of course, just because executives woke up one day and decided it was the right thing to do. It was the result of decades of sustained activism, shareholder advocacy and consumer advocacy. Similarly, governments don't enact intelligent environmental and labor laws just because politicians wake up one day. It's the result of very sustained and prolonged political activism that you get the right regulations, and that you get the right corporate behavior. We need to make the same approach with the Internet.
Ono što mi moramo shvatiti jest da ako želimo u budućnosti imati Intenet usredotočen na građane, Trebamo širok i kontinuiran pokret za slobodu Interneta. Na kraju, kompanije nisu prestale zagađivati vode samo zato, ili zapošljavati desetogodišnjake samo zato što su se vlasnici jednog dana probudili i odlučili da je to ispravno. To je bio rezultat nekoliko desetljeća kontinuiranog aktivizma, zagovaranja dioničara i zagovaranja potrošača. Slično tome, vlade ne donose inteligentne zakone o radu ili zaštiti okoliša samo zato što je to političarima odjednom sinulo. Oni su rezultat vrlo dugog i kontinuiranog političkog aktivizma kako bi se postigle ispravne regulacije, i ispravno ponašanje korporacija. Trebamo isti takav pristup i za Internet.
We also are going to need political innovation. Eight hundred years ago, approximately, the barons of England decided that the Divine Right of Kings was no longer working for them so well, and they forced King John to sign the Magna Carta, which recognized that even the king who claimed to have divine rule still had to abide by a basic set of rules. This set off a cycle of what we can call political innovation, which led eventually to the idea of consent of the governed -- which was implemented for the first time by that radical revolutionary government in America across the pond. So now we need to figure out how to build consent of the networked.
Isto tako trebat ćemo i političku inovativnost. Prije otprilike 800 godina, engleski baruni su odlučili da božanska prava kraljeva njima više ne odgovaraju, i natjerali su kralja Johna na potpisivanje Magna Carte, koja kaže da se čak i kralj, koji je tvrdio da ima božansku vlast mora držati nekog osnovnog seta pravila. Ovo je pokrenulo ciklus koji možemo nazvati politička inovativnost, koja je konačno dovela do ideje o suglasnosti vladanih -- koju je prvi puta implementirala radikalna revolucionarna vlada u Americi preko bare. Sada trebamo shvatiti kako izgraditi suglasnost umreženih.
And what does that look like? At the moment, we still don't know. But it's going to require innovation that's not only going to need to focus on politics, on geopolitics, but it's also going to need to deal with questions of business management, investor behavior, consumer choice and even software design and engineering. Each and every one of us has a vital part to play in building the kind of world in which government and technology serve the world's people and not the other way around.
I kako to uopće izgleda? Trenutno još uvijek ne znamo. Ali zahtijevati će inovaciju koja će se morati fokusirati ne samo na politiku, na geopolitiku, već će isto tako morati odgovoriti na pitanja poslovnog menadžmenta, ponašanja investitora, izbora potrošača, i čak i dizajna softvera i inženjeringa. Svatko od nas će igrati bitnu ulogu u izgradnji svijeta u kojem vlada i tehnologija služe ljudima svijeta, a ne obrnuto.
Thank you very much.
Puno hvala.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)