So I begin with an advertisement inspired by George Orwell that Apple ran in 1984.
Počinjem sa reklamnom kampanjom inspirisanom Džordž Orvelom koju je "Epl" vodio 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) Veliki Brat: Mi smo jedno, imamo jednu volju, jednu rešenost, jedan cilj. Naši neprijatelji će se zapričavati do smrti, a mi ćemo se protiv njih boriti njihovom sopstvenom zbunjenošću. Mi ćemo preovladati. Narator: 24. januara, "Epl Kompjuter" će uvesti "Mekintoš". I videćete zašto 1984 neće ličiti na "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.
Rebeka MekKinon: Dakle, skrivena poruka ovog videa je ostala snažna i dan danas. Tehnologija koju su kreirale inovativne kompanije će nas sve osloboditi. Premotajmo više od dve decenije kasnije. "Epl" lansira "Ajfon" u Kini i cenzurom izbacuje Dalaj Lamu i nekoliko drugih politički osetljivih aplikacija na zahtev kineske vlade za njihovu prodavnicu aplikacija. Američkom crtaču političkih stripova Marku Fjoreu je takođe cenzurisana satirična aplikacija u Sjedinjenim Državama jer su neki od zaposlenih u "Epl-u" brinuli da će je neke grupe smatrati uvredljivom. Njegova aplikacija nije vraćena dok nije dobio Pulicerovu nagradu. Nemačkom informativnom magazinu Štern, aplikacija je cenzurisana jer su "Epl" dadilje smatrale da je malo previše pikantna za njihove korisnike, uprkos činjenici da se ovaj magazin potpuno legalno prodaje na novinskim kioscima po Nemačkoj. I još kontroverznije, nedavno je "Epl" cenzurisao palestinsku protestnu aplikaciju nakon što je izraelska vlada izrazila zabrinutost da bi mogla da bude iskorišćena za organizovanje agresivnih 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, ovako stoje stvari, imamo situaciju gde privatne kompanije primenjuju cenzorske standarde koji su često sasvim proizvoljni i obično uži nego ustavom garantovani standardi slobode izražavanja koje imamo u demokratijama. Ili odgovaraju na zahteve cenzure koji potiču od autoritarnih režima, ali ne odražavaju pristanak upravljanih. Ili reaguju na zahteve i intervencije vlada koje nemaju nadležnost nad mnogo, ili većinom, korisnika i gledalaca koji imaju dodira sa dotičnim sadržajem.
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.
Imamo ovakvu situaciju. U doba pre Interneta, suverenitet nad našim fizičkim slobodama, ili nedostatkom istih, su skoro u potpunosti kontrolisale države. Ali sada imamo taj novi sloj privatne nadležnosti u sajber prostoru. Njihove odluke o programiranju softvera, projektovanju, dizajnu, uslovima korišćenja vrše ulogu neke vrste zakona koji oblikuje šta možemo i ne možemo da uradimo u našim digitalnim životima. I njihovi suvereniteti, unakrsni, globalno isprepletani, mogu na neki način dovesti u pitanje suverenitete država na vrlo interesantne načine, ali ponekad mogu služiti za njihovo zasnivanje i produbljivanje u situacijama gde kontrola nad time šta ljudi mogu ili ne mogu da urade sa informacijama ima više uticaja nego ikad na primenu moći u našem fizičkom svetu. Naposletku, čak i vođi slobodnog sveta je potrebna mala pomoć sultana od Fejsbukistana ako želi da bude ponovo izabran sledeće 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.
Ove platforme su, naravno, bile od velike pomoći aktivistima u Tunisu i Egiptu prošlog proleća i nakon toga. Kao što je Vael Gonim, egipatski "Gugl" funkcioner preko dana, tajni Fejsbuk aktivista preko noći, rekao "CNN-u" čuvenu izjavu, nakon pada Mubaraka, "Ako želite da oslobodite društvo, samo im dajte Internet". Ali svrgavanje vlade je jedna stvar, a izgradnja stabilne demokratije je malko komplikovanija. Levo je fotografija koju je snimio egipatski aktivista koji je učestvovao u jurišu na egipatske bezbednjačke kancelarije u martu. Gomila agenata je iseckala što je više mogla dokumenata i ostavila ih na gomilama. Ali neka dokumenta su ostala netaknuta, pa su aktivisti, neki od njih, pronašli svoje dosijee o praćenju, pune transkripcija njihove imejl prepiske, razmenu elektronskih poruka sa mobilnih, čak i "Skajp" razgovore. Jedan aktivista je čak pronašao ugovor jedne zapadne kompanije za prodaju opreme za prismotru egipatskim bezbednjacima. Egipatski aktivisti pretpostavljaju da se ove tehnologije za prismotru još uvek koriste od strane tranzicionih vlasti koje tamo upravljaju 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.
A u Tunisu, cenzura je počela da se vraća u maju -- ni blizu u toj meri kao pod predsednikom Ben Alijem. Ali ovde ćete videti blokiranu stranicu o tome šta se dešava kada pokušate da dođete do određenih Fejsbuk stranica i nekih drugih sajtova za koje su tranzicione vlasti utvrdile da mogu izazvati nasilje. U znak protesta protiv ovoga, bloger Slim Amamu, koji je bio hapšen pod Ben Alijem a zatim postao deo tranzicione vlasti posle revolucije, dao je otkaz iz kabineta u znak protesta. Bilo je dosta debate u Tunisu o tome kako rešiti ovu vrstu problema.
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 Tviteru, bilo je dosta ljudi koji su podržavali revoluciju koji su rekli, "Pa u stvari, mi želimo demokratiju i slobodu govora, ali postoje neke vrste govora koje moraju biti nedostupne jer su suviše agresivne i to može ugroziti našu demokratiju." Ali problem je, kako da odlučite ko ima prava da donese ovakve odluke i kako da budete sigurni da oni neće zloupotrebiti svoju moć? Kao što je Riad Guerfali, digitalni aktivista veteran iz Tunisa, istakao povodom ovog incidenta, "Ranije su stvari bile jednostavne: imali ste dobre momke na jednoj strani i loše momke na drugoj. Sada, stvari su mnogo suptilnije." Dobrodošli u demokratiju, naši prijatelji iz Tunisa i Egipta.
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 dobar odgovor na to kako uskladiti potrebu za sigurnošću i sprovođenjem zakona sa jedne strane i zaštitom građanskih prava i slobode govora sa druge na našim digitalnim mrežama. U stvari, u Sjedinjenim Državama, šta god vi mislili o Žulijenu Asanžu, čak i ljudi koji nisu obavezno njegovi veliki fanovi su vrlo zabrinuti zbog načina na koji se vlada SAD-a, kao i neke kompanije ponašaju prema "Vikiliks". Amazon provajder je otkazao Vikiliks kao korisnika nakon što je primio žalbu od američkog senatora Džoa Libermana, uprkos činjenici da Vikiliks nije bio optužen, a kamoli osuđen. za bilo koji 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.
Tako da pretpostavljamo da je Internet tehnologija koja probija granice. Ovo je mapa društvenih mreža celog sveta, a naravno da je Fejsbuk osvojio veći deo sveta -- što je ili dobra ili loša stvar, zavisno od toga da li vam se sviđa kako Fejsbuk upravlja svojim uslugama. Ali granice odolevaju u nekim krajevima sajber prostora. U Brazilu i Japanu, to je zbog jedinstvenih kulturoloških i jezičkih razloga. Ali ako pogledate Kinu, Vijetnam i brojne bivše sovjetske republike, ono što se tamo dešava je zabrinjavajuće. Imate situaciju gde odnos između vlade i lokalnih kompanija društvenih mreža stvara situaciju gde, efektivno, ovlašćujući potencijal tih platformi je ograničen zbog ovih odnosa između kompanija i vlade.
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.
Danas u Kini, imate "veliki fajervol", kao što je opšte poznato, koji blokira Fejsbuk i Tviter a sada i Gugl+ i mnoge druge prekookeanske sajtove. A to se delom čini zahvaljujući zapadnoj tehnologiji. Ali to je samo deo priče. Drugi deo priče su zahtevi koje kineska vlada postavlja pred sve kompanije na kineskom Internetu, poznati kao sistem samo-discipline. Srpski rečeno, to podrazumeva cenzuru i prismotru njihovih korisnika. Ovo je ceremonija kojoj sam lično prisustvovala 2009. kada je Internet društvo Kine dodelilo nagrade najboljih 20 kompanija u primeni samo-discipline - tj. kontrolisanju svog sadržaja. A Robin Li, direktor Baidua, najvećeg kineskog pretraživača, je bio 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 generalno ne blokiraju Internet i ne cenzurišu sajtove. Ali ovo je sajt koji se zove Rospil koji je sajt protiv korupcije. Početkom ove godine, desio se problematični incident kada su ljudi koji su dali donacije Rospilu kroz sistem obrade plaćanja koji se naziva "Jandeks Novac" odjednom primili preteće telefonske pozive od članova nacionalističke partije koji su nabavili podatke o donatorima Rospila od članova bezbednosne službe koji su nekako dobili ove podatke od ljudi iz Jandeks Novca. Ovo obeshrabruje ljude da koriste Internet kako bi kritikovali vladu. Tako da danas u svetu imamo situaciju gde se u sve više zemalja odnos između građana i vlada reguliše preko Interneta, koji je sačinjen pretežno od servisa koji su u privatnom posedu i rukovodstvu.
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.
Tako da mislim da značajno pitanje nije ova debata o tome da li će Internet pomoći dobrim više nego lošim momcima. Naravno, osnažiće bilo koga ko je najveštiji u korišćenju tehnologije i najbolje razume Internet u poređenju sa bilo kojim njihovim suparnikom. Najhitnije pitanje koje bi trebalo da postavljamo danas je kako da obezbedimo da se Internet razvija u korist građana. Jer mislim da ćete se svi složiti da je jedina legitimna svrha vlade da služi građanima. Stojim iza toga da je jedina zakonita svrha tehnologije da poboljša naše živote a ne da nama manipuliše ili da nas zarobi.
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?
Pitanje je, mi znamo kako da smatramo vladu odgovornom. Ne radimo to uvek dovoljno dobro, ali imamo osećaj kakvi su principi, politički i institucionalni, da to radimo. Kako očekivati od vladara sajber prostorom odgovornost za javni interes kada većina direktora tvrdi da je njihova glavna dužnost da maksimizuju dobit akcionara?
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.
A regulative vlade najčešće nisu baš od pomoći. Imate situaciju, na primer, u Francuskoj gde predsednik Sarkozi kaže direktorima Internet kompanija, "Mi smo jedini legitimni predstavnici interesa javnosti." A onda nastavi da veliča zakone kao što je zloglasni zakon tri upozorenja koji bi iskučio građane sa Interneta zbog razmene fajlova, što je osudio specijalni komesar U.N.-a za slobodu izražavanja kao neproporcionalno kršenje građanskih prava na komunikaciju i postavilo mnoga pitanja među grupama građana o tome da li su neki politički predstavnici više zainteresovani za očuvanje interesa industrije zabave nego za odbranu prava svojih građana. A ovde u Velikoj Britaniji takođe postoji zabrinutost oko zakona koji se naziva Zakon o digitalnoj ekonomiji koji daje više odgovornosti privatnim posrednicima da uređuju 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 moramo da prepoznamo je da, ako želimo da imamo građanski orijentisan Internet u budućnosti, potreban nam je širi i održiviji pokret za slobodu Interneta. Naposletku, kompanije nisu prestale da zagađuju vode tek onako, ili da zapošljavaju 10-godišnjake tek onako, samo zato što su se direktori jednog dana probudili i rešili da urade pravu stvar. To je bio rezultat decenija upornog aktivizma, zalaganja akcionara, i zalaganja korisnika. Slično, vlade ne donose inteligentne zakone o zaštiti životne sredine i o radu samo zato što su se političari jednog dana probudili. To je rezultat upornog i dugotrajnog političkog aktivizma da se dobiju prave regulative, i da se dobije ispravno korporativno ponašanje. Moramo da primenimo isti princip i na 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.
Takođe će nam biti neophodne i političke inovacije. Otprilike pre 800 godina, engleski baroni su odlučili da nebesko pravo kraljeva njima više baš i ne odgovara, pa su primorali kralja Džona da potpiše Magna Kartu, koja je priznala da čak i kralj koji je tvrdio da ima božansku vlast ipak mora da se povinuje osnovnom skupu pravila. To je pokrenulo ciklus onoga što nazivamo političkim inovacijama, koje su na kraju dovele do ideje pristanka upravljanih -- koji je primenjen prvi put od strane te radikalne revolucionarne vlade u Americi sa one strane okeana. Tako da je sada potrebno da smislimo kako da izgradimo pristanak 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 izgleda? U ovom trenutku, još uvek ne znamo. Ali će to zahtevati uvođenje novina koje neće samo morati da se usredsrede na politiku, na geopolitiku, već će takođe morati da se pozabave i pitanjima upravljanja poslovanjem, ponašanjem investitora, izborima potrošača pa čak i projektovanjem i dizajnom softvera. Svako od nas će morati da odigra značajnu ulogu u izgradnji takvog sveta u kome vlada i tehnologija služe ljudima, a ne obrnuto.
Thank you very much.
Hvala vam najlepše.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)