So I begin with an advertisement inspired by George Orwell that Apple ran in 1984.
我以一段广告作为开始 其灵感来自乔治·奥威尔。 苹果公司于1984年推出的广告。
(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."
(视频)老大哥:我们是一个人 有着同一个意识,同一个决心, 同一个理想。 我们的敌人将自取灭亡, 我们将用他们的混乱把他们埋葬。 我们必胜。 旁白:在一月二十四日, 苹果电脑将推出麦金塔电脑(Macintosh)。 你们将看到为什么1984 不再是像乔治所描述的“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.
丽贝卡·麦金农:这一视频中的潜在讯息 在今天仍然非常有力。 由创新的公司创造出的科技 将解放我们所有人。 时间快进到二十年多年之后。 现苹果公司在中国推出了iPhone 在中国政府的要求下 在中国的应用程序商店中 屏蔽了达赖喇嘛应用 以及一些其他政治敏感的应用。 美国政治漫画家 马克·菲奥雷 的讽刺应用程序 也在美国受到审查, 因为苹果公司中有人 认为该程序可能会冒犯某些群体。 他的应用直到他获得了 普利策奖之后才得以恢复。 德国明星周刊,一个新闻杂志, 的应用也被屏蔽了 因为苹果的审查员认为它 对于用户来说有点太不雅观了, 尽管事实上这一杂志 可以在整个德国的报摊上 完全合法地销售。 最近更具争议的是, 苹果审查了巴基斯坦的抗议应用 因为以色列政府声称这一应用 可能被用于组织暴力袭击。
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.
事情是这样的, 情况是私营公司在应用审查标准 这些标准 通常是非常武断的 一般比应用于民主国家的 言论自由宪章标准 要狭隘。 或者他们响应 权威体制的审查要求 而没有考虑到其人民的意愿。 或他们响应来自没有司法权的 政府的要求和关切 而忽略了许多,或多数, 在与我们所谈到的那些内容相关的使用者和浏览者。
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.
情况就是这样。 在前互联网世界, 主权胜过我们物质自由, 或者说缺乏物质自由, 几乎完全 由国家掌控。 但现在在虚拟网络世界中 我们有了私人主权的 新篇章。 他们关于软件编码、 工程、设计、服务条款的决定 都成为某种法律 在我们的数字生活中约束我们哪些能做哪些不能做。 他们交叉的 全球化互联的主权 能以某些方式 挑战国家主权, 以非常令人激动的方式, 但有时也采取行动 设计并扩展这种主权, 当每次控制人们 用这些信息能做什么 不能做什么时, 比我们物质世界中 权力的执行 有更多的影响。 毕竟,即使是自由世界的领导者 如果想要在下一年连任, 也需要些来自Facebook王国强人的支持。
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.
这些平台 在今年春天和这之后的时间里 对突尼斯和埃及的活动家们 当然非常有帮助。 如瓦埃勒·古奈德, 白天是Google谷歌埃及行政主管, 晚上是秘密的Facebook脸谱政治活动家, 在穆巴拉克下台后 他对CNN说了句名言, “如果想要解放一个社会, 就给他们互联网。” 但推翻一个政府是一回事 建立一个稳定的民主国家 则要更加复杂。 左边的照片是一名埃及活动家拍摄的, 他参与了三月 埃及国家安全局的暴动。 许多探员 尽可能多地用碎纸机切碎文档 然后把它们成堆地留在那里。 但有些文件被原封不动的留下来了, 一些活动家 找到了监控他们的记录 他们邮件往来的副本, 他们手机短信的内容, 甚至是Skype通话。 一名活动家还发现了 一份来自西方公司 销售监控技术 给埃及安全部队的合同。 埃及活动家们认为 这些用于监控的技术 仍然在被 过渡当局在网络上使用着。
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.
在突尼斯,今年五月份审查制度又开始恢复 -- 不像本·阿里总统时期 那么广泛。 但在你试图访问 特定Facebook页面和 一些其它过渡当局认为 煽动暴力的网站时, 它们都会被屏蔽。 对此为了表示抗议, 博客作者Slim Amamou, 他曾在本·阿里时期被监禁 而后成为了革命之后 过渡政府的成员, 为了表示抗议他从内阁辞职。 但在突尼斯关于如何处理 这类问题还有众多争议。
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.
实际上,在Twitter推特上, 有许多支持革命的人 说道,“嗯,实际上, 我们确实希望民主和言论自由, 但有些言论需要限制, 因为它太过暴力且可能动摇我们的民主。” 但问题是, 如何决定谁有权力做出这些决定 如何确保他们不会 滥用他们的权力? Riadh Guerfali是名 突尼斯的经验丰富的数码活动家, 对这一事件评论道, “以前事情很简单: 好人在一边,坏人在另一边。 今天,事情则难以捉摸的多。” 欢迎来到民主世界,突尼斯和埃及的朋友们。
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.
事实是, 即使在今天的民主社会中, 对于在数字网络中 如何平衡一方面的 安全和法律执行和 另一方面的保护 公民自由和言论自由, 我们仍然没有好的办法。 实际上,在美国, 不论你怎么看待朱利安·阿桑奇Julian Assange(维基解密创办人), 即使不是他的拥护者 也十分关注 美国政府和一些公司处理维基解密的方式。 在收到来自美国参议员乔·利伯曼的投诉后, 亚马逊网站托管停止为维基解密服务, 尽管事实上 维基解密没有被起诉, 甚至更没有被判 任何罪名。
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.
因此我们认为 互联网是打破疆界的技术。 这是张世界社交网络的地图, 当然Facebook脸谱已经占领了世界版图中的多数 -- 这是好事也是坏事, 取决于你觉得Facebook 管理它的服务的方式怎么样。 但在虚拟网络世界的某些地方 仍存在着疆界。 在巴西和日本, 是由于独特的文化和语言的原因。 但如果看看中国、越南 和一些前苏联国家, 那儿正在发生的事更让人不安。 有这样一种情况 政府和本地社交网络公司 之间的关系 正在形成这样一种局面, 由于公司和政府间的 这种关系,有效地使 这些平台的 授权潜力 受到限制.
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.
现在在中国, 有众所周知的“伟大的防火墙”, 这墙屏蔽了Facebook Twitter和现在的Google+ 还有许多其他的海外网站。 其中有些是依靠西方技术的帮助完成的。 但这只是故事的一部分。 故事的另一半是 中国政府强加于所有使用 中国互联网的公司的要求, 一个被称为自我审查的系统。 说白了,这意味着审查和监视 他们的用户。 这是个我在2009年参加的典礼, 其中中国互联网协会因为 自我审查上的良好表现 奖励了前20名中国公司 -- 例如,举报他们网站用户的内容。 李彦宏,百度的首席执行官-- 中国占主导地位的搜索引擎, 是领奖者之一。
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.
在俄罗斯,一般不屏蔽互联网 而是直接审查网站。 这是个名为Rospil的网站 它是个反腐败的网站。 在今年早些时候, 发生了件麻烦事 那些通过一个名为Yandex Money的 支付处理软件系统为Rospil捐款的人们 突然收到了 自称是民族主义党党员的人 的威胁电话, 他们通过 用某种方式获取了Yandex Money 用户信息的安全服务成员 掌握了Rospil捐助人的 详细信息。 这是寒蝉效应, 影响着人们用互联网 监督政府的能力。 因此今天世界上有这样一个情形, 越来越多的国家中 公民与政府的关系 间接地通过互联网建立, 这主要是由 私人拥有和运营的服务。
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.
因此我认为重要的问题 不是争论是否互联网 应帮助好人而不是坏人。 当然,这将使 那些最善用技术 和对互联网理解最好的人 胜过任何对手。 今天我们需要问的最迫切的问题是 我们如何确保 互联网是按 以民为本的方式发展。 因为我想各位都会同意 政府唯一合法的目的 就是服务于民众。 我要说 技术唯一合法的目的 是改善我们的生活, 而不是操纵或奴役我们。
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?
因此问题是, 我们知道如何问责政府。 我们不一定总能做的很好, 但我们对这模式是什么样有感觉, 在政治上和制度上怎么做。 如何保障虚拟网络空间的主权 对公共利益负责, 当多数CEO认为 他们的主要目标是 股东利润最大化时?
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.
通常政府监管 并不能帮上太大忙。 有种情况,例如,在法国 萨科齐总统 对互联网公司的CEO们说, “我们是公共利益的 唯一合法代表。” 但接着他又去拥护那些 声名狼藉的三振出局法, 该法案会阻止文件分享 从而断开公民的网络连接, 这一法律已经在言论自由方面 被联合国特别调查员所责难, 它不合理地妨碍了 公民交流的权利 并且民间社会团体也提出质询, 是否 一些政治代表 对保护娱乐行业 利益的兴趣比 保护公民的权利的兴趣更高。 在英国, 也在关注 一个名为数字经济法案的法律 其中给予私营中介机构 以更多的责任 去监视公民行为。
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.
因此我们需要认识到的是 如果我们想要在未来拥有 一个以民为本的互联网, 我们需要一个更广泛更持续的 互联网自由运动。 毕竟,公司不会理所当然地 停止污染地下水, 或是雇佣10岁的孩童, 仅仅因为行政主管们某天睡醒了 决定这是应做之事。 这是数十年来持续运动的结果, 维护股东利益 和消费者权益。 同样地,政府不会仅仅 因为政治家某天醒来就去颁布 颇具智慧的环境和劳动法。 这是持续的长期的 寻求合理法规和 适当的企业行为的 政治运动的结果。 我们需要在互联网领域 采用同样的方法。
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.
我们也需要 政治创新。 大约800年前, 英国贵族们决定 君权神授 不再适合他们, 他们强迫约翰王 签署了大宪章, 其中承认 即使是 宣称拥有神权的国王 也要遵守一些基本的守则。 这掀起了一个 我们称之为政治创新的循环, 这最终导致“人民之意愿”的概念 -- 这是由一洋之隔的 美国的激进革命政府 首次实现。 因此现在我们需要解决的是, 如何构建“网络互联者的意愿”的创新。
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.
这应该是什么样的? 目前我们还不知道。 但这将需要创新 不仅需要 关注政治, 地缘政治, 还需要 处理 商业管理、投资者行为、 消费者选择 甚至是软件设计和软件工程的问题。 我们中的每个人都至关重要 参与构建这样的世界 其中政府和技术 是为世界人民服务而非相反。
Thank you very much.
非常感谢。
(Applause)
(掌声)