So I begin with an advertisement inspired by George Orwell that Apple ran in 1984.
那麼我以個廣告作為開場, 其創作靈感來自喬治‧奧威爾 蘋果電腦(Apple) 在1984年推出的這個廣告。
(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."
(視頻)老大哥(Big Brother):「我們是一個族群, 意志一致, 決心一致 我們有共同的理想。 我們的敵人必定會一直講......講到他們自己煩死, 我們可藉其慌亂攻克他們。 我們將會戰勝。」 敍述者: 在1月24日, 蘋果電腦將出「麥金塔」(Macintosh簡稱Mac)。 你將明白為何1984年 會不同於《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:可以說,這個短片所傳遞的基礎訊息 在今天仍然是非常具有影響力。 由各家創新企業所創造的「科技」 將會解放我們所有人。 時間快進到20多年後, 蘋果首度在中國推出iPhone時 達賴喇嘛便遭審查出局, 連帶其他幾個政治敏感的軟體, 都是中國政府要求 Apple中國軟體商店審查刪除的。 美國政治漫畫家 Mark Fiore, 他的諷刺作品軟體也同樣 在美國審查遭拒 因某些蘋果的軟體審查人員 顧及其諷刺作品會令某些團體反感, 他的軟體未獲採用 直到他贏得了普立茲獎 (Pulitzer Prize)才准獲用。 德國新聞週刋《明星》(Stern), 其軟體遭審查 因Apple 「審查褓母」認為刋物內容 對apple的用戶來說,有點太過辛辣煽情, 儘管事實上這個週刋 絶對是合法,可正當銷售 在全德國的各個報攤都可見。 還有,最近備受爭議的是 Apple 審查巴勒斯坦的抗議軟體 是因為以色列政府表示擔憂 此類軟體可能被用來組織暴力攻擊。
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.
這麼說來,事情是這樣的 有種情形 ── 私營的企業 正施行審查制度規範, 審查標準經常是相當地獨斷專制 並通常又更為嚴密, 比保證在民主國家人民擁有言論自由 的憲法還要嚴苛。 也就是說,他們回應審查制度的求要 是以專權的制度來處理, 這種制度未能反映人民意願。 換言之, 他們回應請求和關切的事情, 是以不具審判權的管理形式 支配許多人,大部分是用戶和觀看者, 他們與這種制式的內容交流。
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.
所以,情況是這樣的-- 在沒有網際網路前的世界 國家主權支配著我們的物質自由, 或者說是缺乏物質自由, 幾乎完全受制於 民族國家。 但現在有新階層存在: 「私營的統治主權」 就存在於我們的電子網際空間(cyberspace)。 而且他們作的決定,如:軟體編碼、 工程設計、圖型設計、服務條款 每每都具法律的作用, 規範我們的數位生活──我們可以做什麼;不可以什麼。 況且他們的「統治主權」 縱橫全球環環相扣, 就某些方面來說 考驗民族國家的主權 而且方式相當刺激。 但他們有時也採取行動, 凸顯並擴展其「統治主權」 每次當控制、 支配人們可以如何處理 資料信息時, 這樣的控制支配比任何時候都更有影響力, 深深的影響 我們實質世界的權力運作。 最終,甚至是在自由世界的領導者, 都得求助於臉書(facebook)的蘇丹王(指facebook創辦人Mark Zuckerberg) 若他明年還想要連任的話。
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.
而且這些平台 的確相當有用, 對此次突尼西亞和埃及的改革行動大有幫助 ──改革活動是在今春及稍後。 戈寧(Wael Ghonim), 白天是Google 駐埃及主管, 夜晚則潛行於Facebook鼓吹抗議行動。 他受CNN採訪時,說了一句名言 就在穆巴拉克(Mubarak)下台後,他說: 「若你要解放一個社會, 給他們一個網路便行了。」 但推翻一個政府是一回事, 建立一個穩健的民主政體, 這又更複雜了。 在左方的這張照片,是由埃及參與改革者拍下的, 他參與突擊 埃及國安辦事處,就在今年三月份。 許多國安情報人員 儘可能地把檔案以碎紙機切碎 成堆地遺留在現場。 但有些檔案文件還完好留著, 而且某些參與改革者 發現他們自己受監視的卷宗: 所有電子郵件往來的副本, 手機簡訊收發的內容, 甚至是Skype的通話。 其中有人還確實發現 一份與西方世界某公司簽署的合約, 內容是出售監視科技系統 給埃及保安警察部門。 可是埃及參改者認為 這些監控系統 還在被使用, 現在則是由臨時管理組織接管電子及網路通訊。
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.
而且五月時突尼西亞的審查制度又重新開始, 審查範圍縮小 不同於總統Ben Ali 執政時一般。 可是你可以看到有些網頁遭封鎖, 你無法連結到某事件的Facebook網頁 和其他網站。 因臨時管理組織 已確定網頁內容可能會煽動暴亂。 為抗議網頁遭封鎖, 博客Slim Amamou 在Ben Ali 執政時已入獄。 後來在革命後,他成為 臨時政府的一員。 為了抗議網頁封鎖,他退出內閣。 但是在突尼西亞一直存在著許多的爭議, 關於如何處置這個問題眾說紛紜。
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.
事實上,在Twitter上 有很多支持改革的人 他們說:「其實, 我們的確要求民主政體和言論自由, 但是某些類型的言論有需要被限制 因為那太過暴力而且可能會破壞民主。」 但問題是 如何決定誰有權作決定, 並且如何能確保 他們不濫權? Riadh Guerfali 是善用數位 鼓動改革的突尼西亞資深科技人。 他對該事件作評論: 「在以前人事結構簡單── 好人是一派,另一派是壞人。 今天,人事更加的微妙且複雜。」 歡迎到民主世界, 我們的突尼西亞和埃及朋友們。
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.
事實是, 即便是處於今日的民主社會, 我們沒有合適的答案來回應── 你要如何平衡需要: 一方面是保安和法律實行的需要, 另一方面則是保障公民自由 和論事自由的需要, 在我們的數位網路世界。 事實上,在美國 無論你如何想Julian Assange(維基揭密創辦人) 即便不是他的擁護者, 也非常關切 美國當局和企業如何對待「維基揭密」。 亞馬遜將「維基揭密」逐出其雲端平台, 因為收到美國參議員Joe Lieberman的抗議。 儘管實際上 「維基揭密」沒被控告, 更別提被宣判 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.
我們認為 網路是跨越疆界的科技。 這是一個全球社交網絡地圖, 毫無疑問Facebook已佔領世界版圖多數面積, 這不是件好事,就是件壞事 全憑你怎麼看待 Facebook如何經營網站服務的方式。 但是疆界持續存在於 某些電子網際空間。 好比巴西和日本的 疆界存在是因為獨特的文化和語言的原故。 但是若你瞧瞧中國、越南 和前蘇聯, 事情就更為棘手。 有個情形── 政府 和當地社群網站公司往來的關係 正形成了一種局面── 實際上, 這些社交平台的自主力 是受牽制的, 因為這層「關係」存在於 企業和政府的所致。
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.
目前在中國 有一種「長城防火牆」相當有名, 封鎖Facebook、 Twitter、Google+ 和很多其他國外的網站。 其功能之強,大部分是拜西方科技的協助所賜。 這還不是故事的全貌。 故事的下半部是 中國當局開出條件, 要求所有在中國網路營運的企業 ─據了解是一套「自律系統」-- 以易懂的英文來說, 施行審查制度 監控網路用戶。 這個典禮在2009年舉辦,我實際參與該典禮。 典禮上,中國互聯網協會頒獎 給20家最佳中國企業 「自律及監控執行」的傑出貢獻─ 也就是監控他們的網站內容。 百度執行長李彥宏 經營中國最大的搜尋引擎, 也是領獎人之一。
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.
在俄羅斯他們通常不封鎖網際網路 或直接偵查網站。 但是有一個網站叫Rospil 是一個反賄賂的網站 今年稍早時, 有一件惱人的事發生。 那些捐款給Rospil的人 透過一種付款處理系統捐款, 這系統叫Yandex Money 捐款人突然接到威脅電話, 由國家黨黨員打來的。 他們獲得詳情 內容是關於這些人捐款給Rospil, 細節是由政府安全部門提供, 資料來源是從 Yandex Money內部取得。 這種寒蟬效應 影響人們使用網路的能力 來監督政府責任。 今天這個世界存在一種狀況 愈來愈多的國家 人民和政府的關係 是透過網路傳達的 而且主要是由 私營的和受操作的服務所構成的。
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.
我認為最重要的問題 不是爭論是否網路 能幫助好人多於壞人。 當然它有益於 任何最善用科技 和最熟悉網路的人 無論他們的對手是誰。 今天我們必須問的最迫切的問題是 我們如何確保 網路的發展 是以服務人民為本的方式。 我想大家都會同意 政府存在的唯一公正合理的使命 是服務人民。 而且我會主張 科技唯一的正當合法的目的 是改善且提昇人民生活, 而非操控或奴役人民。
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?
所以問題是 我們要知道如何追究政府的責任。 我們不必總是作的非常好, 但是我們要懂得運用各種形式── 利用政治和法規的手段去處理。 而你如何讓電子網際空間的統治者 對公眾(共)利益負責, 當大多數的執行長主張 他們的主要義務 是擴大股東利潤?
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.
而且政府法令 經常管不到那麼的多。 有很多情形, 舉例來說,在法國 總統Sarkozy 告訴網路公司執行長們 :「我們是唯一合法的 公眾利益代表。」 但然後他進而公開維護法律── 那種可惡的「三振(出局)法」(three strikes), 中斷人民網路連線 禁止檔案分享, 這已被聯合國特別書記讉責為 ─就言論自由而言─ 不合理的侵犯 人民通訊交流的權利, 在公民社團間已有反對的聲浪, 他們質疑是否 某些政客 更感興趣的是維護 娛樂業的利益 非捍衛人民的權利。 而在這兒的英國 也有令人關切的法令── 數位經濟法案(Digital Economy Act) 下放更多的舉證責任 給私營仲介, 以監管人民的行為。
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.
所以,我們必須承認的是 在未來,若我們要有 以服務人民為本的網際網路, 我們需要一個更全面且長久持續的 網路自由發展。 畢竟,企業並沒有停止污染地下水, 即使理所當然該停止, 或者理所當然地停止僱用10歲的孩子, 僅僅因為某天主管開始察覺到, 並決定這是正確且該做的事。 這是由於數十年長期持續的積極行為, 維護股東權利, 和保護消費者權益的結果。 同樣地,政府制定 聰明的環境保護和勞動法規 不僅僅是因政治官員某天開始認為這才符合人民利益。 這是源於日積月累的 政治積極行為── 制定公正合理的法規 你就能有效地規範團體行為。 我們必須以同樣的舉措 對待網際網路的世界。
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.
我們也要求 政治革新。 大約800年以前, 英國貴族決定 神授君權 對他們不再適用, 他們逼迫約翰國王 簽署大憲章(拉丁語:Magna Carta) 其內容是承認 即便君王 主張上帝賦予其統治權, 仍必須遵守基本的規則。 這事件引發了一個循環 我們可稱之為「政治革新」, 終究導向以「人民之意願」的概念 首次將此概念付諸行動的是 激進的革命政府── 橫越大西洋另一邊的美國。 所以現在我們必須想出 如何建立「網路使用者之意願」,
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.
那會是怎麼樣? 此時我們仍不知道。 但革新是必然的, 不只是 將焦點放在政治領域、 地緣政治領域, 而是也必須 處理一些問題, 有關商業管理、投資行為、 顧客選擇、 甚至是軟體設計和工程設計的議題。 我們每個人都扮演重要的角色 去創造這樣的世界── 政府組織和科技技術 是為服務世界人民而非其他不合理意圖。
Thank you very much.
非常謝謝大家。
(Applause)
(鼓掌)