【TED演讲95】为什么隐私很重要！演说者：Glenn Greenwald​

直接点击以下 关键词 查看以往的精彩~▼

• TED，是Technology, Entertainment 和Design的英文缩写，分别代表着技术、娱乐和设计三个领域，是全球最大、最具影响力的演讲平台，演讲者们来自全球各行各业，包括科学家、艺术家、政治家、企业家等等、甚至是孩子，只要是有自己的独立见解且对人们有所裨益，都有机会在这里分享自己的观点和经历给更多的人。

• 总的来说，TED演讲是“观点响亮、开门见山、种类繁多、看法新颖”的一场精炼的专业讲座。

• 提示： 回复  ted 可收听查看所有《TED演讲》文章。

提示： 回复  ted 可收听查看所有《TED演讲》文章。

Glenn是第一个看到爱德华·斯诺登的文件的人，并写下了关于美国大量监视公民隐私的启示录。在这个激动人心的演讲中，Glenn阐述了为什么即使你不需要隐藏什么，你仍然需要保护你的隐私。

演说题目：Why Privacy matters ? 为什么隐私很重要！演说者：Glenn Greenwald

中英对照演讲稿

There is an entire genre of YouTube videos devoted to an experience which I am certain that everyone in this room has had. It entails an individual who, thinking they're alone, engages in some expressive behavior — wild singing, gyrating dancing, some mild sexual activity — only to discover that, in fact, they are not alone, that there is a person watching and lurking, the discovery of which causes them to immediately cease what they were doing in horror. The sense of shame and humiliation in their face is palpable. It's the sense of, "This is something I'm willing to do only if no one else is watching."

YouTube 里有这样一类视频，我敢肯定在场所有人都有和视频里一样的经历。它会找来一个人，让他觉得自己是一个人，然后让他做一些夸张的事情 比如大声唱歌，夸张地跳舞，或者一些轻度性行为。当这个人发现，其实有人埋伏在看时，他会立刻停止在做的事情，非常惊恐。很明显，他感到非常丢脸，这种感觉是；“一些事我可以做，但不能让人看到。”

This is the crux of the work on which I have been singularly focused for the last 16 months, the question of why privacy matters, a question that has arisen in the context of a global debate, enabled by the revelations of Edward Snowden that the United States and its partners, unbeknownst to the entire world, has converted the Internet, once heralded as an unprecedented tool of liberation and democratization, into an unprecedented zone of mass, indiscriminate surveillance.

这正是我在最近16个月内所专心研究的内容，为什么隐私这么重要，一个引起世界辩论的话题，它由爱德华·斯诺登的揭密而引起，他揭露美国和其同盟，瞒着整个世界，把互联网这个曾经预示着民主和自由的前所未有的工具，转变成前所未有的用来肆意监视的空间。

There is a very common sentiment that arises in this debate, even among people who are uncomfortable with mass surveillance, which says that there is no real harm that comes from this large-scale invasion because only people who are engaged in bad acts have a reason to want to hide and to care about their privacy. This worldview is implicitly grounded in the proposition that there are two kinds of people in the world, good people and bad people. Bad people are those who plot terrorist attacks or who engage in violent criminality and therefore have reasons to want to hide what they're doing, have reasons to care about their privacy. But by contrast, good people are people who go to work, come home, raise their children, watch television. They use the Internet not to plot bombing attacks but to read the news or exchange recipes or to plan their kids' Little League games, and those people are doing nothing wrong and therefore have nothing to hide and no reason to fear the government monitoring them.

在这场辩论中有一个普遍的论点，甚至包括那些厌恶受到大量监视的人，认为这种大范围的侵入并没有实质的伤害，因为只有做坏事的人才想隐藏，才关心他们的隐私。这种世界观暗含着一个议题：这个世界上有两种人：好人和坏人。坏人是那些图谋恐怖袭击或者参与暴力犯罪的人，所以他们想要隐藏他们做的事情，想要保护他们的隐私。相反的，好人是那些每天工作、回家、带孩子、看电视的人，他们用互联网不是为了策划炸弹袭击，而是为了看新闻，交流食谱， 或者计划孩子的少年棒球比赛的。这些人没做任何坏事，所以没有什么好隐藏的，也没有理由害怕政府监视他们。

The people who are actually saying that are engaged in a very extreme act of self-deprecation. What they're really saying is, "I have agreed to make myself such a harmless and unthreatening and uninteresting person that I actually don't fear having the government know what it is that I'm doing." This mindset has found what I think is its purest expression in a 2009 interview with the longtime CEO of Google, Eric Schmidt, who, when asked about all the different ways his company is causing invasions of privacy for hundreds of millions of people around the world, said this: He said, "If you're doing something that you don't want other people to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."

说这些话的人，其实是在极大的自我贬低。他们其实是在说，我决定让我自己成为一个没有伤害没有威胁 又无趣的人，这样我就不会害怕政府知道我在做什么。我发现这种心态和2009年谷歌CEO艾瑞克施密特接受采访时，回答关于他的公司以各种方式，侵犯全世界几亿人的隐私的问题时所做出的纯粹的表达是一样的：“如果你在做的事情是你不希望让别人知道的，那么或许你首先就不应该做这件事。”

Now, there's all kinds of things to say about that mentality, the first of which is that the people who say that, who say that privacy isn't really important, they don't actually believe it, and the way you know that they don't actually believe it is that while they say with their words that privacy doesn't matter, with their actions, they take all kinds of steps to safeguard their privacy. They put passwords on their email and their social media accounts, they put locks on their bedroom and bathroom doors, all steps designed to prevent other people from entering what they consider their private realm and knowing what it is that they don't want other people to know. The very same Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, ordered his employees at Google to cease speaking with the online Internet magazine CNET after CNET published an article full of personal, private information about Eric Schmidt, which it obtained exclusively through Google searches and using other Google products. (Laughter) This same division can be seen with the CEO of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, who in an infamous interview in 2010 pronounced that privacy is no longer a "social norm." Last year, Mark Zuckerberg and his new wife purchased not only their own house but also all four adjacent houses in Palo Alto for a total of 30 million dollars in order to ensure that they enjoyed a zone of privacy that prevented other people from monitoring what they do in their personal lives.

现在，对于这种观念有各种各样的说法：第一种说法是认为那些说隐私并不重要的人，其实并不真的相信隐私不重要 ，怎样发现他们并不相信呢？在他们说隐私并不重要的同时，他们却在想方设法保卫他们的隐私：他们给邮件设上密码，还有社交网络账号，他们给房门和厕所门上锁。通过各种方法防止他人进入他们的私人领域。他们其实心里很清楚他们不想让别人知道一切。同样的，谷歌CEO艾瑞克施密特命令他在谷歌的员工，停止一切与网络杂志CNET（科技资讯网）的交流，因为CNET发表了一篇文章，透露了大量的艾瑞克施密特的个人信息。这些信息其实是完全通过谷歌搜索和其他谷歌产品获得的（笑声）。相同的情况也发生在Facebook的CEO马克扎克伯格身上：他在2010年那个名声狼藉的采访上断言隐私已经不再是一个“社会规范”，去年，马克扎克伯格和他的新任妻子在帕洛阿尔托（美国旧金山附近城市）购买了他们的新房子，以及附近相邻的其他四所房子，总值三千万美元。为了确保他们享有足够的私人空间，防止人们监视他们的私人生活。

Over the last 16 months, as I've debated this issue around the world, every single time somebody has said to me, "I don't really worry about invasions of privacy because I don't have anything to hide." I always say the same thing to them. I get out a pen, I write down my email address. I say, "Here's my email address. What I want you to do when you get home is email me the passwords to all of your email accounts, not just the nice, respectable work one in your name, but all of them, because I want to be able to just troll through what it is you're doing online, read what I want to read and publish whatever I find interesting. After all, if you're not a bad person, if you're doing nothing wrong, you should have nothing to hide."

在过去的十六个月里， 我一直在世界各地游说这个问题，每当有人跟我说：”我真的不担心隐私受到侵犯， 因为我没有什么需要隐藏的。” 我总是对他们回答一样的话，我拿出一支笔，写下我的邮箱地址，我说：”这是我的邮箱， 我希望回家之后把你所有邮箱账号的密码发给我，不仅仅是你工作上用的那些一本正经的邮箱。我要所有的。因为我就是想翻遍所有你的网上记录，翻看到人和有趣的内容然后发表出来，毕竟你不是个坏人，你没做错事情，你就没什么好隐藏的。“

Not a single person has taken me up on that offer. I check and — (Applause) I check that email account religiously all the time. It's a very desolate place. And there's a reason for that, which is that we as human beings, even those of us who in words disclaim the importance of our own privacy, instinctively understand the profound importance of it. It is true that as human beings, we're social animals, which means we have a need for other people to know what we're doing and saying and thinking, which is why we voluntarily publish information about ourselves online. But equally essential to what it means to be a free and fulfilled human being is to have a place that we can go and be free of the judgmental eyes of other people. There's a reason why we seek that out, and our reason is that all of us — not just terrorists and criminals, all of us — have things to hide. There are all sorts of things that we do and think that we're willing to tell our physician or our lawyer or our psychologist or our spouse or our best friend that we would be mortified for the rest of the world to learn. We make judgments every single day about the kinds of things that we say and think and do that we're willing to have other people know, and the kinds of things that we say and think and do that we don't want anyone else to know about. People can very easily in words claim that they don't value their privacy, but their actions negate the authenticity of that belief.

没有任何一个人接受我的提议。我查过（掌声）。我一直在虔诚的查看那个邮箱，那里一直很荒凉。这是有原因的，因为我们作为人类，即使一些人嘴上否认隐私的重要性，但他们心里很清楚它极大的重要性。作为人类，我们是社会性动物。这意味着我们需要其他人来帮助我们知道我们在做什么，说什么，想什么。这也是为什么我们自愿的在网上发布自己的信息，但是和成为一个自由的、完整的人类同等重要的是 ，我们需要有一个地方完全远离其他人批判的目光。为什么我们要找到这样一个地方？原因是我们所有人 －并非只有那些恐怖分子者和罪犯，而是我们所有人－ 都有想要隐藏的东西。我们做的、想的各种各样的事情，我们有只愿意告诉自己的医生, 或者律师，或者心理医生，或者配偶， 或者好朋友的事情，如果让全世界都知道就会很囧的事情。我们每天都会判断，某些我们说的、想的、做的某些事情，我们愿意让别人知道，还有某些我们说的、想的、做的某些事情，我们不愿意让别人知道。人们可以很轻易地说他们不在乎他们的隐私，但他们的行为却在否定他们想法的真实性。

Now, there's a reason why privacy is so craved universally and instinctively. It isn't just a reflexive movement like breathing air or drinking water. The reason is that when we're in a state where we can be monitored, where we can be watched, our behavior changes dramatically. The range of behavioral options that we consider when we think we're being watched severely reduce. This is just a fact of human nature that has been recognized in social science and in literature and in religion and in virtually every field of discipline. There are dozens of psychological studies that prove that when somebody knows that they might be watched, the behavior they engage in is vastly more conformist and compliant. Human shame is a very powerful motivator, as is the desire to avoid it, and that's the reason why people, when they're in a state of being watched, make decisions not that are the byproduct of their own agency but that are about the expectations that others have of them or the mandates of societal orthodoxy.

这有一个原因为什么隐私如此被渴望。普遍地而且本能地，这不仅仅是个反射性动作，像呼吸和喝水那样 。原因是当在我们的国家里，我们被监视着，被看着的时候，我们的行为会有巨大的不同：我们对于自己行为的选择范围，在我们被观察者的时候，会严重缩小，这就是人类的本性。被社会科学所认识，还有文学、宗教，以及几乎所有学科领域。很多心理学研究证明：当一个人知道他可能在被看着，他的行为会尤其地顺从。人的羞耻心是一个强大的动力，也是一个想要避开它的欲望。这就是为什么人们在被看着的情况下所做的决定，并非他们自己机体的副产品，而是别人或者社会正统所强加在他们身上的期望。

This realization was exploited most powerfully for pragmatic ends by the 18th- century philosopher Jeremy Bentham, who set out to resolve an important problem ushered in by the industrial age, where, for the first time, institutions had become so large and centralized that they were no longer able to monitor and therefore control each one of their individual members, and the solution that he devised was an architectural design originally intended to be implemented in prisons that he called the panopticon, the primary attribute of which was the construction of an enormous tower in the center of the institution where whoever controlled the institution could at any moment watch any of the inmates, although they couldn't watch all of them at all times. And crucial to this design was that the inmates could not actually see into the panopticon, into the tower, and so they never knew if they were being watched or even when. And what made him so excited about this discovery was that that would mean that the prisoners would have to assume that they were being watched at any given moment, which would be the ultimate enforcer for obedience and compliance. The 20th-century French philosopher Michel Foucault realized that that model could be used not just for prisons but for every institution that seeks to control human behavior: schools, hospitals, factories, workplaces. And what he said was that this mindset, this framework discovered by Bentham, was the key means of societal control for modern, Western societies, which no longer need the overt weapons of tyranny — punishing or imprisoning or killing dissidents, or legally compelling loyalty to a particular party — because mass surveillance creates a prison in the mind that is a much more subtle though much more effective means of fostering compliance with social norms or with social orthodoxy, much more effective than brute force could ever be.

对于这件事的认识 被结束在十八世纪的实用主义哲学家杰里米边沁所大为利用，他解决了工业时期出现的一个很重要的问题：随着组织体系的开始增大和权力的不断集中， 人们开始无法进行监控，也无法控制到每一个组织成员，边沁的解决方案是：一个建筑学设计，本来是为了加强监狱的。他称之为全景监狱。其主要特征是将一个巨大的塔，建立在组织机构的中间，也就是统治者所在的地方。这样统治者就可以随时看到其中的居民，虽然他不能一直看着所有的人。这个设计的关键处在于，系统内的居民无法看到塔的内部，所以他们永远不知道，自己是否或者什么时候是在被监视着的。这也是这个设计让边沁兴奋的原因。因为这意味着囚犯们会假定他们随时随地是被监视着的，这种假定成为了顺从和服从的终极实施者。二十世纪法国哲学家米歇尔福柯意识到这个模型不仅可以用于监狱，它可以用于任何控制人类行为的机构：学校、医院、工厂、工作场所，而且他说这种思维模式，本沁发明的这种结构是现代西方社会进行社会控制的主要手段，让社会不再需要公然的使用暴政的武器 －惩罚，或者投送监狱，或者处死异议者， 或者合法地强迫一个政党对其忠诚－ 因为大量的监视会在人脑中形成一个囚犯，一个更加细微的但更加有效的力量，让人服从社会规范或者社会正统，这是暴力手段远不能及的。

The most iconic work of literature about surveillance and privacy is the George Orwell novel "1984," which we all learn in school, and therefore it's almost become a cliche. In fact, whenever you bring it up in a debate about surveillance, people instantaneously dismiss it as inapplicable, and what they say is, "Oh, well in '1984,' there were monitors in people's homes, they were being watched at every given moment, and that has nothing to do with the surveillance state that we face." That is an actual fundamental misapprehension of the warnings that Orwell issued in "1984." The warning that he was issuing was about a surveillance state not that monitored everybody at all times, but where people were aware that they could be monitored at any given moment. Here is how Orwell's narrator, Winston Smith, described the surveillance system that they faced: "There was, of course, no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment." He went on to say, "At any rate, they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live, did live, from habit that became instinct, in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard and except in darkness every movement scrutinized."

关于监视和隐私，最形象的文学表达是乔治奥威尔的小说《1984， 我们在学校都学过，它都快成了陈词滥调了。事实上，在关于监视的讨论中，不论什么时候提到本书，人们都立即忽略它, 认为它行不通，他们说：“在《1984》里人们家里都是监视器， 他们无时无刻不被看着， 这和我们所面对的国家监控是不一样的。” 这其实是对奥威尔在《1984》里提出的警告，从根本上的误解，他所发出的警告 其实不是关于国家随时随地在监视人们，而是人们在任何时候都知道他们是被监视着的。这是温斯顿史密斯，奥威尔小所里的叙述者， 所描述的他们面对的监控系统：“当然，你不可能任何时刻都知道你在被监视。” 他接着说：“无论如何，他们随时可以给你插上电线。你必须，也确实活在一个渐渐变成本能的习惯里， 习惯去假定你发出的任何声音都会被听到，除了在黑暗中被仔细审查的时候。”

The Abrahamic religions similarly posit that there's an invisible, all-knowing authority who, because of its omniscience, always watches whatever you're doing, which means you never have a private moment, the ultimate enforcer for obedience to its dictates.

亚伯拉罕诸教也有类似的设定，有一个无形的、无所不知的权威，因为它的全知，它总是在看你在做什么 意思就是你从来没有一刻是私有的，也就是让你服从它的命令的最终执行者。

What all of these seemingly disparate works recognize, the conclusion that they all reach, is that a society in which people can be monitored at all times is a society that breeds conformity and obedience and submission, which is why every tyrant, the most overt to the most subtle, craves that system. Conversely, even more importantly, it is a realm of privacy, the ability to go somewhere where we can think and reason and interact and speak without the judgmental eyes of others being cast upon us, in which creativity and exploration and dissent exclusively reside, and that is the reason why, when we allow a society to exist in which we're subject to constant monitoring, we allow the essence of human freedom to be severely crippled.

这些看似不同的手段其实都归于相同的结论，一个永远在监视人们的社会 是在培养一致、顺从、和屈服，这也是为什么每一个暴君从公然施暴的到暗中控制的，都渴望这种制度。相反的，而且更重要的是在这样一个私人的空间里， 我们在里面可以思考， 辩论，互动，和交谈，远离别人投来的批判的目光，只有创新、探索和异议可以存在，这就是为什么我们允许这样一个， 让我们受到持续监控的社会存在，允许人类自由的本质惨遭残疾。

The last point I want to observe about this mindset, the idea that only people who are doing something wrong have things to hide and therefore reasons to care about privacy, is that it entrenches two very destructive messages, two destructive lessons, the first of which is that the only people who care about privacy, the only people who will seek out privacy, are by definition bad people. This is a conclusion that we should have all kinds of reasons for avoiding, the most important of which is that when you say, "somebody who is doing bad things," you probably mean things like plotting a terrorist attack or engaging in violent criminality, a much narrower conception of what people who wield power mean when they say, "doing bad things." For them, "doing bad things" typically means doing something that poses meaningful challenges to the exercise of our own power.

我想说的最后一点是，这种认为只有做了错事的人，才想隐藏，才关心隐私的思维模式，它确立了两个非常有害的信息，两个破坏性的训诫：第一个是只有那些关心隐私的人，只有那些想得到隐私的人，被定义为坏人，这是一个我们应该用各种理由避免的结论。这其中最重要的是当你说“那个人在做坏事”时，你可能是指谋划恐怖袭击，或参与暴力犯罪之类的事，这个概念比行使权力的人所指的“做坏事”要狭窄的多，对他们来说，“做坏事”基本上意思是做对自己的权利形成一定挑战的事。

The other really destructive and, I think, even more insidious lesson that comes from accepting this mindset is there's an implicit bargain that people who accept this mindset have accepted, and that bargain is this: If you're willing to render yourself sufficiently harmless, sufficiently unthreatening to those who wield political power, then and only then can you be free of the dangers of surveillance. It's only those who are dissidents, who challenge power, who have something to worry about. There are all kinds of reasons why we should want to avoid that lesson as well. You may be a person who, right now, doesn't want to engage in that behavior, but at some point in the future you might. Even if you're somebody who decides that you never want to, the fact that there are other people who are willing to and able to resist and be adversarial to those in power — dissidents and journalists and activists and a whole range of others — is something that brings us all collective good that we should want to preserve. Equally critical is that the measure of how free a society is is not how it treats its good, obedient, compliant citizens, but how it treats its dissidents and those who resist orthodoxy. But the most important reason is that a system of mass surveillance suppresses our own freedom in all sorts of ways. It renders off-limits all kinds of behavioral choices without our even knowing that it's happened. The renowned socialist activist Rosa Luxemburg once said, "He who does not move does not notice his chains." We can try and render the chains of mass surveillance invisible or undetectable, but the constraints that it imposes on us do not become any less potent.

另一个破坏性的，而且我认为更加阴险的训诫，来自于接受这种思维模式，这其中暗含一个交易，接受这种思维模式的人同时也接受这个交易。这个交易就是：只要你愿意让自己对那些行使政治权利的人毫无伤害、毫无威胁，那么，也只有这样，你才就能够远离被监视的危险。只有那些唱反调的挑战权力的人有需要担心的事情，我们同样有各种各样的理由拒绝这个训诫。你也许此时此刻不想参与到那些行为之中，但也许将来什么时候你就会了。就算你决定，你永远不会，也会有其他人想要也能够反抗和敌对那些权力之中的人。比如政见不同的人，记者， 积极分子，还有其他很多人，这是会给我们带来集体的好处的，是我们所想要保护的平等的批判是衡量一个社会自由程度的标尺，不是看这个社会怎样对待好的、顺从它的公民，而是看它如何对待政见不同的人以及那些反抗正统的人，但是最重要的原因是，一个大量监视的制度 会以各种方式压制我们的自由，它使我们的公众行为选择受到限制，而且我们对此甚至全然不知。著名社会主义积极分子罗莎卢森堡曾经说过：“如果你不动， 你是不会发现身上的锁链的。” 我们可以试着粉饰这些大量的、无形的监视的锁链，但它对我们施加的限制不会有任何减少。

Thank you very much.Thank you.Thank you.

非常感谢，谢谢，谢谢。