Glenn Greenwald: Why privacy matters

Translator: Lea Opačič Reviewer: Nika Kotnik

There is an entire genre of YouTube videos

Na YouTubu obstaja cel žanr videov,

devoted to an experience which

posvečenih izkušnji,

I am certain that everyone in this room has had.

ki jo je brez dvoma imel vsak v tej sobi.

It entails an individual who,

V takšnem videu posameznik,

thinking they're alone,

v prepričanju, da je sam,

engages in some expressive behavior —

počne nekaj ekspresivnega —

wild singing, gyrating dancing,

poje na ves glas, zapeljivo pleše,

some mild sexual activity —

počne kaj igrivo seksualnega —

only to discover that, in fact, they are not alone,

nakar ugotovi, da v bistvu ni sam,

that there is a person watching and lurking,

da ga nekdo skrivaj opazuje.

the discovery of which causes them

Ob tem odkritju

to immediately cease what they were doing

povsem zgrožen takoj preneha

in horror.

s svojim početjem.

The sense of shame and humiliation

Na njegovem obrazu se jasno vidi

in their face is palpable.

občutek sramu in ponižanja.

It's the sense of,

Občutek, da bi to stvar

"This is something I'm willing to do

počel samo pod pogojem,

only if no one else is watching."

da ga nihče ne gleda.

This is the crux of the work

To je glavna tema dela,

on which I have been singularly focused

s katerim se intenzivno ukvarjam

for the last 16 months,

zadnjih 16 mesecev —

the question of why privacy matters,

vprašanje o pomenu zasebnosti,

a question that has arisen

ki zdaj nastopa tudi

in the context of a global debate,

v kontekstu svetovnih razprav,

zahvaljujoč razkritjem Edwarda Snowdena,

enabled by the revelations of Edward Snowden

that the United States and its partners,

da so ZDA in njeni partnerji

unbeknownst to the entire world,

brez vednosti ostalega sveta

has converted the Internet,

spremenili internet iz orodja brez primere,

once heralded as an unprecedented tool

ki je nekoč obetalo

of liberation and democratization,

osvoboditev in demokratizacijo,

into an unprecedented zone

v cono masovnega,

of mass, indiscriminate surveillance.

nekritičnega nadzora, kot ga še ni bilo.

There is a very common sentiment

V tej razpravi pogosto

nastopa mnenje tudi med ljudmi,

that arises in this debate,

even among people who are uncomfortable

ki niso naklonjeni

with mass surveillance, which says

množičnemu nadzoru,

that there is no real harm

da takšen obsežen vdor

that comes from this large-scale invasion

ne povzroča resnične škode,

because only people who are engaged in bad acts

saj imajo razlog za skrivanje

have a reason to want to hide

in željo po zasebnosti le ljudje,

and to care about their privacy.

ki počnejo kaj slabega.

This worldview is implicitly grounded

Tak pogled izhaja iz posredne predpostavke,

in the proposition that there are two kinds of people in the world,

da na svetu obstajata dva tipa ljudi,

good people and bad people.

dobri in slabi.

Bad people are those who plot terrorist attacks

Slabi ljudje načrtujejo teroristične napade

or who engage in violent criminality

ali so nasilni kriminalci

and therefore have reasons to want to hide what they're doing,

in imajo razloge za skrivanje

have reasons to care about their privacy.

in željo po zasebnosti.

But by contrast, good people

Po drugi strani dobri ljudje

are people who go to work,

hodijo v službo, se vrnejo domov,

come home, raise their children, watch television.

vzgajajo otroke, gledajo TV.

They use the Internet not to plot bombing attacks

Interneta ne potrebujejo za načrtovanje napadov,

but to read the news or exchange recipes

ampak za branje novic, izmenjavo receptov

or to plan their kids' Little League games,

ali organiziranje tekem za otroško ligo.

and those people are doing nothing wrong

Ti ljudje ne počnejo ničesar narobe

and therefore have nothing to hide

in zato ničesar ne skrivajo

and no reason to fear

in nimajo nobenega razloga za strah

the government monitoring them.

pred nadzorom s strani vlade.

The people who are actually saying that

Ljudje, ki to dejansko govorijo,

are engaged in a very extreme act

so udeleženci skrajnega dejanja

of self-deprecation.

samorazvrednotenja.

What they're really saying is,

Kar resnično pravijo, je:

"I have agreed to make myself

"Pristal sem na to, da postanem

such a harmless and unthreatening

tako neškodljiva in dolgočasna oseba,

and uninteresting person that I actually don't fear

da me resnično ni strah,

having the government know what it is that I'm doing."

če vlada ve, kaj delam."

This mindset has found what I think

Mislim, da je ta miselnost

is its purest expression

najbolj prišla do izraza

in a 2009 interview with

v intervjuju z direktorjem Googla

the longtime CEO of Google, Eric Schmidt, who,

Ericom Schmidtom iz leta 2009.

when asked about all the different ways his company

Na vprašanje o številnih načinih

is causing invasions of privacy

Googlovega vdiranja v zasebnost

for hundreds of millions of people around the world,

več sto milijonom ljudi po svetu

said this: He said,

je odgovoril,

"If you're doing something that you don't want

"Če delaš nekaj, za kar nočeš,

other people to know,

da izvejo tudi drugi,

maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."

mogoče tega sploh ne bi smel delati."

Now, there's all kinds of things to say about

O takšni mentaliteti

that mentality,

lahko rečemo veliko stvari.

the first of which is that the people who say that,

Za začetek — ljudje, ki menijo,

who say that privacy isn't really important,

da zasebnost ni zares pomembna,

they don't actually believe it,

dejansko ne verjamejo v to.

and the way you know that they don't actually believe it

To kažejo tako,

is that while they say with their words that privacy doesn't matter,

da kljub svojim besedam

with their actions, they take all kinds of steps

z dejanji na vrsto načinov

to safeguard their privacy.

varujejo svojo zasebnost.

They put passwords on their email

Na e-mail računih

and their social media accounts,

in socialnih omrežjih imajo gesla,

they put locks on their bedroom

na vratih spalnice in kopalnice

and bathroom doors,

imajo ključavnice.

all steps designed to prevent other people

Namen vseh teh korakov je, da drugim ljudem

from entering what they consider their private realm

preprečijo vstop v njihovo zasebno področje

and knowing what it is that they don't want other people to know.

in razkritje stvari, za katere nočejo, da vedo drugi.

The very same Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google,

Isti Eric Schmidt, direktor Googla,

ordered his employees at Google

je ukazal uslužbencem,

to cease speaking with the online

naj nehajo komunicirati

Internet magazine CNET

z internetno revijo CNET,

after CNET published an article

po tem, ko so objavili članek,

full of personal, private information

poln zasebnih informacij

about Eric Schmidt,

o Ericu Schmidtu,

which it obtained exclusively through Google searches

pridobljenih izključno z iskanjem po Googlu

and using other Google products. (Laughter)

in uporabo ostalih Googlovih produktov.

This same division can be seen

Isto delitev vidimo pri ustanovitelju Facebooka

with the CEO of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg,

Marku Zuckerbergu,

who in an infamous interview in 2010

ki je v razvpitem intervjuju iz leta 2010

pronounced that privacy is no longer

razglasil, da zasebnost ni več

a "social norm."

"družbena norma".

Last year, Mark Zuckerberg and his new wife

Prejšnje leto je Zuckerberg z ženo

purchased not only their own house

kupil ne le svojo lastno hišo,

but also all four adjacent houses in Palo Alto

ampak tudi vse štiri sosednje v Palu Altu

for a total of 30 million dollars

za 30 milijonov dolarjev,

in order to ensure that they enjoyed a zone of privacy

da bi jima zagotovil zasebno cono,

that prevented other people from monitoring

kjer nihče ne more opazovati,

what they do in their personal lives.

kaj delata v privatnem življenju.

Over the last 16 months, as I've debated this issue around the world,

V zadnjih 16 mesecih, ko sem o tem problemu

every single time somebody has said to me,

govoril po svetu, mi je vsakič nekdo rekel,

"I don't really worry about invasions of privacy

"Ne skrbi me vdor v zasebnost,

because I don't have anything to hide."

ker ničesar ne skrivam."

I always say the same thing to them.

Moj odgovor je zmeraj enak.

I get out a pen, I write down my email address.

Vzamem kuli, napišem svoj e-mail in rečem,

I say, "Here's my email address.

"Tu je moj e-mail naslov.

What I want you to do when you get home

Ko prideš domov,

is email me the passwords

mi pošlji vsa svoja gesla

to all of your email accounts,

za vse svoje e-mail račune,

not just the nice, respectable work one in your name,

ne le za ugledne službene,

but all of them,

ampak vse, ker bi rad preletel,

because I want to be able to just troll through

kaj delaš na spletu,

what it is you're doing online,

in prebral in objavil,

read what I want to read and publish whatever I find interesting.

kar se mi zdi zanimivo.

After all, if you're not a bad person,

Navsezadnje, če nisi slab človek

if you're doing nothing wrong,

in ne počneš ničesar narobe,

you should have nothing to hide."

ne bi smel imeti ničesar za skrivati."

Not a single person has taken me up on that offer.

Niti ena oseba še ni pristala na pobudo.

I check and — (Applause)

Ta e-mail račun -- (aplavz)

I check that email account religiously all the time.

preverjam ves čas kot zmešan,

It's a very desolate place.

ampak je zelo osamljen prostor.

And there's a reason for that,

Za to obstaja razlog,

which is that we as human beings,

in sicer, da tudi ko ljudje

even those of us who in words

z besedami zanikamo

disclaim the importance of our own privacy,

pomen naše zasebnosti,

instinctively understand

instinktivno razumemo,

the profound importance of it.

kakšen globok pomen ima.

It is true that as human beings, we're social animals,

Res je, da smo ljudje družbena bitja

which means we have a need for other people

in imamo potrebo, da drugim ljudem

to know what we're doing and saying and thinking,

pokažemo, kaj delamo, govorimo in mislimo,

which is why we voluntarily publish information about ourselves online.

zato tudi prostovoljno objavljamo svoje informacije na spletu.

But equally essential to what it means

Za svobodno in zadovoljno osebo

to be a free and fulfilled human being

pa je enako pomembno tudi,

is to have a place that we can go

da ima prostor, kamor se lahko umakne

and be free of the judgmental eyes of other people.

pred očitajočimi očmi drugih.

There's a reason why we seek that out,

Obstaja razlog, zakaj stremimo k temu,

and our reason is that all of us —

in sicer, da imamo vsi —

not just terrorists and criminals, all of us —

ne le teroristi in kriminalci, ampak vsi —

have things to hide.

stvari, ki jih hočemo skriti.

There are all sorts of things that we do and think

Vrsto stvari, ki jih delamo in o katerih razmišljamo,

that we're willing to tell our physician

smo pripravljeni povedati zdravniku,

or our lawyer or our psychologist or our spouse

odvetniku, psihologu, partnerju,

or our best friend that we would be mortified

najboljšemu prijatelju, vendar bi nas bilo

for the rest of the world to learn.

grozno sram, če bi zanje vedeli tudi drugi.

We make judgments every single day

Vsak dan opravljamo sodbe o stvareh

about the kinds of things that we say and think and do

ki smo jih pripravljeni deliti

that we're willing to have other people know,

z drugimi ljudmi,

and the kinds of things that we say and think and do

in o stvareh, za katere nočemo,

that we don't want anyone else to know about.

da ve kdorkoli.

People can very easily in words claim

Ljudje lahko brez težav trdijo,

that they don't value their privacy,

da ne cenijo svoje zasebnosti,

but their actions negate the authenticity of that belief.

vendar njihova dejanja zanikajo to prepričanje.

Now, there's a reason why privacy is so craved

Obstaja razlog, zakaj po zasebnosti hrepenimo

universally and instinctively.

vsesplošno in instinktivno.

It isn't just a reflexive movement

Ne gre le za refleks,

like breathing air or drinking water.

kot je dihanje ali pitje vode.

The reason is that when we're in a state

Razlog je v tem, da se v stanju,

where we can be monitored, where we can be watched,

kjer smo lahko opazovani in nadzorovani,

our behavior changes dramatically.

naše obnašanje drastično spremeni.

The range of behavioral options that we consider

Ko se nam zdi, da smo opazovani,

when we think we're being watched

je naše vedenje veliko bolj

omejeno kot sicer.

severely reduce.

This is just a fact of human nature

To je preprosto dejstvo človeške narave,

that has been recognized in social science

priznano v družboslovju,

and in literature and in religion

literaturi, religiji

and in virtually every field of discipline.

in praktično na vseh področjih.

There are dozens of psychological studies

Na ducate psiholoških študij

that prove that when somebody knows

lahko potrdi, da je obnašanje

that they might be watched,

nekoga, ki se zaveda,

the behavior they engage in

da je lahko opazovan,

is vastly more conformist and compliant.

veliko bolj konformistično kot sicer.

Human shame is a very powerful motivator,

Občutek sramu je močan motivator,

as is the desire to avoid it,

tako kot želja, da se mu izognemo,

and that's the reason why people,

kar je razlog, da ljudje

when they're in a state of being watched, make decisions

medtem ko so opazovani, sprejemajo odločitve,

not that are the byproduct of their own agency

ki niso stranski produkt lastnih dejanj,

but that are about the expectations

ampak so povezane

that others have of them

s pričakovanji drugih

or the mandates of societal orthodoxy.

ali s tem, kar jim narekajo družbene norme.

This realization was exploited most powerfully

To odkritje je v praksi najbolje uporabil

for pragmatic ends by the 18th- century philosopher Jeremy Bentham,

filozof iz 18. stoletja Jeremy Bentham,

who set out to resolve an important problem

ki se je odločil rešiti pomemben problem,

ushered in by the industrial age,

ki je spremljal industrijsko dobo.

where, for the first time, institutions had become

Takrat so institucije prvič postale

so large and centralized

tako velike in centralizirane,

that they were no longer able to monitor

da niso bile več zmožne nadzorovati

and therefore control each one of their individual members,

in s tem kontrolirati vsakega posameznika.

and the solution that he devised

Rešitev, ki jo je zasnoval,

was an architectural design

je bila konstrukcija

originally intended to be implemented in prisons

po imenu panoptikum,

that he called the panopticon,

sprva mišljena za zapore.

the primary attribute of which was the construction

Njena glavna značilnost je bil

of an enormous tower in the center of the institution

ogromen stolp v sredini ustanove,

where whoever controlled the institution

iz katerega je lahko nadzornik

could at any moment watch any of the inmates,

v vsakem trenutku opazoval katerega koli zapornika,

although they couldn't watch all of them at all times.

čeprav ni mogel gledati vseh naenkrat.

And crucial to this design

Ključno pri tej konstrukciji je bilo,

was that the inmates could not actually

da zaporniki niso mogli videti,

see into the panopticon, into the tower,

kaj se dogaja v stolpu

and so they never knew

in tako niso nikoli vedeli,

if they were being watched or even when.

če jih kdo opazuje in kdaj.

And what made him so excited about this discovery

Pri odkritju ga je najbolj navdušilo,

was that that would mean that the prisoners

da bi za zapornike to pomenilo,

would have to assume that they were being watched

da morajo domnevati, da so

at any given moment,

opazovani v katerem koli trenutku,

which would be the ultimate enforcer

kar bi bil najboljši mehanizem

for obedience and compliance.

poslušnosti in ubogljivosti.

The 20th-century French philosopher Michel Foucault

Michel Foucault, francoski filozof iz 20. stoletja,

realized that that model could be used

je ugotovil, da se tak model lahko

not just for prisons but for every institution

uporablja ne le v zaporih, ampak v vseh institucijah,

that seeks to control human behavior:

kjer želijo nadzirati človeško vedenje:

schools, hospitals, factories, workplaces.

šolah, bolnicah, tovarnah, delovnih mestih.

And what he said was that this mindset,

Povedal je, da je takšen miselni okvir,

this framework discovered by Bentham,

kot ga je odkril Bentham,

was the key means of societal control

ključen za družbeni nadzor

for modern, Western societies,

v modernih družbah zahoda,

which no longer need

ki tako ne bi več potrebovale

the overt weapons of tyranny —

očitnih orožij tiranije —

punishing or imprisoning or killing dissidents,

kaznovanja, zapiranja ali ubijanja disidentov

or legally compelling loyalty to a particular party —

ali zakonite prisile v zvestobo določeni stranki —

because mass surveillance creates

ker množični nadzor ustvarja

a prison in the mind

miselni zapor,

that is a much more subtle

ki je veliko bolj subtilna,

though much more effective means

pa vendar učinkovitejša metoda

of fostering compliance with social norms

za spodbujanje spoštovanja družbenih norm

or with social orthodoxy,

in veliko učinkovitejše

much more effective

orožje ortodoksije

than brute force could ever be.

kot surova moč.

The most iconic work of literature about surveillance

Največja klasika s področja nadzora in zasebnosti

and privacy is the George Orwell novel "1984,"

je Orwellov roman "1984",

which we all learn in school, and therefore it's almost become a cliche.

o katerem smo se vsi učili v šoli in je že skoraj kliše.

In fact, whenever you bring it up in a debate about surveillance,

Ljudje ga celo označijo za slabo primerjavo

people instantaneously dismiss it

v pogovoru o nadzoru

as inapplicable, and what they say is,

in rečejo, da so tam ljudje

"Oh, well in '1984,' there were monitors in people's homes,

imeli monitorje v stanovanjih

they were being watched at every given moment,

in so bili opazovani ves čas,

and that has nothing to do with the surveillance state that we face."

kar nima veze z današnjim nadzorom.

That is an actual fundamental misapprehension

To je dejansko glavno napačno razumevanje

of the warnings that Orwell issued in "1984."

svaril, ki jih je Orwell objavil v svojem romanu.

The warning that he was issuing

Njegovo svarilo se je nanašalo

was about a surveillance state

na nadzorovalno državo,

not that monitored everybody at all times,

ki ni opazovala vsakogar ves čas,

but where people were aware that they could

ampak kjer so se ljudje zavedali,

be monitored at any given moment.

da so lahko opazovani kadarkoli.

Here is how Orwell's narrator, Winston Smith,

Orwellov pripovedovalec Winston Smith

described the surveillance system

je njihov sistem nadzora

that they faced:

opisal takole:

"There was, of course, no way of knowing

"Seveda ni bilo mogoče vedeti,

whether you were being watched at any given moment."

ali te v danem trenutku opazujejo."

He went on to say,

Nadaljeval je:

"At any rate, they could plug in your wire

"... priključili so se lahko na

whenever they wanted to.

tvoj oddajnik, kadarkoli so hoteli.

You had to live, did live,

Živeti si moral — in si živel,

from habit that became instinct,

iz navade, ki se je spremenila v nagon —

in the assumption that every sound you made

v domnevi, da prisluškujejo

was overheard and except in darkness

vsakemu šumu, ki ga narediš, in opazujejo -

every movement scrutinized."

razen v temi - vsak tvoj gib."

The Abrahamic religions similarly posit

Abrahamske religije

imajo podobno predpostavko

that there's an invisible, all-knowing authority

o nevidni in vsevedni avtoriteti,

who, because of its omniscience,

ki zmeraj gleda, kaj počneš,

always watches whatever you're doing,

which means you never have a private moment,

kar pomeni, da nikoli nimaš

trenutka zasebnosti in si tako prisiljen

the ultimate enforcer

for obedience to its dictates.

v poslušnost ukazov.

What all of these seemingly disparate works

Vsa ta na videz različna dela

recognize, the conclusion that they all reach,

imajo skupno točko in zaključek,

is that a society in which people

da je družba, v kateri so ljudje

can be monitored at all times

lahko nadzorovani ves čas,

is a society that breeds conformity

družba konformizma,

and obedience and submission,

ubogljivosti in podrejanja,

which is why every tyrant,

zaradi česar o takšnem sistemu

the most overt to the most subtle,

sanja vsak tiran,

craves that system.

od očitnega do prikritega.

Conversely, even more importantly,

Po drugi strani je še bolj pomembno

it is a realm of privacy,

področje zasebnosti,

the ability to go somewhere where we can think

možnost, da gremo nekam, kjer lahko razmišljamo

and reason and interact and speak

razpravljamo in komuniciramo in govorimo,

without the judgmental eyes of others being cast upon us,

umaknjeni pred očitajočimi očmi drugih.

in which creativity and exploration

Samo v tem področju bivajo ustvarjalnost,

and dissent exclusively reside,

raziskovanje in nestrinjanje.

and that is the reason why,

Zaradi tega z obstojem družbe,

when we allow a society to exist

v kateri smo podleženi

in which we're subject to constant monitoring,

neprestanemu nadzoru,

we allow the essence of human freedom

dopuščamo močno ohromitev

to be severely crippled.

bistva človeške svobode.

The last point I want to observe about this mindset,

Rad bi še pripomnil, da ideja,

the idea that only people who are doing something wrong

da imajo razloge za skrivanje

have things to hide and therefore reasons to care about privacy,

in zasebnost le tisti, ki počnejo nekaj narobe,

is that it entrenches two very destructive messages,

utrjuje dve zelo škodljivi sporočili,

two destructive lessons,

dve škodljivi lekciji.

the first of which is that

Prva je ta, da so edini ljudje,

the only people who care about privacy,

ki jih skrbi za zasebnost

the only people who will seek out privacy,

in ki jo bodo poiskali,

are by definition bad people.

po definiciji slabi ljudje.

This is a conclusion that we should have

Temu zaključku bi se morali

all kinds of reasons for avoiding,

izogibati iz številnih razlogov.

the most important of which is that when you say,

Še posebej takrat, ko vi rečete

"somebody who is doing bad things,"

"nekdo, ki počne slabe reči,"

you probably mean things like plotting a terrorist attack

verjetno mislite načrtovanje terorističnih napadov,

or engaging in violent criminality,

nasilne kriminalce in podobno,

a much narrower conception

kar je veliko ožje pojmovanje,

of what people who wield power mean

kot ga imajo ljudje na vrhu.

when they say, "doing bad things."

Za njih "slabe stvari"

For them, "doing bad things" typically means

večinoma pomenijo stvari,

doing something that poses meaningful challenges

ki izvajanju njihove oblasti

to the exercise of our own power.

prinašajo pomenljive izzive.

The other really destructive

Druga resnično škodljiva

and, I think, even more insidious lesson

in po mojem še bolj prikrita lekcija,

that comes from accepting this mindset

ki izvira iz sprejemanja takšnega mišljenja,

is there's an implicit bargain

je implicitna kupčija,

that people who accept this mindset have accepted,

ki so jo ti ljudje sprejeli.

and that bargain is this:

Kupčija je takšna:

If you're willing to render yourself

Šele takrat, ko si pripravljen

sufficiently harmless,

postati dovolj neškodljiv

sufficiently unthreatening

in dovolj negrozeč

to those who wield political power,

ljudem na oblasti,

then and only then can you be free

si lahko popolnoma svoboden

of the dangers of surveillance.

pred nevarnostmi nadzora.

It's only those who are dissidents,

Edini, ki imajo vzrok za skrb,

who challenge power,

so disidenti,

who have something to worry about.

ki oporekajo oblasti.

There are all kinds of reasons why we should want to avoid that lesson as well.

Tudi temu bi se morali izogibati iz več razlogov.

You may be a person who, right now,

Tudi če trenutno nisi oseba,

doesn't want to engage in that behavior,

ki se želi uvarjati s takšnim početjem,

but at some point in the future you might.

se boš mogoče hotel nekoč v prihodnosti.

Even if you're somebody who decides

Tudi če se odločiš,

that you never want to,

da tega nikoli nočeš početi,

the fact that there are other people

že dejstvo, da obstajajo drugi,

who are willing to and able to resist

ki se hočejo in zmorejo

and be adversarial to those in power —

zoperstaviti ljudem na oblasti —

dissidents and journalists

disidenti, novinarji,

and activists and a whole range of others —

aktivisti in številni drugi —

is something that brings us all collective good

je nekaj, kar prinaša skupno dobro,

that we should want to preserve.

in nekaj, kar moramo ohranjati.

Equally critical is that the measure

Prav tako odločilen pokazatelj,

of how free a society is

kako svobodna je neka družba,

is not how it treats its good,

ni njeno ravnanje

obedient, compliant citizens,

z dobrimi, poslušnimi državljani,

but how it treats its dissidents

temveč ravnanje z disidenti

and those who resist orthodoxy.

in tistimi, ki se upirajo pravovernosti.

But the most important reason

Najpomembnejši razlog pa je ta,

is that a system of mass surveillance

da sistem množičnega nadzora

suppresses our own freedom in all sorts of ways.

zatira našo svobodo na vse možne načine.

It renders off-limits

Prepoveduje številne vedenjske možnosti,

all kinds of behavioral choices

without our even knowing that it's happened.

ne da bi se tega sploh zavedali.

Priznana socialistična aktivistka

The renowned socialist activist Rosa Luxemburg

Rosa Luxemburg je nekoč dejala,

once said, "He who does not move

"Kdor se ne premika,

does not notice his chains."

ne opazi svojih okov."

We can try and render the chains

Okove množičnega nadzora

of mass surveillance invisible or undetectable,

lahko poskušamo narediti nevidne ali neopazne,

but the constraints that it imposes on us

vendar omejitve, ki jih nadzor vsiljuje,

do not become any less potent.

s tem ne postanejo nič šibkejše.

Thank you very much.

Najlepša hvala.

(Applause)

(Aplavz)

Thank you.

Hvala.

(Applause)

(Aplavz)

Thank you.

Hvala.

(Applause)

(Aplavz)

Bruno Giussani: Glenn, thank you.

Hvala, Glenn.

The case is rather convincing, I have to say,

Prepričljivi argumenti, ni kaj.

but I want to bring you back

Če nimate nič proti,

to the last 16 months and to Edward Snowden

bi vprašal par vprašanj

o zadnjih 16 mesecih in Edwardu Snowdenu.

for a few questions, if you don't mind.

The first one is personal to you.

Prvo vprašanje je osebno.

We have all read about the arrest of your partner,

Vsi smo brali o aretaciji vašega partnerja

David Miranda in London, and other difficulties,

Davida Mirande v Londonu in ostalih težavah,

but I assume that

vendar sklepam, da ste bili

in terms of personal engagement and risk,

da ste bili z vidika osebne vpletenosti in tveganja

that the pressure on you is not that easy

deležni veliko pritiska

to take on the biggest sovereign organizations in the world.

v spopadu z najmočnejšimi organizacijami na svetu.

Tell us a little bit about that.

Povejte nam več o tem.

Glenn Greenwald: You know, I think one of the things that happens

Ena od stvari, ki mislim,

is that people's courage in this regard

da se zgodijo v taki situaciji,

gets contagious,

je pogum, ki postane nalezljiv.

and so although I and the other journalists with whom I was working

Čeprav smo se vsi novinarji

were certainly aware of the risk —

zavedali nevarnosti —

the United States continues to be the most powerful country in the world

ZDA ostaja najmočnejša država na svetu

and doesn't appreciate it when you

in nerada vidi, da razkriješ

disclose thousands of their secrets

na tisoče njenih skrivnosti

on the Internet at will —

na inetrnetu, kadar hočeš —

seeing somebody who is a 29-year-old

videti običajnega 29-letnika,

ordinary person who grew up in

ki je odraščal

a very ordinary environment

v zelo običajnem okolju, s tolikšno stopnjo

exercise the degree of principled courage that Edward Snowden risked,

načelnega poguma, kot jo premogel Snowden,

knowing that he was going to go to prison for the rest of his life

vedoč, da bo zaprt do konca življenja

or that his life would unravel,

ali da se mu bo življenje sesulo,

inspired me and inspired other journalists

je navdihnilo mene in ostale novinarje,

and inspired, I think, people around the world,

mislim pa, da tudi ljudi po svetu,

including future whistleblowers,

vključno z bodočimi žvižgači,

to realize that they can engage in that kind of behavior as well.

da spoznajo, da lahko tudi sami počnejo take stvari.

BG: I'm curious about your relationship with Ed Snowden,

Zanima me vaš odnos s Snowdenom.

because you have spoken with him a lot,

Z njim ste veliko govorili

and you certainly continue doing so,

in veliko govorite še naprej,

but in your book, you never call him Edward,

vendar mu v svoji knjigi nikoli ne rečete

nor Ed, you say "Snowden." How come?

Edward ali Ed, ampak "Snowden". Kako to?

GG: You know, I'm sure that's something

Veste, prepričan sem,

for a team of psychologists to examine. (Laughter)

da bi to lahko preučevala ekipa psihologov.

I don't really know. The reason I think that,

Ne vem. Mislim, da zato,

one of the important objectives that he actually had,

ker je bil eden njegovih glavnih ciljev

one of his, I think, most important tactics,

oziroma taktik, da je vedel,

was that he knew that one of the ways

kako bi lahko osredotočanje medijev

to distract attention from the substance of the revelations

nanj kot na osebo preusmerilo pozornost

would be to try and personalize the focus on him,

stran od bistva razkritij.

and for that reason, he stayed out of the media.

Zato se tudi ni hotel pojavljati v medijih.

He tried not to ever have his personal life

Svoje življenje je vedno poskušal

subject to examination,

umakniti pred analiziranjem.

and so I think calling him Snowden

Zato mislim, da s ga tem, ko mu rečem Snowden,

is a way of just identifying him as this important historical actor

le označim kot pomembno zgodovinsko osebo,

rather than trying to personalize him in a way

namesto da ga poskušam personalizirati

that might distract attention from the substance.

na načine, ki bi lahko odvračali pozornost od bistva.

Moderator: So his revelations, your analysis,

Ta razkritja, vaša analiza,

the work of other journalists,

in delo ostalih novinarjev

have really developed the debate,

so resnično razvili debato,

and many governments, for example, have reacted,

veliko vlad se je na primer odzvalo,

including in Brazil, with projects and programs

med drugim brazilska s projekti in programi,

to reshape a little bit the design of the Internet, etc.

ki bi vsaj malo preoblikovali internet.

There are a lot of things going on in that sense.

V tem pogledu se trenutno dogaja veliko.

But I'm wondering, for you personally,

Zanima pa me, kaj je

what is the endgame?

končnica za vas osebno.

At what point will you think,

Na kateri točki si boste rekli,

well, actually, we've succeeded in moving the dial?

zdaj smo pa uspeli premakniti kolesje?

GG: Well, I mean, the endgame for me as a journalist

Kot novinar je zame končnica

is very simple, which is to make sure

zelo preprosta, in sicer

ko bom prepričan, da je vsak dokument,

that every single document that's newsworthy

vreden objave in razkritja tudi objavljen,

and that ought to be disclosed

ends up being disclosed,

in da so skrivnosti,

and that secrets that should never have been kept in the first place

ki to ne bi smele biti,

end up uncovered.

na koncu razkrite.

To me, that's the essence of journalism

To je zame bistvo novinarstva

and that's what I'm committed to doing.

in temu se bom posvetil.

As somebody who finds mass surveillance odious

Kot nekdo, ki se mu množični nadzor gnusi

for all the reasons I just talked about and a lot more,

zaradi prej naštetega in veliko drugih razlogov,

I mean, I look at this as work that will never end

to vidim kot delo, ki nima konca,

until governments around the world

vsaj dokler oblast po svetu

are no longer able to subject entire populations

ne bo več zmožna nadzirati

celotnih narodov, razen v primeru,

to monitoring and surveillance

unless they convince some court or some entity

ko prepričajo sodišče ali drugo

that the person they've targeted

pravno osebo, da je njihova tarča

has actually done something wrong.

dejansko storila nekaj narobe.

To me, that's the way that privacy can be rejuvenated.

Mislim, da je to način za ponovno obuditev zasebnosti.

BG: So Snowden is very, as we've seen at TED,

Kot smo videli na TED-u,

is very articulate in presenting and portraying himself

je Snowden zelo dober govorec,

as a defender of democratic values

ko se predstavlja kot zagovornik

demokratičnih vrednot in načel.

and democratic principles.

But then, many people really find it difficult to believe

Vendar veliko ljudi težko verjame,

that those are his only motivations.

da je to njegov edini povod.

They find it difficult to believe

Težko verjamejo,

that there was no money involved,

da v igri ni bilo denarja,

that he didn't sell some of those secrets,

da nekaterih skrivnosti ni celo

even to China and to Russia,

prodal Kitajski ali Rusiji,

which are clearly not the best friends

ki seveda trenutno nista

of the United States right now.

najboljši prijateljici ZDA.

And I'm sure many people in the room

Prepričan sem tudi,

are wondering the same question.

da mnoge v tej sobi zanima isto vprašanje.

Do you consider it possible there is

Se vam zdi možno, da obstaja

that part of Snowden we've not seen yet?

obraz Snowdena, ki ga še nismo videli?

GG: No, I consider that absurd and idiotic.

Ne, to se mi zdi absurdno in idiotsko.

(Laughter) If you wanted to,

Če bi res hoteli —

and I know you're just playing devil's advocate,

vem, da igrate hudičevega advokata —

but if you wanted to sell

ampak če bi hoteli prodati

secrets to another country,

skrivnosti drugi državi,

which he could have done and become

kar bi Snowden lahko storil

extremely rich doing so,

in zraven še ekstremno obogatel,

the last thing you would do is take those secrets

bi bila zadnja stvar, da bi dokumente

and give them to journalists and ask journalists to publish them,

izročili novinarjem in jih prosili za objavo,

because it makes those secrets worthless.

saj bi s tem izgubile vso vrednost.

People who want to enrich themselves

Ljudje, ki želijo obogateti,

do it secretly by selling secrets to the government,

vladam prodajajo skrivnosti naskrivaj.

but I think there's one important point worth making,

Je pa še ena pomembna točka,

which is, that accusation comes from

in sicer obtožbe, ki prihajajo

people in the U.S. government,

s strani ameriške vlade,

from people in the media who are loyalists

in s strani ljudi v medijih,

to these various governments,

ki so zvesti tem vladam.

and I think a lot of times when people make accusations like that about other people —

Ljudje, ki obtožujejo druge na tak način —

"Oh, he can't really be doing this

"Tega pa že ne počne

for principled reasons,

iz načelnih razlogov, zagotovo ima

he must have some corrupt, nefarious reason" —

kakšen pokvarjen in podel razlog" —

they're saying a lot more about themselves

po mojem mnenju povejo več o sebi,

than they are the target of their accusations,

kot o človeku, na katerega

because — (Applause) —

letijo obtožbe, ker — (Aplavz)

those people, the ones who make that accusation,

ljudje, ki tako obtožujejo druge,

they themselves never act

sami nikoli ne naredijo ničesar

for any reason other than corrupt reasons,

iz razloga, ki ni pokvarjen,

so they assume

zato sklepajo,

that everybody else is plagued by the same disease

da so tudi ostali okuženi

of soullessness as they are,

z isto boleznijo brezdušnosti,

and so that's the assumption.

in pridejo do takšnega zaključka.

(Applause)

(Aplavz)

BG: Glenn, thank you very much. GG: Thank you very much.

Glenn, najlepša hvala. - Najlepša hvala.

BG: Glenn Greenwald.

Glenn Greenwald.

(Applause)

(Aplavz)