How the NSA betrayed the world's trust -- time to act | Mikko Hypponen

譯者: Zhiting Chen 審譯者: NAN-KUN WU

The two most likely largest inventions

當代影響最大的

of our generation

兩個發明

are the Internet and the mobile phone.

是網絡和手機。

They've changed the world.

它們改變了世界。

However, largely to our surprise,

然而，大大出乎我們意料的是，

they also turned out to be the perfect tools

它們竟成了國家監視

for the surveillance state.

的理想工具。

It turned out that the capability

事實是

to collect data, information and connections

收集關於我們任何一人，乃至所有人

about basically any of us and all of us

的數據，信息，和關係的能力

is exactly what we've been hearing

就是我們

throughout of the summer through revelations and leaks

整個夏天通過 揭露和洩密所聽到的

about Western intelligence agencies,

關於西方情報機構

mostly U.S. intelligence agencies,

主要是美國的情報機構，

watching over the rest of the world.

正在窺探整個世界。

We've heard about these starting with the

6月6日的揭露

revelations from June 6.

使我們開始了解到這些

Edward Snowden started leaking information,

愛德華斯諾登開始披露

top secret classified information,

有關美國情報機構的

from the U.S. intelligence agencies,

最高機密信息，

and we started learning about things like PRISM

因此我們知道了諸如棱鏡計劃

and XKeyscore and others.

XKeyscore和其他的監視計劃。

And these are examples of the kinds of programs

這些只是美國情報機構正在進行的

U.S. intelligence agencies are running right now,

此類監視計劃中的幾個個案，

against the whole rest of the world.

對象是全世界其他國家。

And if you look back about the forecasts

現在若回過去看

on surveillance by George Orwell,

被監視的喬治奧威爾，

well it turns out that

事實證明

George Orwell was an optimist.

喬治奧威爾是個樂天派。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

We are right now seeing a much larger scale

我們現在面臨的是比我們

of tracking of individual citizens

所能想像得到的更大規模的

than he could have ever imagined.

對於每個公民的監視和跟蹤

And this here is the infamous

這個就是臭名昭著的

NSA data center in Utah.

美國安全局位於猶他州的數據中心。

Due to be opened very soon,

不久將正式辦公，

it will be both a supercomputing center

它將作為超級計算機中心

and a data storage center.

和數據儲存中心。

You could basically imagine it has a large hall

你可以簡單想像一下，

filled with hard drives storing data

它有一個巨大的廳堂，

they are collecting.

裡面放滿了他們蒐集的 存有數據的硬碟。

And it's a pretty big building.

而且這棟樓非常大。

How big? Well, I can give you the numbers --

有多大？我可以給你幾個數字---

140,000 square meters --

14萬平方米--

but that doesn't really tell you very much.

但是這可能不夠具體。

Maybe it's better to imagine it as a comparison.

或許比較之下更好想像。

You think about the largest IKEA store

想像一下你所去過的

you've ever been in.

最大的宜家賣場。

This is five times larger.

這棟大樓就是它的五倍大。

How many hard drives can you fit in an IKEA store?

在宜家裡面能裝進多少硬碟？

Right? It's pretty big.

對吧？它很大。

We estimate that just the electricity bill

我們估計光這個數據中心

for running this data center

運營的電費賬單

is going to be in the tens of millions of dollars a year.

每年就可高達數千萬美元了。

And this kind of wholesale surveillance

而且這種大規模的監聽

means that they can collect our data

意味著他們將會收集我們的數據

and keep it basically forever,

還永久保存下去，

keep it for extended periods of time,

留更長的時間，

keep it for years, keep it for decades.

留上幾年，幾十年。

And this opens up completely new kinds of risks

這對我們所有人來說

to us all.

是一種新的危機。

And what this is is that it is wholesale

這是對每個人的大規模

blanket surveillance on everyone.

地毯式的監聽。

Well, not exactly everyone,

也許，不是每一個人

because the U.S. intelligence only has a legal right

因為美國情報機構只能合法

to monitor foreigners.

監視外國人

They can monitor foreigners

他們可以在外國人的

when foreigners' data connections

數據連接到美國

end up in the United States or pass through the United States.

或經過美國的時候進行監視。

And monitoring foreigners doesn't sound too bad

對外國人實施網路監視 聽起來並不那麼糟

until you realize

直到你意識到

that I'm a foreigner and you're a foreigner.

我是外國人，你也是外國人

In fact, 96 percent of the planet are foreigners.

事實上，地球上百分之九十六的人 都是外國人。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Right?

對吧？

So it is wholesale blanket surveillance of all of us,

所以這是針對我們所有人的 大規模的地毯式的監聽。

all of us who use telecommunications and the Internet.

所有使用電信通訊和網絡的人 都受到監聽。

But don't get me wrong:

但是別誤解我的意思：

There are actually types of surveillance that are okay.

其實有些類型監聽是合理的。

I love freedom, but even I agree

我熱愛自由，但是我也認同

that some surveillance is fine.

有些監視是可以的。

If the law enforcement is trying to find a murderer,

如果執法人員在搜尋殺人犯，

or they're trying to catch a drug lord

或者他們在追蹤毒梟

or trying to prevent a school shooting,

或在防止校園槍擊，

and they have leads and they have suspects,

他們有證據 或有鎖定的犯罪嫌疑人，

then it's perfectly fine for them to tap the suspect's phone,

那他們監聽嫌疑人的電話

and to intercept his Internet communications.

攔截他的網絡通訊 是完全合理的。

I'm not arguing that at all,

我沒有就此辯論，

but that's not what programs like PRISM are about.

因為這些與棱鏡計劃是不同的。

They are not about doing surveillance on people

他們不是對那些疑似犯罪嫌疑人

that they have reason to suspect of some wrongdoings.

進行監視。

They're about doing surveillance on people

他們是對那些他們明知

they know are innocent.

無辜的人進行監視。

So the four main arguments

所以，針對支持此等監視

supporting surveillance like this,

主要有四個爭論據，

well, the first of all is that whenever you start

首先，每當你開始說起

discussing about these revelations,

這些被披露的真相時，

there will be naysayers trying to minimize

就有否定者想息事寧人

the importance of these revelations, saying that

聲稱早已知道，

we knew all this already,

我們早已知道會發生此事

we knew it was happening, there's nothing new here.

我們知道已經在發生， 這些資訊我們早已掌握

And that's not true. Don't let anybody tell you

那都是騙人的。 別信他們說“我們已經知道了”

that we knew this already, because we did not know this already.

因為我們不知道。

Our worst fears might have been something like this,

我們最怕可能就是這樣的，

but we didn't know this was happening.

但是我們不知道這正在發生。

Now we know for a fact it's happening.

現在我們知道事實就是它正在發生。

We didn't know about this. We didn't know about PRISM.

我們不知道這些。 我們不知道棱鏡計劃。

We didn't know about XKeyscore. We didn't know about Cybertrans.

我們不知道XKeyscore 我們不知道Cybertrans.

We didn't know about DoubleArrow.

我們不知道Doublearrow.

We did not know about Skywriter --

我們不知道到Skywriter--

all these different programs

這些各種各樣的

run by U.S. intelligence agencies.

美國情報機構進行的計劃。

But now we do.

但現在我們知道了。

And we did not know

我們過去不知道美國

that U.S. intelligence agencies go to extremes

情報機構會極端的

such as infiltrating standardization bodies

做出例如潛入官方標準機構

to sabotage encryption algorithms on purpose.

有目的地破壞加密運算法。

And what that means

也就是說

is that you take something which is secure,

當你使用一個安全的文件，

an encryption algorithm which is so secure

一個安全的加密運算法會

that if you use that algorithm to encrypt one file,

給你的文件加密，

nobody can decrypt that file.

一旦被加密那麼 沒有人能破解它。

Even if they take every single computer on the planet just to decrypt that one file,

即使他們想用地球上的所有電腦 去破解那個文件

it's going to take millions of years.

也得花上百萬年。

So that's basically perfectly safe, uncrackable.

所以它稱得上是安全的， 無懈可擊的。

You take something which is that good

你擁有那麼好的東西

and then you weaken it on purpose,

卻故意削弱它的優勢

making all of us less secure as an end result.

導致我們承擔不安全的後果。

A real-world equivalent would be that

而現實是

intelligence agencies would force

情報機構強行

some secret pin code into every single house alarm

給每個房子的報警器 都植入秘密的識別碼

so they could get into every single house

這樣他們就可以 自由進入每一座房子

because, you know, bad people might have house alarms,

因為，壞人也會有房屋報警鈴，

but it will also make all of us

但是它也最終讓我們

less secure as an end result.

都少一些保障。

Backdooring encryption algorithms

越位加密算法

just boggles the mind.

讓這種想法退縮。

But of course, these intelligence agencies are doing their job.

然而，情報機構當然有他們的職責。

This is what they have been told to do:

他們被命令做如下幾件事：

do signals intelligence,

信號情報，

monitor telecommunications,

監聽電信，

monitor Internet traffic.

監控網絡流量。

That's what they're trying to do,

那就是他們正在做的，

and since most, a very big part of the Internet traffic today is encrypted,

由於當今大多數的網絡流量都是加密的，

they're trying to find ways around the encryption.

他們在努力破解。

One way is to sabotage encryption algorithms,

一種破解辦法是破壞加密運算法，

which is a great example

這就是美國情報機構

about how U.S. intelligence agencies

胡作非為的

are running loose.

典型例子。

They are completely out of control,

他們完全失控了，

and they should be brought back under control.

而他們必須趕快恢復理智。

So what do we actually know about the leaks?

那我們又對洩密有什麼真正的了解呢？

Everything is based on the files

我們的了解全都基於

leaked by Mr. Snowden.

斯諾登曝露的文件。

The very first PRISM slides

六月初最先

from the beginning of June

揭露的棱鏡計劃

detail a collection program where the data

詳述這個數據收集計劃

is collected from service providers,

是從服務提供商那裡獲得的，

and they actually go and name the service providers

而且實際上他們指定

they have access to.

這些可以合作的服務提供商。

They even have a specific date

他們有詳細的日期記錄

on when the collection of data began

記錄著從什麼時候開始

for each of the service providers.

從哪個服務提供商得到收集的數據。

So for example, they name the collection from Microsoft

例如，他們指定從2007年9月11日開始

started on September 11, 2007,

從微軟收集數據，

for Yahoo on the March 12, 2008,

雅虎是從2008年3月12日，

and then others: Google, Facebook,

隨後其他的：谷歌, 臉書,

Skype, Apple and so on.

Skype, 蘋果等也開始了。

And every single one of these companies denies.

每一家公司都拒絕承認。

They all say that this simply isn't true,

他們都說這是胡扯，

that they are not giving backdoor access to their data.

他們沒有授權讓人秘密使用他們的數據。

Yet we have these files.

然而，我們有這些文件。

So is one of the parties lying,

所以，是他們之中有一方在撒謊呢，

or is there some other alternative explanation?

還是有什麽其他的解釋呢？

And one explanation would be

有一種解釋是

that these parties, these service providers,

這些當事人，這些服務提供商，

are not cooperating.

沒有配合政府。

Instead, they've been hacked.

其實他們的系統是被駭客侵入了。

That would explain it. They aren't cooperating. They've been hacked.

這樣猜行得通。他們沒有狼狽為奸， 他們是被駭客攻擊了。

In this case, they've been hacked by their own government.

這就是說，他們被 自己政府的駭客侵入了。

That might sound outlandish,

這說法聽起來很奇特，

but we already have cases where this has happened,

但是也不是第一次了， 已有類似情況發生，

for example, the case of the Flame malware

例如惡意軟件“火焰”

which we strongly believe was authored

我們堅信這是

by the U.S. government,

美國政府授權的，

and which, to spread, subverted the security

散播，破壞Windows升級

of the Windows Update network,

網絡的安全性，

meaning here, the company was hacked

這就意味著，這家公司被

by their own government.

他們自己政府的駭客攻擊了。

And there's more evidence

還有更多的證據

supporting this theory as well.

證明這個論點。

Der Spiegel, from Germany, leaked more information

德國人Der Spiegel洩露更多

about the operations run by the elite hacker units

在這些情報機構內， 精英駭客小組

operating inside these intelligence agencies.

執行的任務。

Inside NSA, the unit is called TAO,

在美國國家安全局NSA，這個小隊代號TAO，

Tailored Access Operations,

特別侵入行動，

and inside GCHQ, which is the U.K. equivalent,

在英國同類機構 政府通訊總部GCHQ里，

it's called NAC, Network Analysis Centre.

這樣的小組叫做NAC， 網絡分析中心。

And these recent leaks of these three slides

最近洩漏的3個幻燈片

detail an operation

詳細描述了

run by this GCHQ intelligence agency

英國政府通訊總局

from the United Kingdom

指揮的一次行動

targeting a telecom here in Belgium.

目標是比利時的一個電信公司。

And what this really means

這顯然

is that an E.U. country's intelligence agency

是一個歐盟國家的情報機構

is breaching the security

故意破壞另外一個

of a telecom of a fellow E.U. country on purpose,

歐盟國家的電信安全，

and they discuss it in their slides completely casually,

然後在他們的幻燈片里，

business as usual.

完全像談生意一樣 隨意地討論這件事。

Here's the primary target,

這是第一個目標，

here's the secondary target,

第二個目標是這個，

here's the teaming.

這樣組隊。

They probably have a team building on Thursday evening in a pub.

他們這個小組可能 星期四晚上在酒吧聚餐。

They even use cheesy PowerPoint clip art

當他們達到目的， 像進入這家電信

like, you know, "Success,"

他們竟然用了PowerPoint

when they gain access to services like this.

剪貼畫，比如“成功”。

What the hell?

搞什麽？

And then there's the argument

接著有這樣一個論點

that okay, yes, this might be going on,

好吧，對，我們在做這件事，

but then again, other countries are doing it as well.

但其他國家也在做。

All countries spy.

所有的國家都監視。

And maybe that's true.

或許，確實如此。

Many countries spy, not all of them, but let's take an example.

很多國家都監視， 但不是全部，舉個例子。

Let's take, for example, Sweden.

拿瑞典舉例。

I'm speaking of Sweden because Sweden

我用瑞典舉例主要因為

has a little bit of a similar law to the United States.

他們的法律和美國 有一點相似之處。

When your data traffic goes through Sweden,

當你的數據流量通過瑞典時，

their intelligence agency has a legal right by the law

他們的情報機構可以合法的

to intercept that traffic.

攔截那個流量。

All right, how many Swedish decisionmakers

好吧，哪有有多少瑞典的決策人

and politicians and business leaders

政客，商業領袖

use, every day, U.S.-based services,

每天使用美國服務器呢，

like, you know, run Windows or OSX,

例如運行Windows,或OSX

or use Facebook or LinkedIn,

或者使用Facebook或LinkedIn,

or store their data in clouds like iCloud

或把他們的數據存儲到諸如iCloud

or Skydrive or DropBox,

或Skydrive或DropBox之類的雲端存儲

or maybe use online services like Amazon web services or sales support?

或者使用例如Amazon網站服務 或銷售支持這樣的線上服務呢

And the answer is, every single Swedish business leader does that every single day.

答案是，每個瑞典的商業領袖 每天都在使用。

And then we turn it around.

然後我們反過來看。

How many American leaders

有多少美國各界領袖使用瑞典的

use Swedish webmails and cloud services?

郵件和雲端存儲服務呢？

And the answer is zero.

答案是零。

So this is not balanced.

這顯然不平衡。

It's not balanced by any means, not even close.

從任何的角度來看， 都絕對不平衡。

And when we do have the occasional

當我們偶爾有個

European success story,

歐洲企業成功的故事，

even those, then, typically end up being sold to the United States.

但它們最終也總會被美國買走。

Like, Skype used to be secure.

像Skype，曾經是安全的。

It used to be end-to-end encrypted.

它曾經是客戶端與服務器終端加密的。

Then it was sold to the United States.

後來被賣給美國了。

Today, it no longer is secure.

目前，它已經不再是安全的了。

So once again, we take something which is secure

再一次，我們把安全的東西

and then we make it less secure on purpose,

故意弄得不安全，

making all of us less secure as an outcome.

結果就是我們所有人都不那麼安全了。

And then the argument that the United States

然後他們爭論

is only fighting terrorists.

美國只是在對抗恐怖主義。

It's the war on terror.

這是反恐戰爭。

You shouldn't worry about it.

你不必擔心這個。

Well, it's not the war on terror.

這並不是場與恐怖注意的戰爭。

Yes, part of it is war on terror, and yes,

是，有一部份是爲了反恐，是，

there are terrorists, and they do kill and maim,

確實有恐怖分子， 他們確實殺人也傷人，

and we should fight them,

我們應該跟他們鬥爭，

but we know through these leaks

但是通過這些洩露的信息

that they have used the same techniques

我們知道他們使用反恐的科技

to listen to phone calls of European leaders,

來監聽歐洲首腦們的電話，

to tap the email of residents of Mexico and Brazil,

監視墨西哥和巴西人的的電子郵件，

to read email traffic inside the United Nations Headquarters and E.U. Parliament,

看聯合國總部和歐盟議會內部郵件往來，

and I don't think they are trying to find terrorists

所以我不認為他們是想從

from inside the E.U. Parliament, right?

歐盟議會裡找恐怖分子，對吧？

It's not the war on terror.

這不是反恐戰爭。

Part of it might be, and there are terrorists,

確實反恐是部份原因， 因為確實有恐怖分子，

but are we really thinking about terrorists

但是我們真的願意做任何事

as such an existential threat

來打擊這些

that we are willing to do anything at all to fight them?

已經存在的威脅嗎？

Are the Americans ready to throw away the Constituion

美國人已經準備好了拋棄憲法了嗎？

and throw it in the trash just because there are terrorists?

就因為有恐怖分子就要 把憲法扔進垃圾桶嗎？

And the same thing with the Bill of Rights and all the amendments

也要把人權法案，修正案

and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

世界人權宣言

and the E.U. conventions on human rights and fundamental freedoms

和歐盟人權會議和基本自由

and the press freedom?

以及新聞自由也要扔掉嗎？

Do we really think terrorism is such an existential threat,

你真的認為， 爲了恐怖主義這種已存在的威脅

we are ready to do anything at all?

我們已經準備好放棄一切了嗎？

But people are scared about terrorists,

人們害怕恐怖分子，

and then they think that maybe that surveillance is okay

所以他們想，監視都是可以的

because they have nothing to hide.

因為他們沒什麼要掩飾的。

Feel free to survey me if that helps.

如果有用的話，隨便查我。

And whoever tells you that they have nothing to hide

不論是誰，當他告訴你 他沒什麼好隱瞞的，

simply hasn't thought about this long enough.

只是因為他沒深思熟慮過。

(Applause)

（掌聲）

Because we have this thing called privacy,

因為我們有一個叫做隱私的東西，

and if you really think that you have nothing to hide,

如果你真的沒什麼可隱瞞的，

please make sure that's the first thing you tell me,

請馬上告訴我，

because then I know

這樣我就知道

that I should not trust you with any secrets,

我不能告訴你任何秘密，

because obviously you can't keep a secret.

因為很顯然，你不能保密。

But people are brutally honest with the Internet,

人們在網絡上實在是太誠實了，

and when these leaks started,

當這些洩密事件發生後，

many people were asking me about this.

很多人問我。

And I have nothing to hide.

我沒有什麽需要隱瞞。

I'm not doing anything bad or anything illegal.

我沒做任何壞事， 或違法的事。

Yet, I have nothing that I would in particular

然而，我也沒啥

like to share with an intelligence agency,

特別想要與情報機構分享的，

especially a foreign intelligence agency.

特別是外國的情報機構。

And if we indeed need a Big Brother,

假設我們真是需要一個大哥，

I would much rather have a domestic Big Brother

我更希望找我本國的

than a foreign Big Brother.

而不是外國大哥。

And when the leaks started, the very first thing I tweeted about this

當洩密風波開始時， 我在twitter上發佈的第一條與此相關的推文

was a comment about how,

是評論為何當你使用搜索引擎，

when you've been using search engines,

你已經潛在的洩露信息給

you've been potentially leaking all that to U.S. intelligence.

美國情報機構。

And two minutes later, I got a reply

2分鐘後我就收到回覆，

by somebody called Kimberly from the United States

是一個叫做Kimberly的美國人

challenging me, like, why am I worried about this?

質疑我，問爲什麽我要操這份心？

What am I sending to worry about this? Am I sending naked pictures or something?

我發了什麽東西讓我擔心被發現？ 我是傳了裸照還是什麽？

And my answer to Kimberly was

我回答Kimberly,

that what I'm sending is none of your business,

我發什麽都不關你的事，

and it should be none of your government's business either.

也跟你們政府沒有任何關係。

Because that's what it's about. It's about privacy.

這就是事情的本質。 事關隱私。

Privacy is nonnegotiable.

隱私權是沒什麼好商量的。

It should be built in to all the systems we use.

它應該存在於一切 我們應用的制度中。

(Applause)

（掌聲）

And one thing we should all understand

我們所有人都得明白

is that we are brutally honest with search engines.

我們在搜尋時都太誠實了。

You show me your search history,

你把你搜尋紀錄給我看，

and I'll find something incriminating

我五分鐘就能找到有罪的

or something embarrassing there in five minutes.

或者尷尬的東西

We are more honest with search engines

我們對待搜尋引擎

than we are with our families.

比對家人還實在。

Search engines know more about you

搜尋引擎比你的家人

than your family members know about you.

更了解你。

And this is all the kind of information we are giving away,

這些都源於你給出的信息，

we are giving away to the United States.

我們，給了美國這些信息。

And surveillance changes history.

監控改變了歷史。

We know this through examples of corrupt presidents like Nixon.

我們從腐敗的總統尼克森案例可以證實。

Imagine if he would have had the kind of surveillance tools that are available today.

想像一下，如果那時候 他有我們當今的監控設備。

And let me actually quote

我引用巴西總統

the president of Brazil, Ms. Dilma Rousseff.

Dilma Rousseff 女士的一句話。

She was one of the targets of NSA surveillance.

她也是美國國家安全局監視對象之一。

Her email was read, and she spoke

她的電子郵件被窺探

at the United Nations Headquarters, and she said,

她在聯合國總部發言，說道，

"If there is no right to privacy,

"如果沒有隱私權，

there can be no true freedom of expression and opinion,

就沒有真正表達意見的自由，

and therefore, there can be no effective democracy."

因此，就沒有真正的民主。"

That's what it's about.

事實如此。

Privacy is the building block of our democracies.

隱私是民主的基礎。

And to quote a fellow security researcher, Marcus Ranum,

引用一位安全研究員，Marcus Ranum的話，

he said that the United States is right now treating the Internet

他說美國對待網絡的態度

as it would be treating one of its colonies.

就好像對待其殖民地一樣。

So we are back to the age of colonization,

我們，回到了殖民時期，

and we, the foreign users of the Internet,

我們，網絡的外國使用者，

we should think about Americans as our masters.

應該把美國當做我們的主人。

So Mr. Snowden, he's been blamed for many things.

斯諾登先生因很多事情被譴責。

Some are blaming him for causing problems

有些責怪他給美國雲端產業

for the U.S. cloud industry and software companies with these revelations --

與這些揭秘相關的軟件公司 造成了那麼多麻煩--

and blaming Snowden for causing problems for the U.S. cloud industry

指責斯諾登給美國雲端產業造成麻煩

would be the equivalent of blaming Al Gore

跟怪戈爾（美國前副總統）造成了

for causing global warming.

全球變暖一樣。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

(Applause)

（掌聲）

So, what is there to be done?

那我們該做些什麽？

Should we worry. No, we shouldn't worry.

我們該擔心嗎？ 不，我們不必擔心。

We should be angry, because this is wrong,

我們應該憤怒， 因為這是錯誤的，

and it's rude, and it should not be done.

野蠻的，不應該出現的。

But that's not going to really change the situation.

但是那也不會改變局面。

What's going to change the situation for the rest of the world

世界上其他國家， 要改變這個局面

is to try to steer away

就要繞過美國

from systems built in the United States.

建立的系統。

And that's much easier said than done.

這個說比做容易。

How do you do that?

怎麼做呢？

A single country, any single country in Europe

一個國家，任何一個歐洲的國家

cannot replace and build replacements

都無法取代，無法創造

for the U.S.-made operating systems and cloud services.

美國製造，運行的系統以及雲端服務的代替品。

But maybe you don't have to do it alone.

但是你沒必要自己完成。

Maybe you can do it together with other countries.

你可以和其他國家聯合起來一起做。

The solution is open source.

辦法就是開放資源。

By building together open, free, secure systems,

通過一起建立開放， 自由，安全的系統，

we can go around such surveillance,

我們可以躲過這些監視，

and then one country doesn't have to solve the problem by itself.

一個國家不必自己解決這個問題。

It only has to solve one little problem.

他只需要解決一個小問題。

And to quote a fellow security researcher, Haroon Meer,

用一個安全研究員Haroon Meer的話，

one country only has to make a small wave,

一個國家只造成一個小浪花，

but those small waves together become a tide,

但是多個小浪花一起就成了潮流，

and the tide will lift all the boats up at the same time,

並且潮會讓所有的船同時上升，

and the tide we will build

我們建立的大潮

with secure, free, open-source systems,

擁有安全，自由，開放的資源體系，

will become the tide that will lift all of us

會把我們拖起來，

up and above the surveillance state.

讓我們越過被監視的狀態。

Thank you very much.

非常感謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）