Rebecca MacKinnon: Let's take back the Internet!

譯者: Resa CC 審譯者: Ana Choi

So I begin with an advertisement

那麼我以個廣告作為開場,

inspired by George Orwell

其創作靈感來自喬治‧奧威爾

that Apple ran in 1984.

蘋果電腦(Apple) 在1984年推出的這個廣告。

(Video) Big Brother: We are one people

(視頻)老大哥(Big Brother):「我們是一個族群,

with one will, one resolve,

意志一致, 決心一致

one cause.

我們有共同的理想。

Our enemies shall talk themselves to death,

我們的敵人必定會一直講......講到他們自己煩死,

and we will fight them with their own confusion.

我們可藉其慌亂攻克他們。

We shall prevail.

我們將會戰勝。」

Narrator: On January 24th,

敍述者: 在1月24日,

Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh.

蘋果電腦將出「麥金塔」(Macintosh簡稱Mac)。

And you'll see why 1984

你將明白為何1984年

won't be like "1984."

會不同於《1984》。

Rebecca MacKinnon: So the underlying message of this video

Rebecca Mackinnon:可以說,這個短片所傳遞的基礎訊息

remains very powerful even today.

在今天仍然是非常具有影響力。

Technology created by innovative companies

由各家創新企業所創造的「科技」

will set us all free.

將會解放我們所有人。

Fast-forward more than two decades:

時間快進到20多年後,

Apple launches the iPhone in China

蘋果首度在中國推出iPhone時

and censors the Dalai Lama out

達賴喇嘛便遭審查出局,

along with several other politically sensitive applications

連帶其他幾個政治敏感的軟體,

at the request of the Chinese government

都是中國政府要求

for its Chinese app store.

Apple中國軟體商店審查刪除的。

The American political cartoonist

美國政治漫畫家

Mark Fiore

Mark Fiore,

also had his satire application

他的諷刺作品軟體也同樣

censored in the United States

在美國審查遭拒

because some of Apple's staff

因某些蘋果的軟體審查人員

were concerned it would be offensive to some groups.

顧及其諷刺作品會令某些團體反感,

His app wasn't reinstated

他的軟體未獲採用

until he won the Pulitzer Prize.

直到他贏得了普立茲獎 (Pulitzer Prize)才准獲用。

The German magazine Stern, a news magazine,

德國新聞週刋《明星》(Stern),

had its app censored

其軟體遭審查

because the Apple nannies deemed it

因Apple 「審查褓母」認為刋物內容

to be a little bit too racy for their users,

對apple的用戶來說,有點太過辛辣煽情,

and despite the fact that this magazine

儘管事實上這個週刋

is perfectly legal for sale

絶對是合法,可正當銷售

on newsstands throughout Germany.

在全德國的各個報攤都可見。

And more controversially, recently,

還有,最近備受爭議的是

Apple censored a Palestinian protest app

Apple 審查巴勒斯坦的抗議軟體

after the Israeli government voiced concerns

是因為以色列政府表示擔憂

that it might be used to organize violent attacks.

此類軟體可能被用來組織暴力攻擊。

So here's the thing.

這麼說來,事情是這樣的

We have a situation where private companies

有種情形 ── 私營的企業

are applying censorship standards

正施行審查制度規範,

that are often quite arbitrary

審查標準經常是相當地獨斷專制

and generally more narrow

並通常又更為嚴密,

than the free speech constitutional standards

比保證在民主國家人民擁有言論自由

that we have in democracies.

的憲法還要嚴苛。

Or they're responding to censorship requests

也就是說,他們回應審查制度的求要

by authoritarian regimes

是以專權的制度來處理,

that do not reflect consent of the governed.

這種制度未能反映人民意願。

Or they're responding to requests and concerns

換言之, 他們回應請求和關切的事情,

by governments that have no jurisdiction

是以不具審判權的管理形式

over many, or most, of the users and viewers

支配許多人,大部分是用戶和觀看者,

who are interacting with the content in question.

他們與這種制式的內容交流。

So here's the situation.

所以,情況是這樣的--

In a pre-Internet world,

在沒有網際網路前的世界

sovereignty over our physical freedoms,

國家主權支配著我們的物質自由,

or lack thereof,

或者說是缺乏物質自由,

was controlled almost entirely

幾乎完全受制於

by nation-states.

民族國家。

But now we have this new layer

但現在有新階層存在:

of private sovereignty

「私營的統治主權」

in cyberspace.

就存在於我們的電子網際空間(cyberspace)。

And their decisions about software coding,

而且他們作的決定,如:軟體編碼、

engineering, design, terms of service

工程設計、圖型設計、服務條款

all act as a kind of law

每每都具法律的作用,

that shapes what we can and cannot do with our digital lives.

規範我們的數位生活──我們可以做什麼;不可以什麼。

And their sovereignties,

況且他們的「統治主權」

cross-cutting, globally interlinked,

縱橫全球環環相扣,

can in some ways

就某些方面來說

challenge the sovereignties of nation-states

考驗民族國家的主權

in very exciting ways,

而且方式相當刺激。

but sometimes also act

但他們有時也採取行動,

to project and extend it

凸顯並擴展其「統治主權」

at a time when control

每次當控制、

over what people can and cannot do

支配人們可以如何處理

with information

資料信息時,

has more effect than ever

這樣的控制支配比任何時候都更有影響力,

on the exercise of power

深深的影響

in our physical world.

我們實質世界的權力運作。

After all, even the leader of the free world

最終,甚至是在自由世界的領導者,

needs a little help from the sultan of Facebookistan

都得求助於臉書(facebook)的蘇丹王(指facebook創辦人Mark Zuckerberg)

if he wants to get reelected next year.

若他明年還想要連任的話。

And these platforms

而且這些平台

were certainly very helpful

的確相當有用,

to activists in Tunisia and Egypt

對此次突尼西亞和埃及的改革行動大有幫助

this past spring and beyond.

──改革活動是在今春及稍後。

As Wael Ghonim,

戈寧(Wael Ghonim),

the Google-Egyptian-executive by day,

白天是Google 駐埃及主管,

secret-Facebook-activist by night,

夜晚則潛行於Facebook鼓吹抗議行動。

famously said to CNN

他受CNN採訪時,說了一句名言

after Mubarak stepped down,

就在穆巴拉克(Mubarak)下台後,他說:

"If you want to liberate a society,

「若你要解放一個社會,

just give them the Internet."

給他們一個網路便行了。」

But overthrowing a government is one thing

但推翻一個政府是一回事,

and building a stable democracy

建立一個穩健的民主政體,

is a bit more complicated.

這又更複雜了。

On the left there's a photo taken by an Egyptian activist

在左方的這張照片,是由埃及參與改革者拍下的,

who was part of the storming

他參與突擊

of the Egyptian state security offices in March.

埃及國安辦事處,就在今年三月份。

And many of the agents

許多國安情報人員

shredded as many of the documents as they could

儘可能地把檔案以碎紙機切碎

and left them behind in piles.

成堆地遺留在現場。

But some of the files were left behind intact,

但有些檔案文件還完好留著,

and activists, some of them,

而且某些參與改革者

found their own surveillance dossiers

發現他們自己受監視的卷宗:

full of transcripts of their email exchanges,

所有電子郵件往來的副本,

their cellphone text message exchanges,

手機簡訊收發的內容,

even Skype conversations.

甚至是Skype的通話。

And one activist actually found

其中有人還確實發現

a contract from a Western company

一份與西方世界某公司簽署的合約,

for the sale of surveillance technology

內容是出售監視科技系統

to the Egyptian security forces.

給埃及保安警察部門。

And Egyptian activists are assuming

可是埃及參改者認為

that these technologies for surveillance

這些監控系統

are still being used

還在被使用,

by the transitional authorities running the networks there.

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 --

而且五月時突尼西亞的審查制度又重新開始,

not nearly as extensively

審查範圍縮小

as under President Ben Ali.

不同於總統Ben Ali 執政時一般。

But you'll see here a blocked page

可是你可以看到有些網頁遭封鎖,

of what happens when you try to reach

你無法連結到某事件的Facebook網頁

certain Facebook pages and some other websites

和其他網站。

that the transitional authorities

因臨時管理組織

have determined might incite violence.

已確定網頁內容可能會煽動暴亂。

In protest over this,

為抗議網頁遭封鎖,

blogger Slim Amamou,

博客Slim Amamou

who had been jailed under Ben Ali

在Ben Ali 執政時已入獄。

and then became part of the transitional government

後來在革命後,他成為

after the revolution,

臨時政府的一員。

he resigned in protest from the cabinet.

為了抗議網頁封鎖,他退出內閣。

But there's been a lot of debate in Tunisia

但是在突尼西亞一直存在著許多的爭議,

about how to handle this kind of problem.

關於如何處置這個問題眾說紛紜。

In fact, on Twitter,

事實上,在Twitter上

there were a number of people who were supportive of the revolution

有很多支持改革的人

who said, "Well actually,

他們說:「其實,

we do want democracy and free expression,

我們的確要求民主政體和言論自由,

but there is some kinds of speech that need to be off-bounds

但是某些類型的言論有需要被限制

because it's too violent and it might be destabilizing for our democracy.

因為那太過暴力而且可能會破壞民主。」

But the problem is,

但問題是

how do you decide who is in power to make these decisions

如何決定誰有權作決定,

and how do you make sure

並且如何能確保

that they do not abuse their power?

他們不濫權?

As Riadh Guerfali,

Riadh Guerfali 是善用數位

the veteran digital activist from Tunisia,

鼓動改革的突尼西亞資深科技人。

remarked over this incident,

他對該事件作評論:

"Before, things were simple:

「在以前人事結構簡單──

you had the good guys on one side and the bad guys on the other.

好人是一派,另一派是壞人。

Today, things are a lot more subtle."

今天,人事更加的微妙且複雜。」

Welcome to democracy, our Tunisian and Egyptian friends.

歡迎到民主世界, 我們的突尼西亞和埃及朋友們。

The reality is

事實是,

that even in democratic societies today,

即便是處於今日的民主社會,

we do not have good answers

我們沒有合適的答案來回應──

for how you balance the need

你要如何平衡需要:

for security and law enforcement on one hand

一方面是保安和法律實行的需要,

and protection of civil liberties

另一方面則是保障公民自由

and free speech on the other

和論事自由的需要,

in our digital networks.

在我們的數位網路世界。

In fact, in the United States,

事實上,在美國

whatever you may think of Julian Assange,

無論你如何想Julian Assange(維基揭密創辦人)

even people who are not necessarily big fans of his

即便不是他的擁護者,

are very concerned about the way

也非常關切

in which the United States government and some companies have handled Wikileaks.

美國當局和企業如何對待「維基揭密」。

Amazon webhosting dropped Wikileaks as a customer

亞馬遜將「維基揭密」逐出其雲端平台,

after receiving a complaint from U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman,

因為收到美國參議員Joe Lieberman的抗議。

despite the fact

儘管實際上

that Wikileaks had not been charged,

「維基揭密」沒被控告,

let alone convicted,

更別提被宣判

of any crime.

任何罪名。

So we assume

我們認為

that the Internet is a border-busting technology.

網路是跨越疆界的科技。

This is a map of social networks worldwide,

這是一個全球社交網絡地圖,

and certainly Facebook has conquered much of the world --

毫無疑問Facebook已佔領世界版圖多數面積,

which is either a good or a bad thing,

這不是件好事,就是件壞事

depending on how you like

全憑你怎麼看待

the way Facebook manages its service.

Facebook如何經營網站服務的方式。

But borders do persist

但是疆界持續存在於

in some parts of cyberspace.

某些電子網際空間。

In Brazil and Japan,

好比巴西和日本的

it's for unique cultural and linguistic reasons.

疆界存在是因為獨特的文化和語言的原故。

But if you look at China, Vietnam

但是若你瞧瞧中國、越南

and a number of the former Soviet states,

和前蘇聯,

what's happening there is more troubling.

事情就更為棘手。

You have a situation

有個情形──

where the relationship between government

政府

and local social networking companies

和當地社群網站公司往來的關係

is creating a situation

正形成了一種局面──

where, effectively,

實際上,

the empowering potential of these platforms

這些社交平台的自主力

is being constrained

是受牽制的,

because of these relationships

因為這層「關係」存在於

between companies and government.

企業和政府的所致。

Now in China,

目前在中國

you have the "great firewall," as it's well-known,

有一種「長城防火牆」相當有名,

that blocks Facebook

封鎖Facebook、

and Twitter and now Google+

Twitter、Google+

and many of the other overseas websites.

和很多其他國外的網站。

And that's done in part with the help from Western technology.

其功能之強,大部分是拜西方科技的協助所賜。

But that's only half of the story.

這還不是故事的全貌。

The other part of the story

故事的下半部是

are requirements that the Chinese government places

中國當局開出條件,

on all companies operating on the Chinese Internet,

要求所有在中國網路營運的企業

known as a system of self-discipline.

─據了解是一套「自律系統」--

In plain English, that means censorship and surveillance

以易懂的英文來說, 施行審查制度

of their users.

監控網路用戶。

And this is a ceremony I actually attended in 2009

這個典禮在2009年舉辦,我實際參與該典禮。

where the Internet Society of China presented awards

典禮上,中國互聯網協會頒獎

to the top 20 Chinese companies

給20家最佳中國企業

that are best at exercising self-discipline --

「自律及監控執行」的傑出貢獻─

i.e. policing their content.

也就是監控他們的網站內容。

And Robin Li, CEO of Baidu,

百度執行長李彥宏

China's dominant search engine,

經營中國最大的搜尋引擎,

was one of the recipients.

也是領獎人之一。

In Russia, they do not generally block the Internet

在俄羅斯他們通常不封鎖網際網路

and directly censor websites.

或直接偵查網站。

But this is a website called Rospil

但是有一個網站叫Rospil

that's an anti-corruption site.

是一個反賄賂的網站

And earlier this year,

今年稍早時,

there was a troubling incident

有一件惱人的事發生。

where people who had made donations to Rospil

那些捐款給Rospil的人

through a payments processing system

透過一種付款處理系統捐款,

called Yandex Money

這系統叫Yandex Money

suddenly received threatening phone calls

捐款人突然接到威脅電話,

from members of a nationalist party

由國家黨黨員打來的。

who had obtained details

他們獲得詳情

about donors to Rospil

內容是關於這些人捐款給Rospil,

through members of the security services

細節是由政府安全部門提供,

who had somehow obtained this information

資料來源是從

from people at Yandex Money.

Yandex Money內部取得。

This has a chilling effect

這種寒蟬效應

on people's ability to use the Internet

影響人們使用網路的能力

to hold government accountable.

來監督政府責任。

So we have a situation in the world today

今天這個世界存在一種狀況

where in more and more countries

愈來愈多的國家

the relationship between citizens and governments

人民和政府的關係

is mediated through the Internet,

是透過網路傳達的

which is comprised primarily

而且主要是由

of privately owned and operated services.

私營的和受操作的服務所構成的。

So the important question, I think,

我認為最重要的問題

is not this debate over whether the Internet

不是爭論是否網路

is going to help the good guys more than the bad guys.

能幫助好人多於壞人。

Of course, it's going to empower

當然它有益於

whoever is most skilled at using the technology

任何最善用科技

and best understands the Internet

和最熟悉網路的人

in comparison with whoever their adversary is.

無論他們的對手是誰。

The most urgent question we need to be asking today

今天我們必須問的最迫切的問題是

is how do we make sure

我們如何確保

that the Internet evolves

網路的發展

in a citizen-centric manner.

是以服務人民為本的方式。

Because I think all of you will agree

我想大家都會同意

that the only legitimate purpose of government

政府存在的唯一公正合理的使命

is to serve citizens,

是服務人民。

and I would argue

而且我會主張

that the only legitimate purpose of technology

科技唯一的正當合法的目的

is to improve our lives,

是改善且提昇人民生活,

not to manipulate or enslave us.

而非操控或奴役人民。

So the question is,

所以問題是

we know how to hold government accountable.

我們要知道如何追究政府的責任。

We don't necessarily always do it very well,

我們不必總是作的非常好,

but we have a sense of what the models are,

但是我們要懂得運用各種形式──

politically and institutionally, to do that.

利用政治和法規的手段去處理。

How do you hold the sovereigns of cyberspace

而你如何讓電子網際空間的統治者

accountable to the public interest

對公眾(共)利益負責,

when most CEO's argue

當大多數的執行長主張

that their main obligation

他們的主要義務

is to maximize shareholder profit?

是擴大股東利潤?

And government regulation

而且政府法令

often isn't helping all that much.

經常管不到那麼的多。

You have situations, for instance, in France

有很多情形, 舉例來說,在法國

where president Sarkozy

總統Sarkozy

tells the CEO's of Internet companies,

告訴網路公司執行長們

"We're the only legitimate representatives

:「我們是唯一合法的

of the public interest."

公眾利益代表。」

But then he goes and champions laws

但然後他進而公開維護法律──

like the infamous "three-strikes" law

那種可惡的「三振(出局)法」(three strikes),

that would disconnect citizens from the Internet

中斷人民網路連線

for file sharing,

禁止檔案分享,

which has been condemned by the U.N. Special Rapporteur

這已被聯合國特別書記讉責為

on Freedom of Expression

─就言論自由而言─

as being a disproportionate violation

不合理的侵犯

of citizens' right to communications,

人民通訊交流的權利,

and has raised questions amongst civil society groups

在公民社團間已有反對的聲浪,

about whether

他們質疑是否

some political representatives

某些政客

are more interested in preserving

更感興趣的是維護

the interests of the entertainment industry

娛樂業的利益

than they are in defending the rights of their citizens.

非捍衛人民的權利。

And here in the United Kingdom

而在這兒的英國

there's also concern over

也有令人關切的法令──

a law called the Digital Economy Act

數位經濟法案(Digital Economy Act)

that's placing more onus

下放更多的舉證責任

on private intermediaries

給私營仲介,

to police citizen behavior.

以監管人民的行為。

So what we need to recognize

所以,我們必須承認的是

is that if we want to have

在未來,若我們要有

a citizen-centric Internet in the future,

以服務人民為本的網際網路,

we need a broader and more sustained

我們需要一個更全面且長久持續的

Internet freedom movement.

網路自由發展。

After all, companies didn't stop polluting groundwater

畢竟,企業並沒有停止污染地下水,

as a matter of course,

即使理所當然該停止,

or employing 10-year-olds as a matter of course,

或者理所當然地停止僱用10歲的孩子,

just because executives woke up one day

僅僅因為某天主管開始察覺到,

and decided it was the right thing to do.

並決定這是正確且該做的事。

It was the result of decades of sustained activism,

這是由於數十年長期持續的積極行為,

shareholder advocacy

維護股東權利,

and consumer advocacy.

和保護消費者權益的結果。

Similarly, governments don't enact

同樣地,政府制定

intelligent environmental and labor laws

聰明的環境保護和勞動法規

just because politicians wake up one day.

不僅僅是因政治官員某天開始認為這才符合人民利益。

It's the result of very sustained and prolonged

這是源於日積月累的

political activism

政治積極行為──

that you get the right regulations,

制定公正合理的法規

and that you get the right corporate behavior.

你就能有效地規範團體行為。

We need to make the same approach

我們必須以同樣的舉措

with the Internet.

對待網際網路的世界。

We also are going to need

我們也要求

political innovation.

政治革新。

Eight hundred years ago, approximately,

大約800年以前,

the barons of England decided

英國貴族決定

that the Divine Right of Kings

神授君權

was no longer working for them so well,

對他們不再適用,

and they forced King John

他們逼迫約翰國王

to sign the Magna Carta,

簽署大憲章(拉丁語:Magna Carta)

which recognized

其內容是承認

that even the king

即便君王

who claimed to have divine rule

主張上帝賦予其統治權,

still had to abide by a basic set of rules.

仍必須遵守基本的規則。

This set off a cycle

這事件引發了一個循環

of what we can call political innovation,

我們可稱之為「政治革新」,

which led eventually to the idea of consent of the governed --

終究導向以「人民之意願」的概念

which was implemented for the first time

首次將此概念付諸行動的是

by that radical revolutionary government

激進的革命政府──

in America across the pond.

橫越大西洋另一邊的美國。

So now we need to figure out

所以現在我們必須想出

how to build consent of the networked.

如何建立「網路使用者之意願」,

And what does that look like?

那會是怎麼樣?

At the moment, we still don't know.

此時我們仍不知道。

But it's going to require innovation

但革新是必然的,

that's not only going to need

不只是

to focus on politics,

將焦點放在政治領域、

on geopolitics,

地緣政治領域,

but it's also going to need

而是也必須

to deal with questions

處理一些問題,

of business management, investor behavior,

有關商業管理、投資行為、

consumer choice

顧客選擇、

and even software design and engineering.

甚至是軟體設計和工程設計的議題。

Each and every one of us has a vital part to play

我們每個人都扮演重要的角色

in building the kind of world

去創造這樣的世界──

in which government and technology

政府組織和科技技術

serve the world's people and not the other way around.

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)