Glenn Greenwald: Why privacy matters

譯者: Melody Tang 審譯者: Bill Liu

There is an entire genre of YouTube videos

YouTube 裡有一整類這種影片

devoted to an experience which

我敢肯定在場所有人都有和 影片裡一樣的經歷

I am certain that everyone in this room has had.

It entails an individual who,

它會找來一個人

thinking they're alone,

讓他覺得只有他自己在場

engages in some expressive behavior —

然後讓他做一些表達自己的行為

wild singing, gyrating dancing,

比如大聲唱歌，誇張地跳舞，

some mild sexual activity —

或者一些性感動作

當這個人發現他並非獨處

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

that there is a person watching and lurking,

其實有人在看偷著他時

the discovery of which causes them

這個發現會使他立刻停止正在做的事情

to immediately cease what they were doing

in horror.

並且非常驚恐

The sense of shame and humiliation

他們臉上很明顯的是羞辱和丟臉的表情

in their face is palpable.

It's the sense of,

顯然

"This is something I'm willing to do

這些動作是在沒有別人看時

only if no one else is watching."

才願意做的

This is the crux of the work

這正是我在最近16個月內 所專心研究的重點：

on which I have been singularly focused

for the last 16 months,

the question of why privacy matters,

為什麼隱私這麼重要？

a question that has arisen

一個引起世界辯論的話題

in the context of a global debate,

enabled by the revelations of Edward Snowden

它由愛德華 斯諾登的揭密而引起

that the United States and its partners,

他揭露美國和其同盟

unbeknownst to the entire world,

瞞著整個世界

has converted the Internet,

把網路

once heralded as an unprecedented tool

這個曾經預示著民主和自由的 前所未有的工具

of liberation and democratization,

into an unprecedented zone

轉變成前所未有的用來 肆意監視大眾的空間

of mass, indiscriminate surveillance.

There is a very common sentiment

在這場辯論中有一個普遍的論點

that arises in this debate,

even among people who are uncomfortable

甚至包括那些對於廣泛監視 感到很不舒服的人

with mass surveillance, which says

that there is no real harm

認為這種大範圍的侵入並沒有實質的傷害

that comes from this large-scale invasion

because only people who are engaged in bad acts

因為只有做壞事的人才有理由想隱藏

have a reason to want to hide

and to care about their privacy.

才會在乎他們的隱私

This worldview is implicitly grounded

這種世界觀隱含著一個議題

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

這個世界上有兩種人： 好人和壞人

good people and bad people.

Bad people are those who plot terrorist attacks

壞人是那些圖謀恐怖襲擊或者 參與暴力犯罪的人

or who engage in violent criminality

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

所以他們有理由想要隱藏他們做的事情

have reasons to care about their privacy.

有理由要保護他們的隱私

But by contrast, good people

而相反的

好人是那些每天去工作

are people who go to work,

come home, raise their children, watch television.

回家，帶孩子，看電視的人

They use the Internet not to plot bombing attacks

他們不會用網路來策劃炸彈襲擊

but to read the news or exchange recipes

而是為了看新聞，交流食譜，

or to plan their kids' Little League games,

或者計劃孩子的少年棒球比賽

and those people are doing nothing wrong

這些人沒做任何壞事

and therefore have nothing to hide

所以沒有什麼好隱藏的

and no reason to fear

也沒有理由害怕政府監視他們

the government monitoring them.

The people who are actually saying that

說這些話的人

are engaged in a very extreme act

其實是在極大的自我貶低

of self-deprecation.

What they're really saying is,

他們其實是在說

"I have agreed to make myself

我同意讓我自己成為

such a harmless and unthreatening

一個不會傷害他人，沒有威脅性， 又無趣的人

and uninteresting person that I actually don't fear

這樣我就不會害怕政府知道我在做什麼

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

This mindset has found what I think

我發現這種心態

is its purest expression

in a 2009 interview with

和 2009 年谷歌 CEO 艾瑞克 施密特接受採訪時

the longtime CEO of Google, Eric Schmidt, who,

when asked about all the different ways his company

回答關於他的公司以各種方式

is causing invasions of privacy

侵犯全世界幾億人的隱私的問題時

for hundreds of millions of people around the world,

所做出的回應是純然一致的

said this: He said,

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

他說，如果你在做的事情是你不希望 讓別人知道的

other people to know,

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

那麼或許你從開始就不應該做這件事

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

對於這種理念有各種各樣的說法

that mentality,

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

第一種說法認為那些說隱私並不重要的人

who say that privacy isn't really important,

they don't actually believe it,

並不真正相信隱私不重要

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

怎樣知道他們並不相信呢？

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

在他們說隱私並不重要的同時

with their actions, they take all kinds of steps

他們的行為卻是想方設法

to safeguard their privacy.

保衛他們的隱私

They put passwords on their email

他們給郵件設上密碼

and their social media accounts,

還有社交網絡帳號

they put locks on their bedroom

他們給房門和廁所門上鎖

and bathroom doors,

all steps designed to prevent other people

通過各種方法防止他人

from entering what they consider their private realm

進入他們自認的私人空間

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

其實他們很清楚他們不想讓別人 知道的事情

The very same Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google,

同樣的，谷歌CEO艾瑞克 施密特

ordered his employees at Google

命令他在谷歌的員工

to cease speaking with the online

停止一切與網路雜誌 CNET （科技資訊網）的交流

Internet magazine CNET

after CNET published an article

因為 CNET 發表了一篇文章

full of personal, private information

透露了大量的艾瑞克 施密特的個人信息

about Eric Schmidt,

which it obtained exclusively through Google searches

這些信息其實是完全通過谷歌搜索

and using other Google products. (Laughter)

和其他谷歌產品獲得的（笑聲）

This same division can be seen

相同的情況也發生在 Facebook 的 CEO 馬克 扎克伯格身上

with the CEO of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg,

who in an infamous interview in 2010

他在 2010 年那個聲名狼藉的採訪上

pronounced that privacy is no longer

斷言隱私已經不再是一個“社會規範”

a "social norm."

Last year, Mark Zuckerberg and his new wife

去年，馬克 扎克伯格和他的新任妻子

purchased not only their own house

在帕洛阿爾托（美國舊金附近城市） 不止購買了他們的房子，

but also all four adjacent houses in Palo Alto

並且買了相鄰四個房子 總值三千萬美元

for a total of 30 million dollars

in order to ensure that they enjoyed a zone of privacy

為了確保他們享有足夠的私人空間

that prevented other people from monitoring

防止人們監視他們的私人生活

what they do in their personal lives.

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

在過去的十六個月， 我一直在世界各地遊說這個問題

every single time somebody has said to me,

每當有人跟我說

"I don't really worry about invasions of privacy

”我真的不擔心隱私受到侵犯，

because I don't have anything to hide."

因為我沒有什麼需要隱藏的。”

I always say the same thing to them.

我總是對他們回答一樣的話

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

我拿出一支筆，寫下我的郵箱地址

I say, "Here's my email address.

我說：“這是我的郵箱，

What I want you to do when you get home

我希望回家之後把你所有郵箱賬號的 密碼發給我，

is email me the passwords

to all of your email accounts,

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

不僅僅是你工作上用的那些 一本正經的郵箱

but all of them,

我要所有的

because I want to be able to just troll through

因為我就是想讀遍所有你的網上記錄

what it is you're doing online,

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

然後將我認為有趣的內容發表出來

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

畢竟你不是個壞人 你沒做什麼壞事

if you're doing nothing wrong,

you should have nothing to hide."

你就沒什麼好隱藏的“

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

沒有任何一個人接受我的提議

I check and — (Applause)

我查過（掌聲）

I check that email account religiously all the time.

我一直在認真的查看那個郵箱

It's a very desolate place.

那裡一直很荒涼

And there's a reason for that,

這是有原因的

which is that we as human beings,

因為我們作為人類

even those of us who in words

即使一些人嘴上否認隱私的重要性

disclaim the importance of our own privacy,

instinctively understand

但他們心裡很清楚它深遠的重要性

the profound importance of it.

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

事實上，作為人類，我們是社會性動物

which means we have a need for other people

這意味著我們需要其他人

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

知道我們在做什麼，說什麼，想什麼

which is why we voluntarily publish information about ourselves online.

這也是為什麼我們自願的在網上 發佈自己的信息

But equally essential to what it means

但是和成為一個自由的、完整的人類 同等重要的是

to be a free and fulfilled human being

is to have a place that we can go

我們需要有一個地方完全遠離 其他人批判的目光

and be free of the judgmental eyes of other people.

There's a reason why we seek that out,

為什麼我們要找到這樣一個地方 原因是我們所有人

and our reason is that all of us —

not just terrorists and criminals, all of us —

－並非只有那些恐怖分子者和罪犯，而是我們所有人－

have things to hide.

都有想要隱藏的東西

There are all sorts of things that we do and think

許多我們做的、想的各種各樣的事情

that we're willing to tell our physician

我們只願意告訴自己的醫生,

or our lawyer or our psychologist or our spouse

或者律師，或者心理醫生， 或者配偶，或者好朋友。

or our best friend that we would be mortified

如果全世界都知道我們會覺得很囧

for the rest of the world to learn.

We make judgments every single day

我們每天都會判斷

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

某些我們說的、想的、做的某些事情

that we're willing to have other people know,

我們願意讓別人知道

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

還有某些我們說的、想的、做的某些事情

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

我們不願意讓別人知道

People can very easily in words claim

人們可以很輕易地以言語宣稱

that they don't value their privacy,

他們不在乎他們的隱私

but their actions negate the authenticity of that belief.

但他們的行為卻在否定 他們所相信的真實性

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

這有一個原因為什麼人們如此 普遍地且本能地渴望隱私

universally and instinctively.

It isn't just a reflexive movement

這不僅僅是個反射性動作

like breathing air or drinking water.

像呼吸和喝水那樣

The reason is that when we're in a state

原因是當在我們在一種狀態裡

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

我們可能被監視著，被看著的時候

our behavior changes dramatically.

我們的行為會有巨大的改變

The range of behavioral options that we consider

我們所考量的不同行為的範圍

when we think we're being watched

在我們被觀察者的時候

severely reduce.

會大幅縮小

This is just a fact of human nature

這就是人類的本性的事實

that has been recognized in social science

已被社會科學、

and in literature and in religion

文學、宗教

and in virtually every field of discipline.

以及幾乎所有學科領域所公認

There are dozens of psychological studies

許多心理學研究證明

that prove that when somebody knows

當一個人知道他可能在被看著

that they might be watched,

the behavior they engage in

他的行為會尤其地順從

is vastly more conformist and compliant.

Human shame is a very powerful motivator,

人的羞恥心是一個強大的動力

as is the desire to avoid it,

以避免受辱

and that's the reason why people,

這就是為什麼

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

人們在被看著的情況下所做的決定

not that are the byproduct of their own agency

並非他們自己機體的副產品

but that are about the expectations

而是別人對他們的期望或者是 社會正統所要求的

that others have of them

or the mandates of societal orthodoxy.

This realization was exploited most powerfully

對於這件現象的認識

被十八世紀的實用主義哲學家 杰裡米 邊沁為了務實的目的大為利用

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

who set out to resolve an important problem

以解決了工業時期出現的一個 很重要的問題

ushered in by the industrial age,

where, for the first time, institutions had become

就是當組織體系初次大幅擴張和 權力的集中以致於

so large and centralized

that they were no longer able to monitor

人們無法進行監視

and therefore control each one of their individual members,

和控制到他們組織的每一個份子

and the solution that he devised

邊沁的解決方案是

was an architectural design

一個建築學設計

originally intended to be implemented in prisons

本來的目的是用於監獄

that he called the panopticon,

他稱之為全景監獄

the primary attribute of which was the construction

其主要特徵是將一個巨大的塔 建立在組織機構的中間

of an enormous tower in the center of the institution

where whoever controlled the institution

這樣組織的統治者就可以隨時監視 其中的任一個囚犯

could at any moment watch any of the inmates,

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

雖然他不能一直看著所有的人

And crucial to this design

這個設計的關鍵處在於

was that the inmates could not actually

犯人無法看到塔的内部

see into the panopticon, into the tower,

and so they never knew

所以他們永遠無法知道

if they were being watched or even when.

自己是否或者什麼時候是在被監視著的

And what made him so excited about this discovery

這個發現讓邊沁非常興奮

was that that would mean that the prisoners

因為這意味著囚犯們會假定

would have to assume that they were being watched

他們隨時隨地是被監視著的

at any given moment,

which would be the ultimate enforcer

這種假定成為了順從和服從的終極實施者

for obedience and compliance.

The 20th-century French philosopher Michel Foucault

二十世紀法國哲學家米歇爾 福柯

realized that that model could be used

意識到這個模型不僅可以用於監獄

not just for prisons but for every institution

它可以用於任何控制人類行為的機構

that seeks to control human behavior:

schools, hospitals, factories, workplaces.

學校、醫院、工廠、工作場所

And what he said was that this mindset,

而且他說這種思維模式 邊沁發明的這種結構

this framework discovered by Bentham,

was the key means of societal control

是現代西方社會進行社會控制的主要手段

for modern, Western societies,

which no longer need

讓社會不再需要公然的使用暴政的武器

the overt weapons of tyranny —

punishing or imprisoning or killing dissidents,

－懲罰，或者投送監獄， 或者處死異議者，

or legally compelling loyalty to a particular party —

或者合法地強迫人民對一個政黨的忠誠

because mass surveillance creates

因為廣泛的監控

a prison in the mind

會在人腦中形成一個監獄

that is a much more subtle

這是一個非常微妙的 且更加有效的

though much more effective means

of fostering compliance with social norms

使人服從社會規範 或者社會正統的方法

or with social orthodoxy,

much more effective

這是暴力手段遠不能及的

than brute force could ever be.

The most iconic work of literature about surveillance

關於監視和隱私，最標誌性的文學表達 是喬治 奧威爾的小說《1984》

and privacy is the George Orwell novel "1984,"

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

我們在學校都學過，它都快成了 陳詞濫調了

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

事實上，在關於監視的討論中 不論什麼時候提到本書

people instantaneously dismiss it

人們都立即忽略它

as inapplicable, and what they say is,

認為它行不通，他們說：

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

“在《1984》裡人們家裡都是監視器，

they were being watched at every given moment,

他們無時無刻不被看著

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

這和我們所面對的國家監控是 不一樣的。”

That is an actual fundamental misapprehension

這其實是從根本上誤解奧威爾在《1984》裡提出的警告

of the warnings that Orwell issued in "1984."

The warning that he was issuing

他所發出的警告

was about a surveillance state

其實不是關於國家隨時隨地在監視人們

not that monitored everybody at all times,

but where people were aware that they could

而是人們知道他們可能隨時被監視着

be monitored at any given moment.

Here is how Orwell's narrator, Winston Smith,

這是溫斯頓 史密斯， 奧威爾小說的敘述者，

described the surveillance system

所描述的他們面對的監控系統：

that they faced:

"There was, of course, no way of knowing

“當然，你無從知道你何時在被監視著。”

whether you were being watched at any given moment."

He went on to say,

他接著說：

"At any rate, they could plug in your wire

“但是，他們隨時想要是都可以插上 監視你的電線。

whenever they wanted to.

You had to live, did live,

你必須，也確實地活在一個漸漸變成 本能的習慣裡，

from habit that became instinct,

in the assumption that every sound you made

假定你發出的任何聲音都會被聽到，

was overheard and except in darkness

和除了在黑暗中，你的所有的動作 被監視着。”

every movement scrutinized."

The Abrahamic religions similarly posit

亞伯拉罕教派也有類似的斷定

that there's an invisible, all-knowing authority

有一個無形的、無所不知的權威

who, because of its omniscience,

因為祂的全知全能

always watches whatever you're doing,

總是在看你在做什麼

which means you never have a private moment,

意思就是你從來沒有一刻是私有的

the ultimate enforcer

這就是讓你對祂絕對服從最終執行者

for obedience to its dictates.

What all of these seemingly disparate works

這些看似不同的手段

recognize, the conclusion that they all reach,

最終的共同的結論是

is that a society in which people

一個人們隨時都在被監視的社會

can be monitored at all times

is a society that breeds conformity

是在培養一致、順從、和屈服

and obedience and submission,

which is why every tyrant,

這也是為什麼每一個暴君

the most overt to the most subtle,

從公然施暴的到暗中控制的

craves that system.

都渴望這種制度

Conversely, even more importantly,

相反的，而且更重要的是

it is a realm of privacy,

在一個有隱私的空間裡

the ability to go somewhere where we can think

我們可以去某處思考

and reason and interact and speak

辯論，互動，和發表言論

without the judgmental eyes of others being cast upon us,

而沒有別人投來的批判的目光

in which creativity and exploration

只有在此創新、探索

and dissent exclusively reside,

和異議可以存在

and that is the reason why,

這就是為什麼 當我們允許一個

when we allow a society to exist

in which we're subject to constant monitoring,

we allow the essence of human freedom

我們就是容許人類自由的本質慘遭蹂躪

to be severely crippled.

The last point I want to observe about this mindset,

最後，我對這種心理的一個觀察是

the idea that only people who are doing something wrong

這種認為只有做了錯事的人

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

才想隱藏，才關心隱私的思維模式

is that it entrenches two very destructive messages,

它確立了兩個非常有害的信息

two destructive lessons,

兩個破壞性的教導

the first of which is that

第一個是

the only people who care about privacy,

只有那些關心隱私的人

the only people who will seek out privacy,

只有那些想得到隱私的人

are by definition bad people.

被自然的被定義為壞人

This is a conclusion that we should have

這是一個我們應該用各種理由避免的結論

all kinds of reasons for avoiding,

the most important of which is that when you say,

其中最重要的是

當你說“那個人在做壞事”時

"somebody who is doing bad things,"

you probably mean things like plotting a terrorist attack

你可能是指謀劃恐怖襲擊

or engaging in violent criminality,

或參與暴力犯罪之類的事

a much narrower conception

這個概念比行使權力的人所指的“做壞事” 要狹窄的多

of what people who wield power mean

when they say, "doing bad things."

For them, "doing bad things" typically means

對他們來說，“做壞事”基本上意思是

doing something that poses meaningful challenges

做對自己行使權利造成一定挑戰的事

to the exercise of our own power.

The other really destructive

另一個真正有破壞性的 而且我認為更加陰險的教導

and, I think, even more insidious lesson

that comes from accepting this mindset

來自於接受這種思維模式

is there's an implicit bargain

這其中暗含一個交易

that people who accept this mindset have accepted,

接受這種思維模式的人同時 也接受了這個交易

and that bargain is this:

這個交易就是：

If you're willing to render yourself

只要你願意讓自己

sufficiently harmless,

對那些行使政治權利的人不造成 傷害或威脅

sufficiently unthreatening

to those who wield political power,

then and only then can you be free

那麼，也只有這樣，你才就能夠遠離開 被監視的危險

of the dangers of surveillance.

It's only those who are dissidents,

而只有那些唱反調的

who challenge power,

挑戰權力的人 才需要擔心

who have something to worry about.

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

我們同樣有各種各樣的理由 要避免這個教導

You may be a person who, right now,

你也許此時此刻

doesn't want to engage in that behavior,

不想參與那些行為

but at some point in the future you might.

但未來的某個時候你有可能會

Even if you're somebody who decides

就算你是那些已下決心 永遠不會的人

that you never want to,

the fact that there are other people

也會有其他人 想要也能夠反抗

who are willing to and able to resist

and be adversarial to those in power —

和敵對那些權力之中的人

dissidents and journalists

比如政見不同的人，記者，

and activists and a whole range of others —

積極分子，還有其他很多人

is something that brings us all collective good

這是會給我們帶來集體的好處的 是我們所想要保護的

that we should want to preserve.

Equally critical is that the measure

同樣重要的是衡量一個社會自由程度 的標尺

of how free a society is

is not how it treats its good,

不是看這個社會怎樣對待好的、 順從它的公民

obedient, compliant citizens,

but how it treats its dissidents

而是看它如何對待不同意見的人 以及那些反抗正統的人

and those who resist orthodoxy.

But the most important reason

但是最重要的原因是

is that a system of mass surveillance

一個廣泛監視的制度

suppresses our own freedom in all sorts of ways.

會以各種方式壓制我們的自由

It renders off-limits

設定各種行為選擇的禁地

all kinds of behavioral choices

without our even knowing that it's happened.

而我們甚至全然沒有意識到

The renowned socialist activist Rosa Luxemburg

著名社會主義積極分子羅莎 盧森堡

once said, "He who does not move

曾經說過：“如果你不動， 你不會發現身上的鎖鏈。”

does not notice his chains."

We can try and render the chains

我們可以試著粉飾這些廣泛的監視的鎖鏈為無形的或無法測出的

of mass surveillance invisible or undetectable,

but the constraints that it imposes on us

但它對我們施加的限制不會有任何減少

do not become any less potent.

Thank you very much.

非常感謝

(Applause)

（掌聲）

謝謝

Thank you.

（掌聲）

(Applause)

Thank you.

謝謝

(Applause)

（掌聲）

Bruno Giussani: Glenn, thank you.

布魯諾 朱薩尼：格倫，非常感謝 我必須說你的演講十分有說服力

The case is rather convincing, I have to say,

but I want to bring you back

但是我想回到十六個月前

to the last 16 months and to Edward Snowden

關於愛德華 斯諾登，如果你不介意的話 我有幾個問題

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

The first one is personal to you.

第一個問題對你來說比較私人性的

We have all read about the arrest of your partner,

我們都看到了你的同伴大衛米蘭達 在倫敦被捕的消息，

David Miranda in London, and other difficulties,

以及他受到的磨難 但是我認為

but I assume that

in terms of personal engagement and risk,

就個人參與和風險來說 你身上的壓力也不輕

that the pressure on you is not that easy

to take on the biggest sovereign organizations in the world.

承擔著世界上最大的獨立主權組織

Tell us a little bit about that.

給我們介紹一下吧

格林沃德：我認為人們對於這件事的 勇氣是會傳染的

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

is that people's courage in this regard

gets contagious,

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

所以即使我以及其他和我一起 工作的記者們

當然知道事情的危險性

were certainly aware of the risk —

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

美國仍然是世界上最強大的國家

and doesn't appreciate it when you

而且它不希望

你在網上任意泄露他大量的機密

disclose thousands of their secrets

on the Internet at will —

seeing somebody who is a 29-year-old

看著一個29歲的

ordinary person who grew up in

生長於普通家庭環境的普通人

a very ordinary environment

exercise the degree of principled courage that Edward Snowden risked,

用高度有原則的勇氣承擔著 像愛德華 斯諾登所承擔的這樣的風險

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

明知道他的後半生會在監獄中度過

or that his life would unravel,

或者他的生活會就此結束

inspired me and inspired other journalists

激勵著我，激勵著其他的記者

and inspired, I think, people around the world,

激勵著，我想，全世界的人

including future whistleblowers,

包括將來的告密者

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

讓他們意識到他們一樣可與參與進來

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

朱薩尼：我很好奇你和愛德 斯諾登的 關係

because you have spoken with him a lot,

因為你多次與他談話

and you certainly continue doing so,

而且你肯定會繼續與他談話

but in your book, you never call him Edward,

但是在你的書裡，你不會叫他“愛德華”

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

或者愛德，你叫他“斯諾登”，為什麼？

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

格林沃德：你知道嗎，我想這是 心理學家們要研究的事情（笑聲）

for a team of psychologists to examine. (Laughter)

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

我不是很確定。我覺得原因是

one of the important objectives that he actually had,

他的一個很重要的目的

one of his, I think, most important tactics,

我想，其中最重要的一個策略是

was that he knew that one of the ways

他知道如果（有人）要轉移對他 所揭露的重點的注意力

to distract attention from the substance of the revelations

would be to try and personalize the focus on him,

就會試著將注意力集中在他個人身上

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

因此他一直遠離媒體

He tried not to ever have his personal life

他努力不讓任何他的個人生活受到查問

subject to examination,

and so I think calling him Snowden

所以我覺得叫他斯諾登

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

是一種視他為一個重要的歷史人物

rather than trying to personalize him in a way

而不是將他個人化

that might distract attention from the substance.

從而導致分散對此事件本身的注意力

Moderator: So his revelations, your analysis,

朱薩尼：所以他所揭露的，你的分析， 以及其他記者的文章

the work of other journalists,

have really developed the debate,

已經發展出一個辯論

and many governments, for example, have reacted,

而且很多政府，比如，已經做出回應

including in Brazil, with projects and programs

包括巴西，提出項目和方案

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

對互聯網的設計做出一點修改，等等

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

這樣說來很多事情都在進行中

But I'm wondering, for you personally,

我很好奇，對你個人來說

what is the endgame?

什麼才是最後的終結？

At what point will you think,

怎麼樣你才會說

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

我們已成功地啟動了轉盤

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

格林沃德：我想終結對於我， 一個記者來說，很簡單

is very simple, which is to make sure

就是確保每條新聞有報道價值的

that every single document that's newsworthy

and that ought to be disclosed

應該公開的得到公開

ends up being disclosed,

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

不應該成為秘密的秘密最終被揭開

end up uncovered.

To me, that's the essence of journalism

對我來說這就是記者的本質

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

也是我承諾要做的事情

As somebody who finds mass surveillance odious

一些人很厭惡政府的監視

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

如同我剛才講到的那些原因，甚至更多

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

我把這看做一份沒有終結的工作

until governments around the world

直到全世界的政府不能再

are no longer able to subject entire populations

監視和控制所有的人民

to monitoring and surveillance

unless they convince some court or some entity

除非他們可以說服法院或其他機構

that the person they've targeted

他們監視的對象真的做了錯事

has actually done something wrong.

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

對我來說，這樣，隱私才能被還原

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

朱薩尼：所以斯諾登，在我們TED的講台上看來，

is very articulate in presenting and portraying himself

非常明確地表達自己是

as a defender of democratic values

民主觀念和民主原則的捍衛者

and democratic principles.

But then, many people really find it difficult to believe

但是，很多人不相信這些是 他唯一的動機

that those are his only motivations.

They find it difficult to believe

他們不相信這之中沒有錢的摻入

that there was no money involved,

that he didn't sell some of those secrets,

他們不相信他沒有把那些機密 賣給其他國家

even to China and to Russia,

甚至包括中國和俄羅斯

which are clearly not the best friends

這兩個顯然不是和美國的很友好的國家

of the United States right now.

And I'm sure many people in the room

而且我相信在坐的很多人 都有同樣的疑問

are wondering the same question.

Do you consider it possible there is

你認不認為也許斯諾登的某一面 我們誰都沒有見過

that part of Snowden we've not seen yet?

GG: No, I consider that absurd and idiotic.

格林沃德：不，我認為這太愚蠢而且荒唐

(Laughter) If you wanted to,

（笑聲）如果你想

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

我知道你只是在故意唱反調

but if you wanted to sell

但如果你真的想

secrets to another country,

把機密賣給別的國家

which he could have done and become

而且如果他真的賣了 他會變得非常有錢

extremely rich doing so,

the last thing you would do is take those secrets

那他不會想要把那些機密

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

拿給記者來發表

because it makes those secrets worthless.

因為這樣做會讓那些機密變得不值錢

People who want to enrich themselves

想發財的人

do it secretly by selling secrets to the government,

會悄悄地把機密賣給政府

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

但是有一點值得提的是

which is, that accusation comes from

那些指責來自美國政府

people in the U.S. government,

來自媒體裡擁護各個政府的人

from people in the media who are loyalists

to these various governments,

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

而且我認為很多時候人們指責別人：

"Oh, he can't really be doing this

他這樣做肯定不是

for principled reasons,

出於正當原因

he must have some corrupt, nefarious reason" —

他肯定有什麼腐敗或者不法的意圖

they're saying a lot more about themselves

他們其實更多的是在說他們自己

than they are the target of their accusations,

而不是他們指責的對象

because — (Applause) —

因為（掌聲）

those people, the ones who make that accusation,

那些做出這些指責的人

they themselves never act

他們自己只會出於腐敗的原因 做一些事情

for any reason other than corrupt reasons,

so they assume

所以他們才會假設

that everybody else is plagued by the same disease

所有人和他們一樣 都身患沒有靈魂的疾病

of soullessness as they are,

and so that's the assumption.

這就是他們的設想

(Applause)

（掌聲）

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

格林沃德：非常感謝 朱薩尼：謝謝

朱薩尼：格倫 格林沃德

BG: Glenn Greenwald.

（掌聲）

(Applause)