Bruce Schneier: The security mirage

譯者: wentzu chen 審譯者: Diwen Mueller

安全有兩種涵義

So, security is two different things:

感覺上的安全,和真實裡的安全

it's a feeling, and it's a reality.

二者並不相同

And they're different.

你可能感到安全

You could feel secure even if you're not.

但現實情況是不安全的

And you can be secure

而在真實的安全中

even if you don't feel it.

卻感到不安全

Really, we have two separate concepts

確實,這兩種不同的概念

mapped onto the same word.

被放在同一個字詞裡

And what I want to do in this talk is to split them apart --

這個演講的目的

就是將它們區分清楚 --

figuring out when they diverge and how they converge.

探討它們何時會分歧

又在什麼狀況下合而為一

And language is actually a problem here.

語言本身是個問題

因為沒有足夠合適的字詞

There aren't a lot of good words

來傳達我們要談到的概念

for the concepts we're going to talk about.

用經濟學的角度

So if you look at security from economic terms,

來看安全

安全就是一項權衡的交易

it's a trade-off.

要得到安全

Every time you get some security, you're always trading off something.

一定要先付出

無論是個人的決定－

Whether this is a personal decision --

例如在家中安裝防盜警鈴

whether you're going to install a burglar alarm in your home --

還是攸關國家安全的決策-例如侵略他國

or a national decision,

where you're going to invade a foreign country --

你總得有所付出

you're going to trade off something: money or time, convenience, capabilities,

不是錢就是時間,或是便利性,能力

也可能是基本自由

maybe fundamental liberties.

And the question to ask when you look at a security anything

面對安全議題,該問的

is not whether this makes us safer,

不是「這樣做會更安全嗎」

而是「值得付出這個代價嗎」

but whether it's worth the trade-off.

You've heard in the past several years, the world is safer

在過去這幾年,你們都聽過這種說法

我們的世界更安全是因為薩達姆.海珊垮台的緣故

because Saddam Hussein is not in power.

兩件事情也許都是真的，但兩者之間卻沒有關連

That might be true, but it's not terribly relevant.

該問的問題是,這樣做值得嗎?

The question is: Was it worth it?

你可以做出自己的選擇

And you can make your own decision,

and then you'll decide whether the invasion was worth it.

然後判斷是否值得為此入侵他國

這就是以權衡的觀點

That's how you think about security: in terms of the trade-off.

來分析安全的方法

Now, there's often no right or wrong here.

決定沒有正確或錯誤之分

有人在家裡安裝防盜警鈴系統

Some of us have a burglar alarm system at home and some of us don't.

有人不裝

And it'll depend on where we live,

這取決於我們居住的地點

是獨居或是與家人同住

whether we live alone or have a family,

擁有多少值錢的物品

how much cool stuff we have,

how much we're willing to accept the risk of theft.

以及願意承擔多少竊盜損失

竊盜損失

In politics also, there are different opinions.

政治上也一樣

各種意見分歧

A lot of times, these trade-offs are about more than just security,

在權衡得失時

通常要考慮的不只有安全因素

and I think that's really important.

我認為這點很重要

Now, people have a natural intuition about these trade-offs.

人們對於抉擇

有天生的直覺

We make them every day.

我們每天都在做決定

Last night in my hotel room, when I decided to double-lock the door,

像是昨晚在飯店

我決定把房門上雙層鎖

or you in your car when you drove here;

或是當你在車裡決定開車來此地的時候

或是我們吃午餐時

when we go eat lunch

and decide the food's not poison and we'll eat it.

先判斷食物沒有毒,才決定吃它

We make these trade-offs again and again,

一天中有很多場合需要

需要一再地做出決定

multiple times a day.

大部分的時後,我們甚至不會留意到這點

We often won't even notice them.

They're just part of being alive; we all do it.

因為這已是我們生存的一部份;我們都是這樣的

每個物種也都一樣

Every species does it.

Imagine a rabbit in a field, eating grass.

試想原野中的一隻兔子,正在吃著草

這時牠見到一隻狐狸

And the rabbit sees a fox.

That rabbit will make a security trade-off:

兔子需要做一個攸關安全的抉擇

"Should I stay, or should I flee?"

留下還是逃命?

你認為

And if you think about it,

擅長做出正確決定的兔子

the rabbits that are good at making that trade-off

will tend to live and reproduce,

比較容易存活且繁衍下去

and the rabbits that are bad at it

而做出錯誤決定的兔子

will get eaten or starve.

不是被吃就是餓死了

So you'd think

那麼

在地球上表現傑出優異的我們 --

that us, as a successful species on the planet -- you, me, everybody --

包括你、我、以及每個人 --

would be really good at making these trade-offs.

必定也擅長做出正確抉擇吧

然而,事實似乎一再地證明

Yet it seems, again and again, that we're hopelessly bad at it.

人類做出的決策糟糕無比

And I think that's a fundamentally interesting question.

這問題非常重要也相當有趣

I'll give you the short answer.

我給你們一個簡短的解答

The answer is, we respond to the feeling of security

答案是,因為人類是依據對安全的感覺做出判斷

而非依據真實的安全狀況

and not the reality.

Now, most of the time, that works.

大部分的情況下,這麼做是正確的

Most of the time,

因為大多數的時候

feeling and reality are the same.

感覺和真實是一致的

Certainly that's true for most of human prehistory.

人類在史前時代

也是這樣的

We've developed this ability

我們發展出這種能力

because it makes evolutionary sense.

是因演化而來

有些看法認為

One way to think of it is that we're highly optimized

人類目前所擁有的最佳能力

是為了配合

for risk decisions

公元前100,000年在東非高地生活的小型家庭

that are endemic to living in small family groups

in the East African Highlands in 100,000 BC.

他們生存所須具備的風險決策能力

2010 New York, not so much.

但已不太符合在2010年的紐約生存的條件了

Now, there are several biases in risk perception.

如今,人類的風險感知能力出現偏差

很多的實驗在探討這點

A lot of good experiments in this.

And you can see certain biases that come up again and again.

某些類型的偏差會反覆出現

我會說明其中的四種

I'll give you four.

We tend to exaggerate spectacular and rare risks

一,我們容易誇大驚心動魄且不常見的風險

卻低估常見的風險

and downplay common risks --

例如搭飛機的風險對比陸地上駕駛的風險

so, flying versus driving.

The unknown is perceived to be riskier than the familiar.

二,我們認為未知的事

比起熟知的事更加危險

其中一個例子是

One example would be:

people fear kidnapping by strangers,

人們害怕被陌生人綁架

when the data supports that kidnapping by relatives is much more common.

但資料顯示被親友綁架的案件更普遍

這裡指的是誘拐孩童

This is for children.

Third, personified risks are perceived to be greater

三,我們認為具名化的事件

比不具名事件的風險高

than anonymous risks.

So, Bin Laden is scarier because he has a name.

賓拉登很恐怖,正是因為他有個名字

第四

And the fourth is:

people underestimate risks in situations they do control

人們容易在可以控制狀況時

低估風險

在不能控制的情境中高估風險

and overestimate them in situations they don't control.

So once you take up skydiving or smoking,

所以,你開始特技跳傘或是抽菸後

you downplay the risks.

就會忽略它的風險

面對突如其來的危險-例如恐怖主義

If a risk is thrust upon you -- terrorism is a good example --

人們會過度反應,是因為覺得無法控制狀況

you'll overplay it,

because you don't feel like it's in your control.

There are a bunch of other of these cognitive biases,

類似的偏差還有很多,這些認知的偏差

that affect our risk decisions.

影響我們的風險決策

There's the availability heuristic,

所謂”可得性捷思”

指的是

which basically means we estimate the probability of something

人在評估事件可能發生的機率時

by how easy it is to bring instances of it to mind.

是基於該事件在我們心目中容易聯想的程度

So you can imagine how that works.

像一下這是怎麼運作的

If you hear a lot about tiger attacks, there must be a lot of tigers around.

聽到多起老虎攻擊事件,就表示附近老虎很多

沒聽到獅子攻擊事件,就表示附近的獅子不多

You don't hear about lion attacks, there aren't a lot of lions around.

直到新聞報紙被發明前,這種判斷準則是成立的

This works, until you invent newspapers,

because what newspapers do is repeat again and again

因為報紙所做的

就是一再地重複報導

那些鮮少發生的危險

rare risks.

I tell people: if it's in the news, don't worry about it,

我要告訴大家,新聞中報導的事情,都無需煩憂

因為根據定義

because by definition, news is something that almost never happens.

新聞就是不會發生的事件

(笑)

(Laughter)

When something is so common, it's no longer news.

太常見的事件,就不會是新聞

Car crashes, domestic violence --

像是車禍,家庭暴力

those are the risks you worry about.

這些才是我們該擔憂的

We're also a species of storytellers.

人類是說故事的物種

We respond to stories more than data.

比起數據,故事更容易影響我們

And there's some basic innumeracy going on.

人類多少有點數字文盲,我的意思是

I mean, the joke "One, two, three, many" is kind of right.

有個笑話說:人只會數一,二,三,很多.

人真的是這樣,我們對小數字很在行

We're really good at small numbers.

One mango, two mangoes, three mangoes,

一個芒果,兩個芒果,三個芒果

10,000 mangoes, 100,000 mangoes --

一萬個芒果,十萬的芒果

it's still more mangoes you can eat before they rot.

在它們腐壞前,還有許多芒果可吃

So one half, one quarter, one fifth -- we're good at that.

½,¼, 1/5,這些數字我們也都很在行

百萬分之一,十億分之一

One in a million, one in a billion --

這些被當作幾乎沒有

they're both almost never.

So we have trouble with the risks that aren't very common.

所以,一旦面對不尋常的危機

我們就不知該怎麼對付了

And what these cognitive biases do

認知的偏見

is they act as filters between us and reality.

如同濾鏡般,存在我們和真實之間

於是

And the result is that feeling and reality get out of whack,

感覺背離了真實

他們不再相同

they get different.

Now, you either have a feeling -- you feel more secure than you are,

並產生兩種可能狀況,一是擁有過多的安全感

這是錯誤的安全感

there's a false sense of security.

另一種是,

Or the other way, and that's a false sense of insecurity.

錯誤的不安全感

我寫過很多關於「安全劇院」的文章

I write a lot about "security theater,"

which are products that make people feel secure,

它是一種可以讓人們感覺到安全的機制

but don't actually do anything.

但事實上並沒有改善實際的安全狀況

There's no real word for stuff that makes us secure,

沒有確切的字眼來形容那種能改善真實安全

但無法增加安全感的機制

but doesn't make us feel secure.

CIA該為我們做的也許就是這個

Maybe it's what the CIA is supposed to do for us.

So back to economics.

回到經濟學

If economics, if the market, drives security,

如果經濟,或者市場,是驅動安全的力量

and if people make trade-offs based on the feeling of security,

而人們是依據對安全的感覺

來進行交易

then the smart thing for companies to do for the economic incentives

那麼,公司想要促進經濟誘因的

最佳策略

is to make people feel secure.

就是讓人們感覺到安全

And there are two ways to do this.

有兩種方式可以達成這個目的

One, you can make people actually secure

一是讓人們在真實中更安全

並且期盼他們有留意到這點

and hope they notice.

Or two, you can make people just feel secure

或者你也可以讓人們只是感覺更安全

and hope they don't notice.

但你要期望他們不會發現到真相

Right?

So what makes people notice?

究竟什麼會引起人們關注

舉例來說

Well, a couple of things:

understanding of the security,

對安全的認知程度

對風險及威脅的認知

of the risks, the threats,

以及了解如何採取對策等

the countermeasures, how they work.

But if you know stuff, you're more likely

知道得更多

感覺和真實就愈趨一致

to have your feelings match reality.

真實世界中有很多這方面的例子

Enough real-world examples helps.

我們對居家附近區域的犯罪率很明瞭

We all know the crime rate in our neighborhood,

because we live there, and we get a feeling about it

因為我們住在這裡,所以我們對治安的感覺

that basically matches reality.

基本上符合真實狀況

安全劇院所揭露的

Security theater is exposed

when it's obvious that it's not working properly.

是真實與感覺明顯背離的情況

那麼,又是什麼讓人們忽略安全?

OK. So what makes people not notice?

Well, a poor understanding.

認知不足

If you don't understand the risks, you don't understand the costs,

不了解風險,不了解代價

you're likely to get the trade-off wrong,

就愈可能做出錯誤的安全策略

and your feeling doesn't match reality.

並且無法感覺真實情況

Not enough examples.

相關的例子不多

There's an inherent problem with low-probability events.

對於不常發生的事件

這是本質上存在的問題

If, for example, terrorism almost never happens,

舉例來說

如果恐怖主義幾乎是不曾發生的

it's really hard to judge the efficacy of counter-terrorist measures.

那麼要判斷反恐措施的功效

就難上加難了

This is why you keep sacrificing virgins,

這就是為什麼人們不斷地奉獻處女祭祀

或是將過錯推諉給編造出來的「他」,都很有用

and why your unicorn defenses are working just great.

There aren't enough examples of failures.

因為災難本來就不多

加上心理作用作祟

Also, feelings that cloud the issues --

the cognitive biases I talked about earlier: fears, folk beliefs --

就是我剛剛所說的認知偏差

恐懼,民間信仰

basically, an inadequate model of reality.

這些基本上都無法適當地反映真實

讓我把事情弄得再複雜些

So let me complicate things.

I have feeling and reality.

除了感覺,以及真實的世界

I want to add a third element. I want to add "model."

我想再加上第三個元素-模型

Feeling and model are in our head,

感覺和模型存在腦海裡

而真實存在於外在

reality is the outside world; it doesn't change, it's real.

它不會變,它是真實的

Feeling is based on our intuition,

感覺是基於直覺

模型是基於理智

model is based on reason.

這是兩者最基本的差異

That's basically the difference.

In a primitive and simple world,

在遠古的簡單世界裡

there's really no reason for a model,

模型沒有存在的意義

因為感覺和真實非常的接近

because feeling is close to reality.

You don't need a model.

你不需要模型

But in a modern and complex world,

但在現代複雜的社會

你需要模型

you need models to understand a lot of the risks we face.

來解析我們面對的風險

There's no feeling about germs.

我們無法用感覺來認識細菌

所以需要模型

You need a model to understand them.

模型可以

This model is an intelligent representation of reality.

清楚地呈現真實

It's, of course, limited by science, by technology.

然而,模型受限於科學

與技術

在顯微鏡被發明來觀測細菌以前

We couldn't have a germ theory of disease

before we invented the microscope to see them.

疾病的細菌理論就不可能存在

It's limited by our cognitive biases.

模型也受限於我們認知的偏差

但它的能力

But it has the ability to override our feelings.

足以駕馭我們的感覺

Where do we get these models? We get them from others.

模型來自何處? 通常是從他人而來

We get them from religion, from culture, teachers, elders.

可能是宗教,文化

老師或是長老

數年前

A couple years ago, I was in South Africa on safari.

我到南非進行狩獵之旅

The tracker I was with grew up in Kruger National Park.

我的追蹤嚮導是在克魯格國家公園長大的

He had some very complex models of how to survive.

他的求生模型非常的複雜

And it depended on if you were attacked by a lion, leopard, rhino, or elephant --

遭受到不同動物攻擊有不同的模型

像是獅子、美洲豹、犀牛或是大象

and when you had to run away, when you couldn't run away,

依照不同的情況:在何時必須逃跑,或是爬樹

when you had to climb a tree, when you could never climb a tree.

或者無法爬樹,採用的模型也不同

我在那裡可能活不過一天

I would have died in a day.

但他生於此

But he was born there, and he understood how to survive.

他了解此地求生之道

我生於紐約市

I was born in New York City.

如果我帶他到紐約,那他可能也活不過一天吧

I could have taken him to New York, and he would have died in a day.

(笑聲)

(Laughter)

Because we had different models based on our different experiences.

因為我們有不同的生存模型

這來自我們不同的經驗

Models can come from the media,

模型來自媒體

from our elected officials ...

也來自我們選出的官員

Think of models of terrorism,

回想一下恐怖攻擊

child kidnapping,

幼童綁票

airline safety, car safety.

飛行安全以及汽車安全這些模型

Models can come from industry.

模型也來自工業界

The two I'm following are surveillance cameras,

我最近關注在監控攝影機

和身分證這兩項議題

ID cards,

很多資訊安全的模型與此有關

quite a lot of our computer security models come from there.

很多模型來自科學

A lot of models come from science.

Health models are a great example.

和健康相關的模型是很好的例子

Think of cancer, bird flu, swine flu, SARS.

例如癌症,禽流感,豬流感以及SARS

All of our feelings of security about those diseases

我們對這些疾病

產生的危機感

come from models given to us, really, by science filtered through the media.

其實是來自於模型

模型由科學家提供,經過媒體傳達給我們

模型是變動的

So models can change.

Models are not static.

不是固定的

As we become more comfortable in our environments,

當我們對愈適應環境時

our model can move closer to our feelings.

模型會愈趨近我們的感覺

So an example might be,

另一個的例子可能是這樣的

假設你回到100年前

if you go back 100 years ago,

when electricity was first becoming common,

當時電力剛開始普及

人們對電力存有相當多的恐懼

there were a lot of fears about it.

像是,有人害怕壓門鈴

There were people who were afraid to push doorbells,

因為那裡有電,非常危險

because there was electricity in there, and that was dangerous.

現在的我們對電力已相當熟悉了

For us, we're very facile around electricity.

像是換燈泡這種事情

We change light bulbs without even thinking about it.

我們不會去想它的安全問題

Our model of security around electricity is something we were born into.

我們對電力的安全認知模型

幾乎是與生俱來的

It hasn't changed as we were growing up.

長大後也沒變過

And we're good at it.

我們很擅長運用電力

Or think of the risks on the Internet across generations --

你也可以想想看

不同世代對網際網路的風險評估

how your parents approach Internet security,

你的父母親是怎麼看待網路安全的

對照一下你自己的做法

versus how you do,

versus how our kids will.

再對照一下我們的下一代,他們將會如何做

Models eventually fade into the background.

模型最終會融到我們的生活背景

"Intuitive" is just another word for familiar.

直覺其實是來自於熟悉

So as your model is close to reality and it converges with feelings,

當模型與真實接近時

並且與感覺合而為一

you often don't even know it's there.

此時,你感覺不到它的存在

有個很好的例子

A nice example of this came from last year and swine flu.

就是去年發生的豬流感

豬流感剛開始時

When swine flu first appeared,

最初的報導引起許多過度恐慌

the initial news caused a lot of overreaction.

Now, it had a name,

接著,它有正式名稱了

which made it scarier than the regular flu,

這使得它比一般感冒更恐怖

even though it was more deadly.

即使一般感冒致死率更高

And people thought doctors should be able to deal with it.

人們原本認為醫生應該可以處理豬流感

So there was that feeling of lack of control.

這時,我們覺得事情失控了

由於以上兩項因素

And those two things made the risk more than it was.

風險顯得比實際狀況更高

As the novelty wore off and the months went by,

數個月過後,人們對新事物的陌生恐懼逐漸淡去

there was some amount of tolerance; people got used to it.

接納度提升

也漸漸習慣了

There was no new data, but there was less fear.

雖然沒有新進展,但是恐懼減少了

By autumn,

在秋天來臨前

people thought the doctors should have solved this already.

人們相信

醫生已經解決問題了

And there's kind of a bifurcation:

這時出現了分歧

people had to choose between fear and acceptance --

人們必須

在恐懼或是接受中做出選擇

更正確的說,是恐懼和忽視

actually, fear and indifference --

最後,人們選擇了懷疑

and they kind of chose suspicion.

當疫苗在去年冬天上市時

And when the vaccine appeared last winter,

很多人 -- 令人驚訝的數目

there were a lot of people -- a surprising number --

who refused to get it.

反而拒絕疫苗接種

And it's a nice example of how people's feelings of security change,

這個例子很清楚指出

人們的安全感是如何改變,模型又是如何改變

how their model changes,

在沒有新資訊

sort of wildly,

with no new information, with no new input.

也沒有新來源時

也會有巨大的改變

這樣的事情其實常常發生

This kind of thing happens a lot.

現在,我要再加上一個複雜的因素

I'm going to give one more complication.

We have feeling, model, reality.

除了感覺,模型,真實三項因素

I have a very relativistic view of security.

我認為安全是相對的

因人而異

I think it depends on the observer.

And most security decisions have a variety of people involved.

多數的安全決策

牽扯到許多不同類型的人

And stakeholders with specific trade-offs will try to influence the decision.

有利益牽扯的

利害關係人

會試圖去影響決定

And I call that their agenda.

我稱之為關係人的「議程規畫表」

這個規畫表

And you see agenda -- this is marketing, this is politics --

是一種行銷,也是政治

trying to convince you to have one model versus another,

它企圖影響你信任某種模型而放棄另一個

trying to convince you to ignore a model

企圖影響去忽視模型

and trust your feelings,

只信任你的感覺

marginalizing people with models you don't like.

並且邊緣化那些採用你不喜歡的模型的人

This is not uncommon.

這並非不尋常

An example, a great example, is the risk of smoking.

一個例子,很好的例子,就是關於抽菸的危害

過去50 年的歷史,抽菸風險的變化

In the history of the past 50 years,

the smoking risk shows how a model changes,

顯示出模型是如何改變的

and it also shows how an industry fights against a model it doesn't like.

也顯示出業界如何對付

它們不喜歡的模型

Compare that to the secondhand smoke debate --

相對起來,關於二手煙的討論

晚了約20年

probably about 20 years behind.

Think about seat belts.

再看看安全帶

When I was a kid, no one wore a seat belt.

我小的時後,沒有人繫安全帶

Nowadays, no kid will let you drive if you're not wearing a seat belt.

而現今,如果不繫上安全帶

連小孩都會阻止你開車

Compare that to the airbag debate,

相對起來,安全氣囊的討論

落後了約三十年

probably about 30 years behind.

所有的模型都會改變

All examples of models changing.

What we learn is that changing models is hard.

我們目前知道的是，模型的改變不容易

模型也很難被移走

Models are hard to dislodge.

當它們和感覺完全相同時

If they equal your feelings,

你甚至不知道模型的存在

you don't even know you have a model.

另一種認知偏見

And there's another cognitive bias

我認為是肯證偏見

I'll call confirmation bias,

是指人們傾向於接受

where we tend to accept data that confirms our beliefs

和自己立場相符的訊息

and reject data that contradicts our beliefs.

而拒絕與我們立場相左的資訊

So evidence against our model, we're likely to ignore,

所以和我們模型不符的證據

我們也會忽略它,不管它多麼的讓人信服

even if it's compelling.

It has to get very compelling before we'll pay attention.

它必須強烈到無法忽視,才能引起我們的注意

New models that extend long periods of time are hard.

跨越長時間的新模型是難以接受的

全球暖化的議題就是個例子

Global warming is a great example.

我們很難接受

We're terrible at models that span 80 years.

一個長達八十年之久的模型

We can do "to the next harvest."

我們可以應付下一個收割季來臨前的問題

We can often do "until our kids grow up."

也可以應付小孩長大前的事情

But "80 years," we're just not good at.

但是八十年耶,我們不知道怎麼辦了

So it's a very hard model to accept.

所以,接受這種模型並不容易

We can have both models in our head simultaneously --

兩種模型可能並存在大腦中

that kind of problem where we're holding both beliefs together,

就像對某些事情

我們會有兩種信念

這是種認知失調

the cognitive dissonance.

但最後

Eventually, the new model will replace the old model.

舊模型終將被新模型取代

Strong feelings can create a model.

強烈的感覺可以產生模型

September 11 created a security model in a lot of people's heads.

九一一事件在很多人的心裡

建立新的安全模型

Also, personal experiences with crime can do it,

還有，個人經歷的犯罪事件

個人的健康危機

personal health scare,

a health scare in the news.

以及新聞報導中的健康問題都會產生新模型

精神病專家稱之為

You'll see these called "flashbulb events" by psychiatrists.

閃光燈效應

這些事件可以立即產生新模型

They can create a model instantaneously,

because they're very emotive.

因為他們引起強烈的情緒

So in the technological world,

在科技的世界裡

we don't have experience to judge models.

我們沒有經驗

足以判斷模型

And we rely on others. We rely on proxies.

所以,我們仰賴他人,我們仰賴代理人

只要代理人能夠指正錯誤,這樣做是可行的。

And this works, as long as it's the correct others.

We rely on government agencies

我們依賴政府機關

to tell us what pharmaceuticals are safe.

來告訴我們藥物是安全的

I flew here yesterday.

我昨天搭機來此地

I didn't check the airplane.

我沒有檢查飛機

I relied on some other group

是因為另一群人

會先檢查飛機是否安全

to determine whether my plane was safe to fly.

We're here, none of us fear the roof is going to collapse on us,

我們在這裡,沒有人擔心屋頂會垮下來

不是因為我們檢查過了

not because we checked,

but because we're pretty sure the building codes here are good.

而是我們非常確定

建築法規很建全

It's a model we just accept

基於這樣的信念

我們接受這個模型

pretty much by faith.

它也運作得很好

And that's OK.

Now, what we want is people to get familiar enough with better models,

我們希望

人們能去了解

更好的模型

have it reflected in their feelings,

真正反應出感覺的模型

幫助人們可以在安全上做出正確的抉擇

to allow them to make security trade-offs.

當模型與感覺不一致時

When these go out of whack, you have two options.

你有兩個選擇

One, you can fix people's feelings, directly appeal to feelings.

其一是,先修正個人的感覺

然後直接針對感覺下判斷

雖然動了點手腳,但是行的通

It's manipulation, but it can work.

第二種方式比較誠實

The second, more honest way

就是去修正模型

is to actually fix the model.

Change happens slowly.

改變是很緩慢的

The smoking debate took 40 years -- and that was an easy one.

抽菸的辯論持續了40年

這還算是簡單的

有些改變很難

Some of this stuff is hard.

相當困難

Really, though, information seems like our best hope.

要靠絕對的資訊才有希望能改變

我剛撒了一個謊

And I lied.

Remember I said feeling, model, reality; reality doesn't change?

在說到感覺、模型和真實三個因素時

我說,真實是不會變的,事實上它會

It actually does.

我們處在科技的世界

We live in a technological world;

reality changes all the time.

所謂的真實一直都在變

So we might have, for the first time in our species:

第一次,我們人類這個物種發生這種現象

feeling chases model, model chases reality, reality's moving --

感覺追逐模型,模型追逐真實,而真實不停的跑

它們可能永遠也追不上

they might never catch up.

We don't know.

我們不知道結果

但是,就長期來說

But in the long term,

感覺和真實都是重要的

both feeling and reality are important.

And I want to close with two quick stories to illustrate this.

我以兩個簡短的故事證明這點,並以此做為總結

1982 -- I don't know if people will remember this --

1982 年,不知道你們還記不記得

當時美國有個很短暫但散播很廣的

there was a short epidemic of Tylenol poisonings

泰諾(Thlenol)止痛藥中毒事件

in the United States.

It's a horrific story.

事情很可怕.有人取走一瓶的泰諾

Someone took a bottle of Tylenol,

在裡面下毒,關上盒蓋,又放回架上販賣

put poison in it, closed it up, put it back on the shelf,

其他人買下這瓶藥後,中毒死亡

someone else bought it and died.

This terrified people.

事情嚇壞了群眾

There were a couple of copycat attacks.

當時還有數起模仿這個手法的攻擊事件

There wasn't any real risk, but people were scared.

雖然沒有真正的危險,但是民眾嚇壞了

And this is how the tamper-proof drug industry was invented.

這事件驅使

藥品業界發明防盜安全裝置

Those tamper-proof caps? That came from this.

那些防盜安全瓶蓋就是這樣來的

It's complete security theater.

這就是安全劇場

As a homework assignment, think of 10 ways to get around it.

這是你們的作業-想出十個破解安全瓶蓋的方法

我先給個答案，針筒

I'll give you one: a syringe.

But it made people feel better.

但是安全瓶蓋確實讓人們感覺比較安全

It made their feeling of security more match the reality.

這使得人們對安全的感覺

和實際情況更符合

最後一個故事,數年前,我的一個朋友生小孩

Last story: a few years ago, a friend of mine gave birth.

我去醫院看她

I visit her in the hospital.

It turns out, when a baby's born now,

才發現現在小孩出生時

they put an RFID bracelet on the baby, a corresponding one on the mother,

要繫上RFID(無線射頻辨識系統) 手環

母親也配戴對應的RFID

so if anyone other than the mother takes the baby out of the maternity ward,

所以,除了母親以外的人抱小孩離開產房

警報就會響起

an alarm goes off.

我說:「哇!這真棒

I said, "Well, that's kind of neat.

I wonder how rampant baby snatching is out of hospitals."

那些猖獗的嬰兒綁架犯

怎麼可能走的出醫院」

I go home, I look it up.

回到家,我查了一下資料

It basically never happens.

發現嬰兒綁架幾乎不曾發生

(Laughter)

你想想看

But if you think about it, if you are a hospital,

如果你是個醫務人員

and you need to take a baby away from its mother,

你需要從母親的手中把嬰兒

out of the room to run some tests,

帶出房間去進行檢驗

you better have some good security theater,

那你最好有些絕佳的安全策略

or she's going to rip your arm off.

不然你的手臂一定會被嬰兒的母親扭斷

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

這對我們很重要

So it's important for us,

those of us who design security,

有些人從事安全設計

有人審視安全政策

who look at security policy --

or even look at public policy in ways that affect security.

或是研究

會影響安全的公共政策

要考慮的不是只有真實,而是感覺與真實兩者

It's not just reality; it's feeling and reality.

重要的是

What's important

這兩者要盡可能相同

is that they be about the same.

It's important that, if our feelings match reality,

這是重要的,當我們的感覺和真實更一致

才能在安全議題上做出更好的選擇

we make better security trade-offs.

謝謝

Thank you.

(Applause)

(鼓掌)