Richard Ledgett: The NSA responds to Edward Snowden's TED Talk

譯者: Hanon Lui 審譯者: Huihuan He

Chris Anderson: We had Edward Snowden here

克里斯：愛德華斯諾登幾天前

a couple days ago,

來到了這裏，

and this is response time.

現在是回應時間。

And several of you have written to me

你們當中的有些人寫信給我

with questions to ask our guest here from the NSA.

提問我們來自美國國家安全局的嘉賓。

So Richard Ledgett is the 15th deputy director

查德·雷德傑德是美國國家安全局的

of the National Security Agency,

第15位副主任

and he's a senior civilian officer there,

並且他是那兒的高級文職人員，

acts as its chief operating officer,

擔任首席營運官，

guiding strategies, setting internal policies,

負責戰略指導和內部制度建設，

and serving as the principal advisor to the director.

並且擔任主任的主要顧問。

And all being well,

就說這麼多，

welcome, Rick Ledgett, to TED.

有請查德·雷德傑德來到 TED。

(Applause)

（鼓掌）

Richard Ledgett: I'm really thankful for the opportunity to talk to folks here.

查德·雷德傑德：我感到非常榮幸 能有機會給這裏的觀衆演講。

I look forward to the conversation,

我很期待這次談話，

so thanks for arranging for that.

非常感謝給我安排了這些。

CA: Thank you, Rick.

克里斯：謝謝你，理查。

We appreciate you joining us.

我們感謝你的到來。

It's certainly quite a strong statement

這是一個鄭重的聲明

that the NSA is willing to reach out

說美國安全局試圖與外界溝通，

and show a more open face here.

並表現出更開放的一面。

You saw, I think,

你看過的，我認為，

the talk and interview that Edward Snowden

前幾天在這兒

gave here a couple days ago.

斯諾登做的演講及採訪。

What did you make of it?

你是怎麼想的？

RL: So I think it was interesting.

理查德：我認為很有意思。

We didn't realize that he was going to show up there,

我們沒有意識到他會出現在這兒，

so kudos to you guys for arranging

所以恭喜你們在這件事上做得很好，

a nice surprise like that.

給了我們一個驚喜。

I think that, like a lot of the things

我認為，像發生的很多事情一樣，

that have come out since Mr. Snowden

在斯諾登先生

started disclosing classified information,

開始披露機密信息以後，

there were some kernels of truth in there,

這裡面有部份核心的事實，

but a lot of extrapolations and half-truths in there,

但是也有推斷和半真半假的內容。

and I'm interested in helping to address those.

我很樂意解釋這些問題。

I think this is a really important conversation

我認為這是一次非常重要的對話

that we're having in the United States

在我們美國

and internationally,

和全世界。

and I think it is important and of import,

我亦認為這點很重要並且有重要性，

and so given that, we need to have that be

這麼說，我們需要將它作為

a fact-based conversation,

一次基於事實的談話，

and we want to help make that happen.

並且我們希望協助對話的實現。

CA: So the question that a lot of people have here is,

克里斯：所以很多人的問題是，

what do you make of Snowden's motivations

你認為斯諾登的動機是是什麼

for doing what he did,

讓他做了那些事情，

and did he have an alternative way that he could have gone?

並且他有什麼其他選擇嗎？

RL: He absolutely did

理查德：他的的確確

have alternative ways that he could have gone,

有其他的選擇，

and I actually think that characterizing him

而且我認為把他歸類為

as a whistleblower

一個告密者

actually hurts legitimate whistleblowing activities.

會阻礙了合法舉報的行為。

So what if somebody who works in the NSA --

所以說如果一些在美國安全局工作的人

and there are over 35,000 people who do.

那裡有超過 35000 個人。

They're all great citizens.

他們全部是優秀的公民。

They're just like your husbands, fathers, sisters,

他們就像是你的丈夫，父親，姐妹，

brothers, neighbors, nephews, friends and relatives,

兄弟，鄰居，侄子，朋友和親戚，

all of whom are interested in doing the right thing

他們全都對做正確的事情感興趣

for their country

為他們的國家，

and for our allies internationally,

也為我們國際上的同盟國。

and so there are a variety of venues to address

所以有很多問題需要強調

if folks have a concern.

如果大家有疑慮的話。

First off, there's their supervisor,

首先，是他們的管理者，

and up through the supervisory chain

以及在他們的機構內部

within their organization.

處在管理鏈上方的人。

If folks aren't comfortable with that,

如果他們不喜歡這樣的安排，

there are a number of inspectors general.

美國聯網政府體系下有很多監察長。

In the case of Mr. Snowden, he had the option

像斯諾登這種情況，他有選擇

of the NSA inspector general,

可以告訴美國安全局監察長，

the Navy inspector general,

海軍監察長，

the Pacific Command inspector general,

太平洋司令部監察長，

the Department of Defense inspector general,

國防部監察長，

and the intelligence community inspector general,

情報局監察長，

any of whom would have both kept his concerns in classified channels

任何人都是可以把他的擔憂列入內部系統

and been happy to address them.

並且樂意處理的人。

(CA and RL speaking at once)

（理查德和安德森同時說話）

He had the option to go to congressional committees,

他可以選擇去找國會議員，

and there are mechanisms to do that that are in place,

那裡有處理這些的方法，

and so he didn't do any of those things.

然而他並沒有選擇以上任何方法。

CA: Now, you had said that

安德森：剛剛，你說到

Ed Snowden had other avenues

斯諾登有其他的渠道

for raising his concerns.

可以提出他的擔憂。

The comeback on that is a couple of things:

但是另一方面：

one, that he certainly believes that as a contractor,

第一，他完全相信作為承包商，

the avenues that would have been available to him as an employee weren't available,

職員有的選擇他并不擁有，

two, there's a track record of other whistleblowers,

第二，有其他舉報者的記錄，

like [Thomas Andrews Drake] being treated

像托馬斯·安德魯斯·德雷克 （美國國家安全局前高級官員） 是如何被嚴酷對待的

pretty harshly, by some views,

從某些角度看，

and thirdly, what he was taking on

第三，他做的事情

was not one specific flaw that he'd discovered,

不是針對一個他發現的缺陷，

but programs that had been approved

而是針對被整個三權分立的政府機構

by all three branches of government.

所認可的系統。

I mean, in that circumstance,

我認為，在那種情況下，

couldn't you argue that what he did

你難道能說他所做的事

was reasonable?

是不理性的？

RL: No, I don't agree with that.

理查德：不，我不認同。

I think that the —

我認為他——

sorry, I'm getting feedback

不好意思，我一直聽到回音

through the microphone there —

通過麥克——

the actions that he took were inappropriate

他的做法是不合適的

because of the fact that he put people's lives at risk,

因為他把人們的生命置於危險之中，

basically, in the long run,

本質上，從長遠上看，

and I know there's been a lot of talk

而且我知道有很多公眾演講中

in public by Mr. Snowden and some of the journalists

由斯諾登和一些記者

that say that the things that have been disclosed

說那些被暴露的事情

have not put national security and people at risk,

並沒有影響國家安全和人們的生命安全，

and that is categorically not true.

這樣斷然是不正確的。

They actually do.

它們確實影響到了國家和人民的安全。

I think there's also an amazing arrogance

我認為同樣有一種驚人的傲慢

to the idea that he knows better than

對這樣一種觀點認為他知道的比

the framers of the Constitution

憲法的制定者多

in how the government should be designed and work

在政府應該如何設計及運作

for separation of powers

分工方面

and the fact that the executive and the legislative branch

並且事實上執法和立法部門

have to work together and they have checks and balances on each other,

必須共同合作保持平衡，

and then the judicial branch,

而且司法部門，

which oversees the entire process.

監督整個過程。

I think that's extremely arrogant on his part.

我認為他在這方面是相當自大的。

CA: Can you give a specific example

安德森：你能舉一個具體的例子

of how he put people's lives at risk?

他是怎麼把人們的生命置於危險的嗎？

RL: Yeah, sure.

理查德：好的。

So the things that he's disclosed,

他揭露的事情，

the capabilities,

功能，

and the NSA is a capabilities-based organization,

美國安全局是一個基於功能的組織，

so when we have foreign intelligence targets,

當我們有國外情報目標時，

legitimate things of interest --

合法的感興趣的目標時——

like, terrorists is the iconic example,

像，恐怖主義是個代表例子，

but it includes things like human traffickers,

但是也包括像人販子，

drug traffickers,

毒品販子，

people who are trying to build advanced weaponry, nuclear weapons,

準備製造進階武器，核武器的人們，

and build delivery systems for those,

和為這些武器建立運輸系統的人們，

and nation-states who might be executing aggression against their immediate neighbors,

和那些準備侵略近鄰的國家，

which you may have some visibility

你可能以預測到

into some of that that's going on right now,

哪些正在進行中，

the capabilities are applied

這些功能被應用

in very discrete and measured and controlled ways.

在一種非常離散、可測量及可控制的方式。

So the unconstrained disclosure of those capabilities

所以不受約束地披露這些功能

means that as adversaries see them

意味著敵人看到

and recognize, "Hey, I might be vulnerable to this,"

並意識到「哈，我可能會受影響，」

they move away from that,

從而不這麼做，

and we have seen targets in terrorism,

因而我們看見恐怖目標，

in the nation-state area,

在全國範圍，

in smugglers of various types, and other folks

在各種各樣的走私者中，和其他人

who have, because of the disclosures,

因為這個揭露者

moved away from our ability

而離開了我們能控制的範圍

to have insight into what they're doing.

及我們的監控。

The net effect of that is that our people

這樣整體的影響是我們的人民

who are overseas in dangerous places,

在海外危險的地方的人民，

whether they're diplomats or military,

不論他們是從事外交還是軍事，

and our allies who are in similar situations,

或是和我們情況一樣的盟國

are at greater risk because we don't see

都處在極危險的狀態中因為我們看不見

the threats that are coming their way.

這些即將到臨的危險。

CA: So that's a general response saying that

克里斯：這裡有一種反應說是

because of his revelations,

因為他的揭露，

access that you had to certain types of information

能夠獲得信息的渠道

has been shut down, has been closed down.

就被關閉了。

But the concern is that the nature of that access

但是現在的問題是本質上這種獲得

was not necessarily legitimate in the first place.

信息的渠道一開始就不是合法的。

I mean, describe to us this Bullrun program

我的意思是，描述一下這種奔牛系統

where it's alleged that the NSA

美國安全局斷言的

specifically weakened security

削弱了安全

in order to get the type of access that you've spoken of.

為了得到一些你說的獲得信息的渠道。

RL: So there are, when our

理查德：所以有，當我們

legitimate foreign intelligence targets of the type that I described before,

合法的情報目標如我前面描述的，

use the global telecommunications system

用全球通訊系統

as their communications methodology,

作為他們通訐方式，

and they do, because it's a great system,

他們會這麼做的， 因為這是一個很好的系統，

it's the most complex system ever devised by man,

這是人類設計的最複雜的系統，

and it is a wonder,

而且是個奇跡，

and lots of folks in the room there

有很多人呆在房間裡

are responsible for the creation

負責創造

and enhancement of that,

和增強它，

and it's just a wonderful thing.

它是一個奇妙的東西。

But it's also used by people who are

但是，它也同樣被人們

working against us and our allies.

利用來對付我們和我們的同盟。

And so if I'm going to pursue them,

所以如果我要追究他們，

I need to have the capability

我需要一種

to go after them,

跟蹤他們的能力，

and again, the controls are in

同樣，這種控制在於

how I apply that capability,

我是如何運用我的能力，

not that I have the capability itself.

而不是在於我擁有能力的本身。

Otherwise, if we could make it so that

否則，如果我們可以這麼做

all the bad guys used one corner of the Internet,

所有的壞人都在網絡的一角，

we could have a domain, badguy.com.

我們可以有一個域名，badguy.com

That would be awesome,

這樣多棒的，

and we could just concentrate all our efforts there.

這樣我們可以集中我們的力量在那裡。

That's not how it works.

現實不是這個樣子的。

They're trying to hide

壞人努力想要隱藏在

from the government's ability

政府隔離阻斷他們行為的

to isolate and interdict their actions,

能力之外，

and so we have to swim in that same space.

因此我們也不得不 和他們處於同一個空間。

But I will tell you this.

但是我要告訴你這一點。

So NSA has two missions.

美國安全局有兩個任務。

One is the Signals Intelligence mission

第一是通知情報安全局

that we've unfortunately read so much about in the press.

這點不幸地我們已經 通過媒體了解了很多。

The other one is the Information Assurance mission,

另一個任務是信息安全保障，

which is to protect the national security systems of the United States,

旨在保護美國的國家安全系統，

and by that, that's things like

通過這，像

the communications that the president uses,

總統用的通信，

the communications that control our nuclear weapons,

控制核武器的通信，

the communications that our military uses around the world,

全世界我們軍隊用的通信，

and the communications that we use with our allies,

和我們與盟國直接的通信，

and that some of our allies themselves use.

還有我們盟國自己用的。

And so we make recommendations on standards to use,

所以我們就使用標準提出意見，

and we use those same standards,

我們用同樣的標準，

and so we are invested

所以我們投資在

in making sure that those communications

確保這些通信

are secure for their intended purposes.

的功能是安全及可靠的。

CA: But it sounds like what you're saying is that

克里斯：但是這聽起來你是說

when it comes to the Internet at large,

當涉及到大如網際網路，

any strategy is fair game

任何策略都是公平的

if it improves America's safety.

如果是為了提高美國的安全。

And I think this is partly where there is such

並且我認為這是一部分

a divide of opinion,

就是人們意見分歧的地方，

that there's a lot of people in this room

現場很多的人們

and around the world

及全世界的人中

who think very differently about the Internet.

並不是這麼看待網際網路。

They think of it as a momentous

他們認為網路是一個人類

invention of humanity,

巨大的發明，

kind of on a par with the Gutenberg press, for example.

例如與古騰堡看齊的那種，

It's the bringer of knowledge to all.

它是知識的所有使者。

It's the connector of all.

是一切的連接。

And it's viewed in those sort of idealistic terms.

它是被這些理想的詞彙描述。

And from that lens,

從這些視角，

what the NSA has done is equivalent to

美國安全局做的相當於

the authorities back in Germany

和德國當局以前

inserting some device into every printing press

在所有的印刷社安裝設備，

that would reveal which books people bought

可以洩露人們買哪些書

and what they read.

和讀哪些書。

Can you understand that from that viewpoint,

你可以從這個立場理解

it feels outrageous?

這是多麼的蠻橫和不像話嗎？

RL: I do understand that, and I actually share the view of the utility of the Internet,

理查德：我明白這一點，事實上 我也是這麼看待網路的使用，

and I would argue it's bigger than the Internet.

並且我會爭辯說它比網路還要大。

It is a global telecommunications system.

它是一個全球通訊系統。

The Internet is a big chunk of that, but there is a lot more.

網際網路只是其中的一大部份， 但是還有其他很多的東西。

And I think that people have legitimate concerns

我認為人們有合法的關注

about the balance between transparency and secrecy.

對於透明度和機密的平衡。

That's sort of been couched as a balance

這樣一個橫臥在

between privacy and national security.

隱私和國家安全的平衡。

I don't think that's the right framing.

我不認為這是正確的。

I think it really is transparency and secrecy.

我認為這是有關透明度和隱私。

And so that's the national and international conversation that we're having,

所以我們現在這是國家和世界的對話，

and we want to participate in that, and want

我們想要參與其中，並且想要

people to participate in it in an informed way.

人們以一種知情的方式參與其中。

So there are things,

所以有些事情，

let me talk there a little bit more,

讓我對此加以闡述，

there are things that we need to be transparent about:

有些事情我們需要保持透明度：

our authorities, our processes,

我們的主管部門，我們的過程，

our oversight, who we are.

我們的疏忽，我們是誰。

We, NSA, have not done a good job of that,

我們，國家安全局，對於這點並沒有做到很好，

and I think that's part of the reason

所以我認為這是一部分原因

that this has been so revelational

這樣被披露

and so sensational in the media.

容易被煽情在媒體中。

Nobody knew who we were. We were the No Such Agency, the Never Say Anything.

沒有人知道我們是誰。 我們是不存在的，是從不說任何事。

There's takeoffs of our logo

在我們的標誌中有種權衡

of an eagle with headphones on around it.

一隻老鷹和它頭上的耳機。

And so that's the public characterization.

所以這是公眾特徵。

And so we need to be more transparent about those things.

而且我們需要對這些事情更加透明。

What we don't need to be transparent about,

而我們不需要透明的事情，

because it's bad for the U.S.,

一些會對美國不利，

it's bad for all those other countries that we work with

對其他我與們合作的國家不利，

and that we help provide information

並且我們提供資訊

that helps them secure themselves

去幫助他們確保自己的安全

and their people,

和他們人民的安全，

it's bad to expose operations and capabilities

暴露這些行動和能力是糟糕的

in a way that allows the people that we're all working against,

對於我們的敵人來說，

the generally recognized bad guys,

那些普遍認為的壞人，

to counter those.

需要對付的那些人。

CA: But isn't it also bad to deal

克里斯：但是這不也是糟糕的

a kind of body blow to the American companies

去對付打擊了那些美國公司

that have essentially given the world

幾乎為整個世界

most of the Internet services that matter?

提供網絡服務的公司？

RL: It is. It's really the companies are

理查德：是的。這些公司事實上

in a tough position, as are we,

處在艱難的位置，和我們一樣，

because the companies,

因為這些公司，

we compel them to provide information,

我們強迫他們提供信息，

just like every other nation in the world does.

和世界上其他國家一樣。

Every industrialized nation in the world

世界上任何一個工業化的國家

has a lawful intercept program

都有一個合法攔截程序

where they are requiring companies

它們要求公司

to provide them with information

提供他們信息

that they need for their security,

為了保證安全，

and the companies that are involved

而且這些參與的公司

have complied with those programs

遵守這些程序

in the same way that they have to do

以一種不得已的方式

when they're operating in Russia or the U.K.

如果他們在俄國或者英國運營，

or China or India or France,

或者中國，印度，法國，

any country that you choose to name.

任何一個你說得出的國家。

And so the fact that these revelations

所以事實上這些啟示

have been broadly characterized as

被定性為

"you can't trust company A because

「你不能相信公司Ａ因為

your privacy is suspect with them"

你的隱私對於他們來說是犯罪嫌疑人」

is actually only accurate in the sense that

事實上只有準確的意義

it's accurate with every other company in the world

和其他世界上的

that deals with any of those countries in the world.

要和世界上的這些國家打交道的公司。

And so it's being picked up by people

所以這點被人們指出

as a marketing advantage,

作為市場營銷優勢，

and it's being marketed that way by several countries,

而且在幾個國家被這樣標記，

including some of our allied countries,

包括我們的同盟國，

where they are saying,

那裡的人們說，

"Hey, you can't trust the U.S.,

「嗨，你不能相信美國，

but you can trust our telecom company,

但是你可以相信我們的通信公司，

because we're safe."

因為我們是安全的。」

And they're actually using that to counter

事實上它們使用反擊

the very large technological edge

非常大的邊緣技術

that U.S. companies have

那些美國公司所擁有的

in areas like the cloud and Internet-based technologies.

在雲計算和基於網路的領域。

CA: You're sitting there with the American flag,

克里斯：你和一面美國國旗坐在一起，

and the American Constitution guarantees

而且美國憲法確保

freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.

不受不合理的搜查和逮捕的自由權利。

How do you characterize

你如何定性

the American citizen's right to privacy?

美國公民的隱私權？

Is there such a right?

有這樣的權利嗎？

RL: Yeah, of course there is.

理查德：是，當然有。

And we devote an inordinate amount of time and pressure,

並且我們投入過多的時間和壓力，

inordinate and appropriate, actually I should say,

過多的而且合適的，事實上我應該這樣說，

amount of time and effort in order to ensure

（我們投入了）大量的時間和精力為了確保

that we protect that privacy.

我們保護隱私。

and beyond that, the privacy of citizens

除此之外，也保護

around the world, it's not just Americans.

在世界範圍內，不光是美國人的公民隱私。

Several things come into play here.

有幾件事情發揮著作用。

First, we're all in the same network.

第一，我們處在同一個網絡。

My communications,

我的通信，

I'm a user of a particular Internet email service

我是一特定的網路郵件服務的其中一個用戶

that is the number one email service of choice

這服務也是

by terrorists around the world, number one.

世界上恐怖主義使用郵件服務的首選。

So I'm there right beside them in email space

所以在網路的郵件空間里，

in the Internet.

我就在他們旁邊。

And so we need to be able to pick that apart

所以我們需要能夠挑出那部分

and find the information that's relevant.

並找到相關的信息。

In doing so, we're going to necessarily encounter

這樣做，我們就一定會遇到

Americans and innocent foreign citizens

美國人和無辜的外國人

who are just going about their business,

那些只在忙自己分內事的人。

and so we have procedures in place that shreds that out,

因此，我們有操作程序 將這部份信息（恐怖分子）分離出來，

that says, when you find that,

也就是說，當你發現這個信息的時候，

not if you find it, when you find it, because you're certain to find it,

不是如果你發現，而是 當你發現，因為你一定會發現，

here's how you protect that.

你將如何保護這個信息。

These are called minimization procedures.

這些被稱作最小化程序。

They're approved by the attorney general

他們由總監察長批准

and constitutionally based.

并依據憲法。

And so we protect those.

所以我們保護這些操作程序。

And then, for people, citizens of the world

然後，我們再保護人民，世界各國的公民

who are going about their lawful business

那些做著合法生意

on a day-to-day basis,

日常工作的人。

the president on his January 17 speech,

總統在1月17日的演講中，

laid out some additional protections

提出額外的我們將提供的

that we are providing to them.

保護措施。

So I think absolutely,

所以我絕對認為，

folks do have a right to privacy,

人們有隱私權，

and that we work very hard to make sure

而且我們非常努力確保

that that right to privacy is protected.

隱私權被保護。

CA: What about foreigners using

克里斯：那麼對於

American companies' Internet services?

使用美國公司網路服務的外國人來說呢？

Do they have any privacy rights?

他們有隱私權嗎？

RL: They do. They do, in the sense of,

理查德：他們有，他們有的，在某種意義上，

the only way that we are able to compel

我們唯一能強迫

one of those companies to provide us information

這些公司的其中一員提供給我們信息的

is when it falls into one of three categories:

只有這三種情況：

We can identify that this particular person,

我們可以辨別由某種選擇器鑒定出的

identified by a selector of some kind,

這個特定的人

is associated with counterterrorist

與反恐有關，

or proliferation or other foreign intelligence target.

或者與擴散外國情報目標有關。

CA: Much has been made of the fact that

克里斯：大多數事實表明，

a lot of the information that you've obtained

大部分你通過這些計劃

through these programs is essentially metadata.

獲得的信息是元數據。

It's not necessarily the actual words

不見得是某人寫在郵件中

that someone has written in an email

的實際文字

or given on a phone call.

或者電話會話中的實際文字。

It's who they wrote to and when, and so forth.

是那些收件的人、時間等等。

But it's been argued,

但是這有爭議，

and someone here in the audience has talked

現場有觀眾和

to a former NSA analyst who said

以前的國家安全局分析師聊過

metadata is actually much more invasive

元數據實際上更具有侵略性

than the core data,

和核心數據比起來，

because in the core data

因為在核心數據中

you present yourself as you want to be presented.

你把自己想展示出來的一面展示出來。

With metadata, who knows what the conclusions are

有了元數據，誰知道那些結論

that are drawn?

是怎麼得到的？

Is there anything to that?

有什麼說法嗎？

RL: I don't really understand that argument.

理查德：我實際上不明白那點爭議。

I think that metadata's important for a couple of reasons.

我認為元數據很重要有幾點原因。

Metadata is the information that lets you

元數據是信息，它讓你

find connections that people are trying to hide.

找到那些人們想隱藏起來的關係。

So when a terrorist is corresponding

所以當一個恐怖分子回應了

with somebody else who's not known to us

一些我們不認識的人，

but is engaged in doing or supporting terrorist activity,

但卻從事或支持恐怖活動的人，

or someone who's violating international sanctions

或者某些通過提供核武器相關材料

by providing nuclear weapons-related material

給像伊朗和北韓等國家的

to a country like Iran or North Korea,

違反國際制裁的人，

is trying to hide that activity because it's illicit activity.

正想方設法隱藏這些非法活動。

What metadata lets you do is connect that.

元數據讓你把這些聯繫起來。

The alternative to that

另一種選擇

is one that's much less efficient

是一種效率低得多

and much more invasive of privacy,

而且更侵略隱私的方式，

which is gigantic amounts of content collection.

那就是極大量的內容集合。

So metadata, in that sense,

所以元數據，在某種意義上，

actually is privacy-enhancing.

其實增強了隱私。

And we don't, contrary to some of the stuff

而且我們不……

that's been printed,

和刊登的消息相反，

we don't sit there and grind out

我們不坐在那挑出

metadata profiles of average people.

一般人的元數據資料。

If you're not connected

如果你不和

to one of those valid intelligence targets,

那些有效的情報目標聯繫，

you are not of interest to us.

我們對你不感興趣。

CA: So in terms of the threats

克里斯：從美國面臨

that face America overall,

的整體威脅來講，

where would you place terrorism?

你把恐怖主義排在哪裡？

RL: I think terrorism is still number one.

理查德：我認為恐怖主義仍然是第一。

I think that we have never been in a time

我認為我們從來沒有處在這樣的時代

where there are more places

有更多的地方

where things are going badly

發生了糟糕的事情

and forming the petri dish in which terrorists

並且像培養皿一樣。在那裏恐怖主義

take advantage of the lack of governance.

利用政府的治理欠缺興風作浪。

An old boss of mine, Tom Fargo, Admiral Fargo,

我以前的一個上司，Tom Fargo，海軍上將 Fargo，

used to describe it as arcs of instability.

曾經形容它是不穩定弧。

And so you have a lot of those arcs of instability

所以你現在有很多這些

in the world right now,

不穩定弧在世界上，

in places like Syria, where there's a civil war

像在敘利亞，那裏有一場內戰

going on and you have massive numbers,

你有大量的人，

thousands and thousands of foreign fighters

成千上萬的外國戰士

who are coming into Syria

來到敘利亞，

to learn how to be terrorists

去學習如何成爲恐怖主義者

and practice that activity,

並且練習這項活動，

and lots of those people are Westerners

並且這些人裡的很多人是西方人，

who hold passports to European countries

有著歐洲國家護照，

or in some cases the United States,

有些人或有美國護照，

and so they are basically learning how

所以他們本質上是在學習如何

to do jihad and have expressed intent

討伐異教徒並表達了意向

to go out and do that later on

表示他們走出去以後

in their home countries.

也會在他們的祖國這麼做。

You've got places like Iraq,

現在有伊拉克，

which is suffering from a high level of sectarian violence,

現在正承受着宗派暴力，

again a breeding ground for terrorism.

同樣，它也是恐怖主義滋生的溫床。

And you have the activity in the Horn of Africa

同樣在非洲之角有這樣的活動

and the Sahel area of Africa.

在非洲薩赫勒地區也有。

Again, lots of weak governance

同樣，許多由於治理薄弱

which forms a breeding ground for terrorist activity.

而形成的恐怖活動的溫床。

So I think it's very serious. I think it's number one.

所以我認爲這是非常嚴重的。 我認爲是第一位的。

I think number two is cyber threat.

我認爲第二是網路威脅。

I think cyber is a threat in three ways:

我認爲網絡有三方面威脅：

One way, and probably the most common way

第一，而且可能是最普遍的形式

that people have heard about it,

人們聽過的，

is due to the theft of intellectual property,

是由於竊取知識產權，

so basically, foreign countries going in,

所以本質上，外國進入，

stealing companies' secrets,

竊取公司機密，

and then providing that information

並且提供這些信息

to state-owned enterprises

給國有企業

or companies connected to the government

或者和政府有關的公司，

to help them leapfrog technology

去幫助他們推進技術進步

or to gain business intelligence

或者竊取商業情報

that's then used to win contracts overseas.

以此來贏得海外合同。

That is a hugely costly set of activities that's going on right now.

這是一些相當昂貴的正在進行的活動。

Several nation-states are doing it.

有幾個國家正在做。

Second is the denial-of-service attacks.

第二是拒絕服務攻擊。

You're probably aware that there have been

你可能已經意識到

a spate of those directed against

接連發生的自2012

the U.S. financial sector since 2012.

針對美國金融業的攻擊。

Again, that's a nation-state who is executing those attacks,

同樣，這是民族國家進行的攻擊，

and they're doing that

並且他們這樣做

as a semi-anonymous way of reprisal.

以此作為一種半匿名的報復方式。

And the last one is destructive attacks,

最後一種是破壞性攻擊，

and those are the ones that concern me the most.

這是我最擔心的一種。

Those are on the rise.

這些正在增加。

You have the attack against Saudi Aramco in 2012,

有2012年針對沙特阿美公司的，

August of 2012.

在 2012 年 8 月，

It took down about 35,000 of their computers

使 35000 台電腦癱瘓

with a Wiper-style virus.

用一種雨刷式病毒。

You had a follow-on a week later

一週之後，緊接着

to a Qatari company.

有針對卡塔爾公司的。

You had March of 2013,

2013 年 3 月份，

you had a South Korean attack

韓國受到攻擊

that was attributed in the press to North Korea

根據韓國報刊

that took out thousands of computers.

成千的電腦癱瘓。

Those are on the rise,

這些正在增加，

and we see people expressing interest

並且我們看到人們對這些

in those capabilities

能力表示感興趣，

and a desire to employ them.

而且渴望採用它們。

CA: Okay, so a couple of things here,

克里斯：好，現在有這樣幾件事情，

because this is really the core of this, almost.

因爲這是核心，幾乎。

I mean, first of all,

我的意思是，首先，

a lot of people who look at risk

很多人看風險

and look at the numbers

看數字

don't understand this belief that terrorism

卻並不明白恐怖主義

is still the number one threat.

仍然是頭號威脅這種觀點。

Apart from September 11,

除了 911，

I think the numbers are that in the last 30 or 40 years

我認爲最近 30-40 年的數字

about 500 Americans have died from terrorism,

大概有 500 美國人因恐怖事件喪生，

mostly from homegrown terrorists.

大多數由於本土形成的恐怖勢力。

The chance in the last few years

最近幾年被恐怖主義

of being killed by terrorism

殺死的概率

is far less than the chance of being killed by lightning.

遠遠比被雷電擊中的概率要小。

I guess you would say that a single nuclear incident

我猜你可以說一場核事故

or bioterrorism act or something like that

或者生化威脅或者類似的行爲

would change those numbers.

可以改變這些數字。

Would that be the point of view?

是這樣的觀點嗎？

RL: Well, I'd say two things.

理查德：好吧，我要說兩件事情。

One is, the reason that there hasn't been

第一，自 911 以來還沒有一場

a major attack in the United States since 9/11,

大的襲擊的原因是，

that is not an accident.

那不是偶然。

That's a lot of hard work that we have done,

我們做了很多努力的工作，

that other folks

其他的人

in the intelligence community have done,

在情報系統裏的，

that the military has done,

在軍隊裏的人，

and that our allies around the globe have done.

和我們的世界其他同盟國也做了很多努力。

You've heard the numbers about

你聽過有關

the tip of the iceberg in terms

美國國家安全局計劃所阻斷的恐怖襲擊

of numbers of terrorist attacks that NSA programs

的次數停留在 54，

contributed to stopping was 54,

那只是冰山一角，

25 of those in Europe,

其中 25 個在歐洲，

and of those 25,

在這 25 個裏，

18 of them occurred in three countries,

18 個發生在三個國家，

some of which are our allies,

其中一些是我們的同盟，

and some of which are beating the heck out of us

另一些是嚴厲打擊我們的國家

over the NSA programs, by the way.

尤其是美國國家安全局計劃，順便一提。

So that's not an accident that those things happen.

所以不是偶然發生。

That's hard work. That's us finding intelligence

是因為勤奮的工作。是因為我們發現了

on terrorist activities

有關恐怖活動的情報

and interdicting them through one way or another,

並且以不同的方式禁止，

through law enforcement,

通過執法，

through cooperative activities with other countries

通過和其他國家的合作，

and sometimes through military action.

而且有時候通過軍事活動。

The other thing I would say is that

另外一件我要說的事是

your idea of nuclear or chem-bio-threat

你的有關核或者生化威脅的觀點

is not at all far-fetched

並不是那麼牽強，

and in fact there are a number of groups

而且事實上有幾個組

who have for several years expressed interest

多年來表達了興趣

and desire in obtaining those capabilities

和意願想要得到這些能力

and work towards that.

並且實現這些能力。

CA: It's also been said that,

克里斯：同樣，

of those 54 alleged incidents,

在這 54 起所謂的事故中，

that as few as zero of them

幾乎零個

were actually anything to do

和那些斯諾登揭發

with these controversial programs

的有爭議的案子

that Mr. Snowden revealed,

有任何關係，

that it was basically through other forms of intelligence,

那是本質上通過其他形式獲得的情報，

that you're looking for a needle in a haystack,

你在海裡撈針，

and the effects of these programs,

這些項目的作用，

these controversial programs,

這些有爭議的項目，

is just to add hay to the stack,

只是給大海增加水滴，

not to really find the needle.

並不是去找到針。

The needle was found by other methods.

針是通過其他方式找到的。

Isn't there something to that?

是不是類似的意思？

RL: No, there's actually two programs

理查德：不，其實有兩個項目

that are typically implicated in that discussion.

通常在那個討論中涉及到。

One is the section 215 program,

一個是 215 項目，

the U.S. telephony metadata program,

美國電話元數據項目，

and the other one is

另一個是

popularly called the PRISM program,

流行的叫法是棱鏡項目，

and it's actually section 702 of the FISA Amendment Act.

實際上是外國情報監視法修正案 702 條。

But the 215 program

但是 215 項目

is only relevant to threats

只和那些

that are directed against the United States,

針對美國的威脅有關，

and there have been a dozen threats

有一些威脅

where that was implicated.

是有牽連的。

Now what you'll see people say publicly

現在你看到人們公開說

is there is no "but for" case,

並沒有一個「如果不是」的例子，

and so there is no case where, but for that,

所以也沒有例子，如果不是如此，

the threat would have happened.

襲擊就會發生。

But that actually indicates a lack of understanding

實際上這表明一種缺乏對

of how terrorist investigations actually work.

恐怖調查是怎麼工作的瞭解。

You think about on television,

你看電視的時候想，

you watch a murder mystery.

你看兇手揭祕。

What do you start with? You start with a body,

你從何開始？從屍體開始，

and then they work their way from there to solve the crime.

接着他們一步步地從那破解犯罪。

We're actually starting well before that,

我們實際上早在那之前就開始了，

hopefully before there are any bodies,

希望早在有任何屍體之前，

and we're trying to build the case for

並且我們在試著建立案例，

who the people are, what they're trying to do,

這些人是誰，他們想要做什麼，

and that involves massive amounts of information.

這些包含大量信息。

Think of it is as mosaic,

把它想象成馬賽克，

and it's hard to say that any one piece of a mosaic

很難說任何一塊馬賽克

was necessary to building the mosaic,

是整個馬賽克必要的構成，

but to build the complete picture,

但為了構成一個整體畫面，

you need to have all the pieces of information.

你需要所有信息碎片。

On the other, the non-U.S.-related threats out of those 54,

另一方面，在 54 起事件中 和跟美國威脅無關的事件裡，

the other 42 of them,

另外 42 個，

the PRISM program was hugely relevant to that,

棱鏡項目和這些有著巨大關聯，

and in fact was material in contributing

事實上是幫助

to stopping those attacks.

阻止了這些襲擊的基礎。

CA: Snowden said two days ago

克里斯：斯諾登兩天前說

that terrorism has always been

恐怖主義一直

what is called in the intelligence world

被情報世界稱為

"a cover for action,"

「行為的掩飾」，

that it's something that,

是一些，

because it invokes such a powerful

因為調起如此強烈

emotional response in people,

的情緒在人民當中，

it allows the initiation of these programs

它允許這些項目一開始

to achieve powers that an organization like yours

獲得權力而你的組織

couldn't otherwise have.

卻不能獲得的。

Is there any internal debate about that?

這一點有沒有內在的爭議？

RL: Yeah.

理查德：有的。

I mean, we debate these things all the time,

我的意思是，我們一直在爭論這些事情，

and there is discussion that goes on

現在一直在進行著的討論

in the executive branch

在行政部門

and within NSA itself

和在美國安全部門內部

and the intelligence community about

和在情報社區有關

what's right, what's proportionate,

什麼是對的，什麼是合適的，

what's the correct thing to do.

什麼是正確的做法。

And it's important to note that the programs

並且值得注意我們剛才

that we're talking about

講過的那些項目

were all authorized by two different presidents,

是被兩個不同的總統批准的，

two different political parties,

兩個不同的政黨，

by Congress twice,

被國會兩次通過，

and by federal judges 16 different times,

而且被州法官批准16次，

and so this is not NSA running off

所以這不是國家安全局

and doing its own thing.

自作主張。

This is a legitimate activity

這是一個合法的行為

of the United States foreign government

在美國外交政府

that was agreed to by all the branches

並且被所有美國政府

of the United States government,

機構同意，

and President Madison would have been proud.

而且麥迪遜總統也會為之驕傲的。

CA: And yet, when congressmen discovered

克里斯：然而，當國會議員發現

what was actually being done with that authorization,

事實上這些行為是合法的，

many of them were completely shocked.

他們當中絕大多數相當震驚。

Or do you think that is not a legitimate reaction,

還是你認為這不是一個合法的反應，

that it's only because it's now come out publicly,

這只是因為現在它完全被曝光了，

that they really knew exactly what you were doing

他們事實上完全知道你用給予的權利

with the powers they had granted you?

所做的一切？

RL: Congress is a big body.

理查德：國會是個大的整體。

There's 535 of them,

有 535 人，

and they change out frequently,

他們經常變化，

in the case of the House, every two years,

比如眾議院 ，每兩年，

and I think that the NSA provided

我認為美國安全部提供

all the relevant information to our oversight committees,

所有相關信息給我們的監督委員會，

and then the dissemination of that information

然後這些信息的傳播

by the oversight committees throughout Congress

由監督委員會通過議會

is something that they manage.

是他們管理的。

I think I would say that Congress members

我認為我可以說議會成員

had the opportunity to make themselves aware,

有機會讓他們自己意識到，

and in fact a significant number of them,

然而事實上他們中的一部分人，

the ones who are assigned oversight responsibility,

那些有監督責任的人，

did have the ability to do that.

事實上是有能力那麼做的。

And you've actually had the chairs of those committees say that in public.

而且你確實讓這些委員的主席發表公眾言論。

CA: Now, you mentioned the threat of cyberattacks,

克里斯：那麼，你提到了網路攻擊，

and I don't think anyone in this room would disagree

我不認為房間裡的人會不同意，

that that is a huge concern,

這是一個很大的問題，

but do you accept that there's a tradeoff

但是你是否接受這有一個權衡

between offensive and defensive strategies,

有關進攻和防守策略，

and that it's possible that the very measures taken

並且有可能這種衡量造成

to, "weaken encryption,"

「減弱加密」，

and allow yourself to find the bad guys,

並且允許你自己找到那些壞人，

might also open the door to forms of cyberattack?

同樣也打開了網絡攻擊的大門？

RL: So I think two things.

理查德·：所以我認為兩件事。

One is, you said weaken encryption. I didn't.

第一，你說減弱加密。我沒有。

And the other one is that

另外一件事就是

the NSA has both of those missions,

美國安全局擁有這兩種使命，

and we are heavily biased towards defense,

而且我們強烈偏向於防禦，

and, actually, the vulnerabilities that we find

而且，事實上，我們在大多數壓倒性的例子中

in the overwhelming majority of cases,

發現了漏洞，

we disclose to the people who are responsible

我們紕漏那些負責人

for manufacturing or developing those products.

因爲他們製造或者發展了這些產品。

We have a great track record of that,

我們有很多大量的記錄，

and we're actually working on a proposal right now

事實上我們現在正在擬定一個提案

to be transparent and to publish transparency reports

變得更透明而且公開透明發表報告

in the same way that the Internet companies

以一種和網絡公司被允許

are being allowed to publish transparency reports for them.

發表他們的報告相同的方式。

We want to be more transparent about that.

我們想要變得更透明。

So again, we eat our own dog food.

所以又一次的，我們用自己的產品。

We use the standards, we use the products

我們用條例，我們用那些

that we recommend,

我們建議的產品，

and so it's in our interest

所以這是我們的利益

to keep our communications protected

去保護我們的交流

in the same way that other people's need to be.

以一種人們需要的方式。

CA: Edward Snowden,

克里斯：愛德華·斯諾登，

when, after his talk, was wandering the halls here

當他結束了他的演講，在大廳裏

in the bot,

遊蕩時，

and I heard him say to a couple of people,

我聽到他和幾個人交談，

they asked him about what he thought

他們問他對

of the NSA overall,

美國安全局的整體評價，

and he was very complimentary about the people

他非常喜歡和你

who work with you,

一起工作的人，

said that it's a really

說那是一羣

impassioned group of employees

非常積極的員工

who are seeking to do the right thing,

他們努力在做正確的事情，

and that the problems have come from

那些問題只是源自

just some badly conceived policies.

一些構思不佳的政策。

He came over certainly very reasonably and calmly.

他看起來是相當的平靜和有條理。

He didn't come over like a crazy man.

他看起來不像是一個瘋子。

Would you accept that at least,

你至少能接受這一點，

even if you disagree with how he did it,

即使你不接受他的做法，

that he has opened a debate that matters?

他打開了一個關鍵的辯論？

RL: So I think that the discussion

理查德：所以我認爲討論

is an important one to have.

是有必要的。

I do not like the way that he did it.

我不喜歡他做的方式。

I think there were a number of other ways

我認爲有很多其他的方法

that he could have done that

他可以選擇

that would have not endangered our people

其他不威脅我們人民安全

and the people of other nations

和其他人民的安全的方式

through losing visibility

威脅可以來自與無法掌握

into what our adversaries are doing.

我們的對手正在做什麼。

But I do think it's an important conversation.

我認爲這是一個重要的談話。

CA: It's been reported that there's

克里斯：有報告說

almost a difference of opinion

你和你的同事

with you and your colleagues

有不同的觀點

over any scenario in which

對於任何他

he might be offered an amnesty deal.

被大赦了的情況。

I think your boss, General Keith Alexander,

我認爲你的上司，大將 Keith Alexander

has said that that would be a terrible example

曾經說過對於其他人來說，

for others;

那將是一個非常槽糕的例子。

you can't negotiate with someone

你不能和其他人談判

who's broken the law in that way.

如果他們像那樣違反了法律。

But you've been quoted as saying that,

但是你一直引述說，

if Snowden could prove that he was surrendering

如果斯諾登可以鄧明他屈服

all undisclosed documents,

於未公開的文件，

that a deal maybe should be considered.

那個交易也應該被考慮進來。

Do you still think that?

你還是這麼認爲的嗎？

RL: Yeah, so actually,

理查德：是的，確實如此，

this is my favorite thing about that "60 Minutes" interview

這是我最喜歡《60分鐘》訪談的地方

was all the misquotes that came from that.

來自所有錯誤的引用。

What I actually said, in response to a question about,

我實際上說的是， 在回答記者提問關於，

would you entertain any discussions

你會招待對減輕

of mitigating action against Snowden,

斯諾登行爲的任何討論，

I said, yeah, it's worth a conversation.

我說，是的，這是值得討論的。

This is something that the attorney general

這也是一般美國律師

of the United States and the president also

和總統

actually have both talked about this,

事實上都談過，

and I defer to the attorney general,

而且我服從大多數的律師，

because this is his lane.

因爲這是他的軌道。

But there is a strong tradition

但是有一個堅固的傳統

in American jurisprudence

在美國法理學上

of having discussions with people

為了從中得到什麼

who have been charged with crimes in order to,

對政府有利的信息

if it benefits the government,

鼓勵與被指控犯罪的人們

to get something out of that,

進行討論。

that there's always room for that kind of discussion.

這裏總是有可以討論的空間。

So I'm not presupposing any outcome,

所以我不提前支持什麼結果，

but there is always room for discussion.

但是一直是有討論空間的。

CA: To a lay person it seems like

克里斯：以一個外行人看

he has certain things to offer the U.S.,

他給美國帶來了點東西，

the government, you, others,

也給政府、你還有其他人帶來了點東西，

in terms of putting things right

他做對了事情

and helping figure out a smarter policy,

幫助想出更好的政策，

a smarter way forward for the future.

想出了面對未來更好的方式。

Do you see, has that kind of possibility

你看，這些可能性

been entertained at all?

已經被接受了嗎？

RL: So that's out of my lane.

理查德：這不是我的範圍。

That's not an NSA thing.

也不是美國安全局的事。

That would be a Department of Justice

這是律政司

sort of discussion.

要討論的。

I'll defer to them.

我會推給他們。

CA: Rick, when Ed Snowden ended his talk,

克里斯： 理查，當斯諾登結束了他的講話，

I offered him the chance to share an idea worth spreading.

我給了他一個分享想法的機會。

What would be your idea worth spreading

你認爲什麼想法是值得分享的

for this group?

對這些人？

RL: So I think, learn the facts.

理查德：我認爲，瞭解事實。

This is a really important conversation,

這是一個非常重要的談話，

and it impacts, it's not just NSA,

它有影響力，不光是美國安全局，

it's not just the government,

不光是政府，

it's you, it's the Internet companies.

是你，是這些網路公司。

The issue of privacy and personal data

隱私和個人信息的問題

is much bigger than just the government,

遠比政府大得多，

and so learn the facts.

所以要學會瞭解事實。

Don't rely on headlines,

不要依靠頭條新聞，

don't rely on sound bites,

不要依靠丁點的聲音，

don't rely on one-sided conversations.

不要依靠片面的談話。

So that's the idea, I think, worth spreading.

就是這個思想，我認爲，值得傳播。

We have a sign, a badge tab,

我們有一個標誌，一個徽章標籤，

we wear badges at work with lanyards,

我們帶着徽章掛鏈上班，

and if I could make a plug,

如果我可以做一個插件，

my badge lanyard at work says, "Dallas Cowboys."

我工作時的徽章掛鏈會寫着，《達拉斯牛仔》。

Go Dallas.

達拉斯加油。

I've just alienated half the audience, I know.

我剛剛疏遠了一半的觀衆，我知道。

So the lanyard that our people

所以做著加密解析工作的

who work in the organization

在這個組織里工作的我們的人

that does our crypto-analytic work

都有個掛鏈，

have a tab that says, "Look at the data."

上面有個標籤寫着「看看這數據。」

So that's the idea worth spreading.

這就是值得傳播的想法。

Look at the data.

看看數據。

CA: Rick, it took a certain amount of courage,

克里斯：理查，這需要相當的勇氣，

I think, actually, to come and speak openly

我認爲，實際上，來和這些觀衆

to this group.

暢所欲言。

It's not something the NSA has done a lot of in the past,

這不是美國安全局曾經做過很多的，

and plus the technology has been challenging.

而且加上科技也更加具有挑戰性。

We truly appreciate you doing that

我們很感激

and sharing in this very important conversation.

你能和我們分享這次重要的談話。

Thank you so much.

非常感謝你。

RL: Thanks, Chris.

理查德：謝謝克里斯。

(Applause)

（鼓掌）