科技公司不能拿網絡自由作擋箭牌

In the beginning — and by that I mean, say, 20 years ago — all was simple. The internet belonged to everyone and no one. It was a space free of state interference, a place for individuals to make their voices heard. The billions upon billions of digital connections defied national borders or crusty arguments about competing systems of political organisation. Oh, and the web promised untold riches for the technology geeks of Silicon Valley and beyond.

起初（我的意思是說，比如，20年前），一切都很簡單。互聯網屬於每一個人，又不屬於任何人。它是一個不受政府幹預的空間，是一個讓個人的聲音得到聆聽的地方。數不清的數字化連接打破了國家之間的邊界，也化解了關於不同政治組織體系的持久爭論。還有，互聯網還曾爲硅谷和硅谷以外的科技極客們許下數不清的財富。

This idealised story of cyber space as an independent, anarchic realm still has great resonance. To suggest there might be a need for national regulation is to be accused of “Balkanisation” of the one truly global community. To blame Google or Facebook for publishing vile propaganda soliciting the murder of innocents is to challenge the liberties of everyone with a smartphone or a tablet.

這種將網絡空間視爲獨立的無政府王國的理想化說辭，仍能引起很多人共鳴。暗示各國或許有必要對網絡空間實施監管，你會被指控爲將這個真正全球化的社區“分裂化”。譴責谷歌(Google)或Facebook發佈邪惡的宣傳內容、鼓動別人去濫殺無辜，你就是挑戰每個擁有智能手機或平板電腦的人的自由。

You can see why. The web has been a source of empowerment and freedom. It serves as an ally of the individual against the overmighty and a channel of influence for those denied a say. It has broken the information monopoly of the elites and nurtured new communities across borders. It is completing the global political awakening that began with satellite television.

可以看到這其中的原由。互聯網是一個賦予人們力量和自由的地方。它是個人的盟友——共同對抗強權，是被剝奪發言權的人們發揮影響力的渠道。它打破了精英的信息壟斷，並催生了新的跨國界社區。它正在完成始於衛星電視的這場全球政治覺醒。

It is no accident that the governments most eager to control the web have been those most fearful of liberty and democracy. Wherever you see an unpleasant autocrat you will find teams of technicians censoring social networks and shutting down digital dissent.

最急於控制互聯網的政府也是最害怕自由和民主的政府，這一點並非偶然。只要是有討厭的獨裁者存在的地方，你就會看到由技術人員組成的團隊，在審查社交網絡、消滅數字世界中的異見。

There has, of course, been an element of pretence. Some rules have always applied. No one complains when websites promoting brazen criminality are shut down, when child pornography is expunged or when cyber fraudsters are caught. Democracy distinguishes between liberty and licence — free speech does not extend to shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre.

這其中當然一直存在託辭的成分。有些規則始終是適用的。當煽動無恥罪行的網站被關閉時、當兒童色情內容被清除時、或者當網絡詐騙分子被抓住時，沒有人抱怨。民主制度懂得自由和肆意妄爲的不同——言論自由並不適用於在擁擠的劇院裏喊“着火了”的情況。

For their part, the technology companies have positioned themselves adroitly. Even as they have become global behemoths, they have cast themselves as guardians of the powerless against the state. When Apple refuses a legal request to break the encryption on one of its expensive gadgets, it wraps itself in the mantle of freedom.

科技公司一直嫺熟地掌握着自己的定位。即便它們已成了全球巨無霸，它們仍將自己定位爲對抗國家的無權者的守護人。當蘋果(Apple)拒絕破解其一個昂貴手機上加密文件的法律要求時，它把自由當作了自己的擋箭牌。

When Google or Facebook are accused of publishing illegal incitements to violence they claim, straight-faced, that they are not media companies at all. No, they are libraries or post offices — mere agents at the mercy of their own algorithms. Of course, if someone else complains about this or that web page they will consider taking it down — and then expect applause for their social responsibility.

當谷歌或Facebook被控發佈煽動暴力的非法內容時，它們一本正經地聲稱它們根本不是傳媒公司。不，它們是圖書館或郵局，它們不過是任自己的算法擺佈的代理人。當然，如果其他人投訴這個或那個網頁，它們會考慮撤下該網頁，並且期待人們爲它們的社會責任感鼓掌歡呼。

These nonsenses are born of a mindset that says such companies must be set above the rest of us. After spending a recent weekend with a significant slice of the Silicon Valley set, I think they actually believe their own advertising

這種荒謬邏輯出自這樣一種思維，即這些公司必須高於我們其他人。在最近與一些硅谷重要人士度過一個週末之後，我認爲他們實際上相信他們自己推銷的說法。

The web cannot pay homage to national preferences or cultural sensitivities. Why should mere politicians decide where, for example, the border should be set between national security and the right to publish videos delineating the finer points of bomb-making?

互聯網不能服從國家的喜好或者文化敏感性。區區政治人士憑什麼決定，比如，國家安全與發佈解釋炮彈製作細節視頻的權利之間的界線何在？

By these lights, Apple has a stronger claim than government or the courts to decide if society is better served by unbreakable encryption or by arrangements to allow law enforcement agencies access to iPhones when they are chasing down terrorists.

從這些角度出發，蘋果公司比政府或法庭更有權決定哪一種情況對社會更有利——無法破解的加密方式，還是讓執法機構在追擊恐怖分子時能夠訪問iPhone。

So you must be on the side of the “deep state”, is the response to seditious thoughts otherwise. To suggest, say, that the spooks be permitted to monitor the digital traffic of extremists such as those responsible for the Manchester and London murders is to be in favour of “mass surveillance”.

對於不這樣認爲的煽動性觀點，迴應是：那麼你一定是站在“暗深勢力”(deep state)那一邊了。比如，認爲應該允許特工們監測極端分子（比如那些對曼徹斯特和倫敦襲擊事件負責的人）的網絡動向，就是支持“大規模監控”。

In this Alice in Wonderland world, the technology companies scrape every detail of personal information from the accounts of their users in order to sell it on to advertisers. Then they rail against any state intrusion as a charter for snoopers or a march towards authoritarianism.

在這個猶如“愛麗絲夢遊仙境”的顛倒世界裏，科技公司從用戶賬號裏挖掘每一絲個人信息，爲的是將這些信息賣給廣告商。然而它們卻怒斥任何政府幹預，稱這是在容許窺探個人隱私，或稱這是朝威權主義邁出的一步。

In truth, of course, the anarchic promise of an internet under the benign oversight of entrepreneurs, innovators and well-meaning geeks was always an unachievable ideal. Today’s web is dominated by a handful of global corporations whose self-serving sense of “otherness” has become an excuse to avoid the responsibilities demanded of everyone else. One-time disrupters — think of Amazon — are now rent seekers.

事實上，對互聯網的如下無政府主義期許：互聯網處於創業家、創新者和善意極客的良性監督之下，當然是一個無法實現的理想。今天的互聯網由少數幾家跨國公司主宰，這些公司自私地以“特別”自居，這是它們迴避其他每個人都要承擔的責任的藉口。曾經的顛覆者——想想亞馬遜(Amazon)——現在成了尋租者。

This market power — Google has three-quarters of global search; Google and Facebook together account for three-fifths of digital advertising revenues — allows the companies to set their own tax rates, to shut out competitors, and to choose what rules to apply.

谷歌掌握着全球搜索的四分之三；谷歌和Facebook兩家佔數字廣告收入的五分之三——這樣的市場能量讓這些公司設定自己的稅率、將競爭對手排除在外、並自行選擇遵守什麼規則。

The answer provided by the economics textbook is to break them up. No such concentrations of power would be tolerated in other sectors of the economy — witness past antitrust rulings in the oil and telecoms sectors. We also need, though, a statement of political intent: they cannot operate beyond the values and standards of our societies.

經濟學課本提供的答案是將這些公司拆分。在經濟的其他領域，根本不會允許市場能量如此集中——看看石油和電信業過去的反壟斷裁決就明白了。然而，我們也需要聲明政治意圖：這些公司不能凌駕於我們社會的價值觀和標準之上。

For a nation such as Britain, under attack from terrorists who have been inspired by propaganda on the web, there will never be a “right” answer on where to fix the balance between security and privacy, or free speech and licence. It seems clear enough, though, that this is a judgment that should be made in Westminster rather than on some Californian campus. Some call this Balkanisation. I think democratisation is a better description.

對於像英國這樣，遭遇受網絡宣傳啓發的恐怖分子襲擊的國家，如何確定安全和隱私、或者言論自由和肆意妄爲之間的平衡，永遠沒有一個“正確”答案。然而，有一點似乎很清楚，做出這個判斷的應該是威斯敏斯特，而不是一些身在加利福尼亞州大學校園的人。一些人說這是“分裂化”。我認爲，更合適的說法是民主化。