10% of firms – and those are the firms that have  the most personal data and intellectual property.

10%的公司--而這些公司是擁有最多個人數據和知識產權的公司。

So, you know, mostly big tech  firms, Google, Amazon, Facebook…

所以，你知道，大多數大的科技公司，谷歌，亞馬遜，Facebook... ...

Google is actually an interesting  narrative arc because Google really  

谷歌其實是一個很有意思的敘事弧線，因為谷歌真的是

invented the business model  of surveillance capitalism.

發明了監視資本主義的商業模式。

And that is the business model of essentially  tracking everything you are doing,  

而這就是商業模式，基本上跟蹤你所做的一切。

saying online and increasingly offline, and  using it to build a profile of you and then  

在線上說，越來越多的線下說，並利用它來建立你的檔案，然後。

selling that information to advertisers who  want to target you down to a microscopic level.

把這些資訊賣給廣告商，他們想把你定位到微觀層面。

So, think about that now as it moves into  healthcare, into finance, into insurance.

所以，現在想想，當它進入醫療、進入金融、進入保險的時候。

Here is a real-world example that is happening…

下面是一個正在發生的真實例子......

Insurance companies are now putting sensors  

保險公司現在把傳感器

in some countries in some markets where  this is legal – sensors in peoples' cars  

在一些國家，在一些市場上，這種做法是合法的 -- -- 人們汽車上的傳感器

or homes –so let's say I'm now driving with my  child in back and I don't stop quickly enough  

或家庭 -所以，假設我現在開車時，我的孩子在後面，我沒有足夠快地停止

at a stop light. That will be tallied –  I might get a black mark on my insurance.

在紅綠燈前。這將被統計--我的保險上可能會有一個黑色的標記。

First of all that's I think incredibly creepy but  it also has the effect of completely changing the  

首先，這是我認為令人難以置信的毛骨悚然的，但它也有完全改變的影響

business model from a business model of  the collective, in which it's about risk  

從集體的商業模式，其中關於風險的商業模式。

sharing and risk pooling – to separating all  of us - suddenly we are all individual risks,  

分擔和風險彙集------把我們所有人分開------突然間我們都成了個體風險。

and perhaps you and I can be insured but perhaps  there is a pool uninsurable people over here.

也許你和我都能買到保險，但也許這裡有一群無法投保的人。

It creates this real  

它創造了這個真正的

tier system within society where there are  people who can be completely disenfranchised.

社會中的層級制度，有的人可以完全被剝奪權利。

First Wall St and then Silicon Valley really  have more power than any other entity.

首先是華爾街，然後是硅谷，其權力確實比其他任何實體都大。

I see so many similarities between  the way that Wall Street had both  

我看到華爾街的方式有很多相似之處，都有。

monetary capture of politics but also cognitive  capture of politics before the financial crisis  

金融危機前，貨幣俘獲政治，但也是認知俘獲政治。

and to a certain extent after and the  way Big Tech has captured the debate now.

並在一定程度上經過和大科技的方式抓住了現在的辯論。

With the banks, there is at least some requirement  for how they kind of mark things on the books.

對於銀行來說，至少有一些要求，他們那種在賬面上標記的東西。

With tech firms - you don't have that  – so it's really a very opaque system

對於科技公司來說--你沒有這個條件--所以這真的是一個非常不透明的系統。

We are not doing transactions in dollars  or sterling, we're doing transactions  

我們不是在做美元或英鎊的交易，我們在做交易。

in data –and that is a barter transaction.  It's a very opaque transaction.

而這是一種易貨交易。 這是一個非常不透明的交易。

So if you think about what Adam Smith would have  said you needed for a properly functioning market.

所以，如果你想想亞當-斯密會說，你需要一個正常運作的市場。

You need equal access to information, you need  a transparent transaction – so both parties  

你需要平等地獲得資訊，你需要透明的交易--這樣雙方都能獲得資訊。

need to understand what's being exchanged  – and you need a shared moral framework.

需要了解交換的內容--你需要一個共同的道德框架。

Now you could argue that in the era of big  data – none of those things are in effect.

現在你可以說，在大數據時代--這些東西都不生效。

Think about the most opaque transaction  in the financial crisis – you know,  

想想金融危機中最不透明的交易--你知道。

the derivatives – weapons of mass financial  destruction - and the kinds of transactions  

衍生品 -- -- 大規模金融毀滅性武器 -- -- 以及各種交易。

that we are doing on an hourly basis  now are just as opaque if not more so.

我們現在每小時做的事情，如果不是更多的話，也是一樣不透明的。

We don't really understand what is  happening in the algorithmic black box.

我們並不真正瞭解算法黑盒中發生了什麼。

One of the reasons that the big tech  companies have been so reluctant  

大的科技公司一直不願意的原因之一就是

to police political advertising is they don't  want to open up that algorithmic black box.

警政治廣告是他們不想打開那個算法黑匣子。

One of the possibly elegant answers to  some of the problems we've been talking  

我們一直在討論的一些問題的可能的優雅的答案之一。

about - from privacy, to competitiveness,  to innovation – would be to create digital  

從隱私，到競爭力，再到創新--將是創造數字

data banks where companies of all sizes, in  all industries, could have access to data,  

各行業各種規模的公司都可以進入數據庫。

but only in a way that citizens and  democratically elected governments would decide.

但只能由公民和民選政府來決定。

Suffice to say, we need to  move from old capitalist model  

可以說，我們需要從舊的資本主義模式中走出來。

to a kind of a new more equal  sharing of this wealth pie.

到一種新的更平等地分享這塊財富餅。