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.

它會找來一個人

It entails an individual who,

讓他覺得只有他自己在場

thinking they're alone,

然後讓他做一些表達自己的行為

engages in some expressive behavior —

比如大聲唱歌，誇張地跳舞，

wild singing, gyrating dancing,

或者一些性感動作

some mild sexual activity —

當這個人發現他並非獨處

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

其實有人在看偷著他時

that there is a person watching and lurking,

這個發現會使他立刻停止正在做的事情

the discovery of which causes them

並且非常驚恐

to immediately cease what they were doing

他們臉上很明顯的是羞辱和丟臉的表情

in horror.

顯然

The sense of shame and humiliation

這些動作是在沒有別人看時

in their face is palpable.

才願意做的

It's the sense of,

這正是我在最近16個月內 所專心研究的重點：

"This is something I'm willing to do

為什麼隱私這麼重要？

only if no one else is watching."

一個引起世界辯論的話題

This is the crux of the work

它由愛德華 斯諾登的揭密而引起

on which I have been singularly focused

他揭露美國和其同盟

for the last 16 months,

瞞著整個世界

the question of why privacy matters,

把網路

a question that has arisen

這個曾經預示著民主和自由的 前所未有的工具

in the context of a global debate,

轉變成前所未有的用來 肆意監視大眾的空間

enabled by the revelations of Edward Snowden

在這場辯論中有一個普遍的論點

that the United States and its partners,

甚至包括那些對於廣泛監視 感到很不舒服的人

unbeknownst to the entire world,

認為這種大範圍的侵入並沒有實質的傷害

has converted the Internet,

因為只有做壞事的人才有理由想隱藏

once heralded as an unprecedented tool

才會在乎他們的隱私

of liberation and democratization,

這種世界觀隱含著一個議題

into an unprecedented zone

這個世界上有兩種人： 好人和壞人

of mass, indiscriminate surveillance.

壞人是那些圖謀恐怖襲擊或者 參與暴力犯罪的人

There is a very common sentiment

所以他們有理由想要隱藏他們做的事情

that arises in this debate,

有理由要保護他們的隱私

even among people who are uncomfortable

而相反的

with mass surveillance, which says

好人是那些每天去工作

that there is no real harm

回家，帶孩子，看電視的人

that comes from this large-scale invasion

他們不會用網路來策劃炸彈襲擊

because only people who are engaged in bad acts

而是為了看新聞，交流食譜，

have a reason to want to hide

或者計劃孩子的少年棒球比賽

and to care about their privacy.

這些人沒做任何壞事

This worldview is implicitly grounded

所以沒有什麼好隱藏的

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

也沒有理由害怕政府監視他們

good people and bad people.

說這些話的人

Bad people are those who plot terrorist attacks

其實是在極大的自我貶低

or who engage in violent criminality

他們其實是在說

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

我同意讓我自己成為

have reasons to care about their privacy.

一個不會傷害他人，沒有威脅性， 又無趣的人

But by contrast, good people

這樣我就不會害怕政府知道我在做什麼

are people who go to work,

我發現這種心態

come home, raise their children, watch television.

和 2009 年谷歌 CEO 艾瑞克 施密特接受採訪時

They use the Internet not to plot bombing attacks

回答關於他的公司以各種方式

but to read the news or exchange recipes

侵犯全世界幾億人的隱私的問題時

or to plan their kids' Little League games,

所做出的回應是純然一致的

and those people are doing nothing wrong

他說，如果你在做的事情是你不希望 讓別人知道的

and therefore have nothing to hide

那麼或許你從開始就不應該做這件事

and no reason to fear

對於這種理念有各種各樣的說法

the government monitoring them.

第一種說法認為那些說隱私並不重要的人

The people who are actually saying that

並不真正相信隱私不重要

are engaged in a very extreme act

怎樣知道他們並不相信呢？

of self-deprecation.

在他們說隱私並不重要的同時

What they're really saying is,

他們的行為卻是想方設法

"I have agreed to make myself

保衛他們的隱私

such a harmless and unthreatening

他們給郵件設上密碼

and uninteresting person that I actually don't fear

還有社交網絡帳號

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

他們給房門和廁所門上鎖

This mindset has found what I think

通過各種方法防止他人

is its purest expression

進入他們自認的私人空間

in a 2009 interview with

其實他們很清楚他們不想讓別人 知道的事情

the longtime CEO of Google, Eric Schmidt, who,

同樣的，谷歌CEO艾瑞克 施密特

when asked about all the different ways his company

命令他在谷歌的員工

is causing invasions of privacy

停止一切與網路雜誌 CNET （科技資訊網）的交流

for hundreds of millions of people around the world,

因為 CNET 發表了一篇文章

said this: He said,

透露了大量的艾瑞克 施密特的個人信息

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

這些信息其實是完全通過谷歌搜索

other people to know,

和其他谷歌產品獲得的（笑聲）

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

相同的情況也發生在 Facebook 的 CEO 馬克 扎克伯格身上

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

他在 2010 年那個聲名狼藉的採訪上

that mentality,

斷言隱私已經不再是一個“社會規範”

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

去年，馬克 扎克伯格和他的新任妻子

who say that privacy isn't really important,

在帕洛阿爾托（美國舊金附近城市） 不止購買了他們的房子，

they don't actually believe it,

並且買了相鄰四個房子 總值三千萬美元

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

為了確保他們享有足夠的私人空間

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

防止人們監視他們的私人生活

with their actions, they take all kinds of steps

在過去的十六個月， 我一直在世界各地遊說這個問題

to safeguard their privacy.

每當有人跟我說

They put passwords on their email

”我真的不擔心隱私受到侵犯，

and their social media accounts,

因為我沒有什麼需要隱藏的。”

they put locks on their bedroom

我總是對他們回答一樣的話

and bathroom doors,

我拿出一支筆，寫下我的郵箱地址

all steps designed to prevent other people

我說：“這是我的郵箱，

from entering what they consider their private realm

我希望回家之後把你所有郵箱賬號的 密碼發給我，

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

不僅僅是你工作上用的那些 一本正經的郵箱

The very same Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google,

我要所有的

ordered his employees at Google

因為我就是想讀遍所有你的網上記錄

to cease speaking with the online

然後將我認為有趣的內容發表出來

Internet magazine CNET

畢竟你不是個壞人 你沒做什麼壞事

after CNET published an article

你就沒什麼好隱藏的“

full of personal, private information

沒有任何一個人接受我的提議

about Eric Schmidt,

我查過（掌聲）

which it obtained exclusively through Google searches

我一直在認真的查看那個郵箱

and using other Google products. (Laughter)

那裡一直很荒涼

This same division can be seen

這是有原因的

with the CEO of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg,

因為我們作為人類

who in an infamous interview in 2010

即使一些人嘴上否認隱私的重要性

pronounced that privacy is no longer

但他們心裡很清楚它深遠的重要性

a "social norm."

事實上，作為人類，我們是社會性動物

Last year, Mark Zuckerberg and his new wife

這意味著我們需要其他人

purchased not only their own house

知道我們在做什麼，說什麼，想什麼

but also all four adjacent houses in Palo Alto

這也是為什麼我們自願的在網上 發佈自己的信息

for a total of 30 million dollars

但是和成為一個自由的、完整的人類 同等重要的是

in order to ensure that they enjoyed a zone of privacy

我們需要有一個地方完全遠離 其他人批判的目光

that prevented other people from monitoring

為什麼我們要找到這樣一個地方 原因是我們所有人

what they do in their personal lives.

－並非只有那些恐怖分子者和罪犯，而是我們所有人－

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

都有想要隱藏的東西

every single time somebody has said to me,

許多我們做的、想的各種各樣的事情

"I don't really worry about invasions of privacy

我們只願意告訴自己的醫生,

because I don't have anything to hide."

或者律師，或者心理醫生， 或者配偶，或者好朋友。

I always say the same thing to them.

如果全世界都知道我們會覺得很囧

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

我們每天都會判斷

I say, "Here's my email address.

某些我們說的、想的、做的某些事情

What I want you to do when you get home

我們願意讓別人知道

is email me the passwords

還有某些我們說的、想的、做的某些事情

to all of your email accounts,

我們不願意讓別人知道

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

人們可以很輕易地以言語宣稱

but all of them,

他們不在乎他們的隱私

because I want to be able to just troll through

但他們的行為卻在否定 他們所相信的真實性

what it is you're doing online,

這有一個原因為什麼人們如此 普遍地且本能地渴望隱私

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

這不僅僅是個反射性動作

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

像呼吸和喝水那樣

if you're doing nothing wrong,

原因是當在我們在一種狀態裡

you should have nothing to hide."

我們可能被監視著，被看著的時候

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

我們的行為會有巨大的改變

I check and — (Applause)

我們所考量的不同行為的範圍

I check that email account religiously all the time.

在我們被觀察者的時候

It's a very desolate place.

會大幅縮小

And there's a reason for that,

這就是人類的本性的事實

which is that we as human beings,

已被社會科學、

even those of us who in words

文學、宗教

disclaim the importance of our own privacy,

以及幾乎所有學科領域所公認

instinctively understand

許多心理學研究證明

the profound importance of it.

當一個人知道他可能在被看著

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

他的行為會尤其地順從

which means we have a need for other people

人的羞恥心是一個強大的動力

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

以避免受辱

which is why we voluntarily publish information about ourselves online.

這就是為什麼

But equally essential to what it means

人們在被看著的情況下所做的決定

to be a free and fulfilled human being

並非他們自己機體的副產品

is to have a place that we can go

而是別人對他們的期望或者是 社會正統所要求的

and be free of the judgmental eyes of other people.

對於這件現象的認識

There's a reason why we seek that out,

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

and our reason is that all of us —

以解決了工業時期出現的一個 很重要的問題

not just terrorists and criminals, all of us —

就是當組織體系初次大幅擴張和 權力的集中以致於

have things to hide.

人們無法進行監視

There are all sorts of things that we do and think

和控制到他們組織的每一個份子

that we're willing to tell our physician

邊沁的解決方案是

or our lawyer or our psychologist or our spouse

一個建築學設計

or our best friend that we would be mortified

本來的目的是用於監獄

for the rest of the world to learn.

他稱之為全景監獄

We make judgments every single day

其主要特徵是將一個巨大的塔 建立在組織機構的中間

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

這樣組織的統治者就可以隨時監視 其中的任一個囚犯

that we're willing to have other people know,

雖然他不能一直看著所有的人

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

這個設計的關鍵處在於

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

犯人無法看到塔的内部

People can very easily in words claim

所以他們永遠無法知道

that they don't value their privacy,

自己是否或者什麼時候是在被監視著的

but their actions negate the authenticity of that belief.

這個發現讓邊沁非常興奮

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

因為這意味著囚犯們會假定

universally and instinctively.

他們隨時隨地是被監視著的

It isn't just a reflexive movement

這種假定成為了順從和服從的終極實施者

like breathing air or drinking water.

二十世紀法國哲學家米歇爾 福柯

The reason is that when we're in a state

意識到這個模型不僅可以用於監獄

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

它可以用於任何控制人類行為的機構

our behavior changes dramatically.

學校、醫院、工廠、工作場所

The range of behavioral options that we consider

而且他說這種思維模式 邊沁發明的這種結構

when we think we're being watched

是現代西方社會進行社會控制的主要手段

severely reduce.

讓社會不再需要公然的使用暴政的武器

This is just a fact of human nature

－懲罰，或者投送監獄， 或者處死異議者，

that has been recognized in social science

或者合法地強迫人民對一個政黨的忠誠

and in literature and in religion

因為廣泛的監控

and in virtually every field of discipline.

會在人腦中形成一個監獄

There are dozens of psychological studies

這是一個非常微妙的 且更加有效的

that prove that when somebody knows

使人服從社會規範 或者社會正統的方法

that they might be watched,

這是暴力手段遠不能及的

the behavior they engage in

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》

is vastly more conformist and compliant.

我們在學校都學過，它都快成了 陳詞濫調了

Human shame is a very powerful motivator,

事實上，在關於監視的討論中 不論什麼時候提到本書

as is the desire to avoid it,

人們都立即忽略它

and that's the reason why people,

認為它行不通，他們說：

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

“在《1984》裡人們家裡都是監視器，

not that are the byproduct of their own agency

他們無時無刻不被看著

but that are about the expectations

這和我們所面對的國家監控是 不一樣的。”

that others have of them

這其實是從根本上誤解奧威爾在《1984》裡提出的警告

or the mandates of societal orthodoxy.

他所發出的警告

This realization was exploited most powerfully

其實不是關於國家隨時隨地在監視人們

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

而是人們知道他們可能隨時被監視着

who set out to resolve an important problem

這是溫斯頓 史密斯， 奧威爾小說的敘述者，

ushered in by the industrial age,

所描述的他們面對的監控系統：

where, for the first time, institutions had become

“當然，你無從知道你何時在被監視著。”

so large and centralized

他接著說：

that they were no longer able to monitor

“但是，他們隨時想要是都可以插上 監視你的電線。

and therefore control each one of their individual members,

你必須，也確實地活在一個漸漸變成 本能的習慣裡，

and the solution that he devised

假定你發出的任何聲音都會被聽到，

was an architectural design

和除了在黑暗中，你的所有的動作 被監視着。”

originally intended to be implemented in prisons

亞伯拉罕教派也有類似的斷定

that he called the panopticon,

有一個無形的、無所不知的權威

the primary attribute of which was the construction

因為祂的全知全能

of an enormous tower in the center of the institution

總是在看你在做什麼

where whoever controlled the institution

意思就是你從來沒有一刻是私有的

could at any moment watch any of the inmates,

這就是讓你對祂絕對服從最終執行者

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

這些看似不同的手段

And crucial to this design

最終的共同的結論是

was that the inmates could not actually

一個人們隨時都在被監視的社會

see into the panopticon, into the tower,

是在培養一致、順從、和屈服

and so they never knew

這也是為什麼每一個暴君

if they were being watched or even when.

從公然施暴的到暗中控制的

And what made him so excited about this discovery

都渴望這種制度

was that that would mean that the prisoners

相反的，而且更重要的是

would have to assume that they were being watched

在一個有隱私的空間裡

at any given moment,

我們可以去某處思考

which would be the ultimate enforcer

辯論，互動，和發表言論

for obedience and compliance.

而沒有別人投來的批判的目光

The 20th-century French philosopher Michel Foucault

只有在此創新、探索

realized that that model could be used

和異議可以存在

not just for prisons but for every institution

這就是為什麼 當我們允許一個

that seeks to control human behavior:

我們隨時被監控的社會存在

schools, hospitals, factories, workplaces.

我們就是容許人類自由的本質慘遭蹂躪

And what he said was that this mindset,

最後，我對這種心理的一個觀察是

this framework discovered by Bentham,

這種認為只有做了錯事的人

was the key means of societal control

才想隱藏，才關心隱私的思維模式

for modern, Western societies,

它確立了兩個非常有害的信息

which no longer need

兩個破壞性的教導

the overt weapons of tyranny —

第一個是

punishing or imprisoning or killing dissidents,

只有那些關心隱私的人

or legally compelling loyalty to a particular party —

只有那些想得到隱私的人

because mass surveillance creates

被自然的被定義為壞人

a prison in the mind

這是一個我們應該用各種理由避免的結論

that is a much more subtle

其中最重要的是

though much more effective means

當你說“那個人在做壞事”時

of fostering compliance with social norms

你可能是指謀劃恐怖襲擊

or with social orthodoxy,

或參與暴力犯罪之類的事

much more effective

這個概念比行使權力的人所指的“做壞事” 要狹窄的多

than brute force could ever be.

對他們來說，“做壞事”基本上意思是

The most iconic work of literature about surveillance

做對自己行使權利造成一定挑戰的事

and privacy is the George Orwell novel "1984,"

另一個真正有破壞性的 而且我認為更加陰險的教導

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

來自於接受這種思維模式

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

這其中暗含一個交易

people instantaneously dismiss it

接受這種思維模式的人同時 也接受了這個交易

as inapplicable, and what they say is,

這個交易就是：

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