The world's most valuable company said this week that it will fight against a court order,

這家市值最高的公司聲明，絕對不會遵從法庭頒令，

telling it to unblock the iPhone of one of the shooters in the San Bernardino massacre.

協助FBI解鎖聖貝納迪諾槍擊案嫌犯的 iPhone。

Joining me to discuss this is James Blitz, one of the FT's leader writers.

和我討論此議題的是金融時報的主筆之一 James Blitz。

James, let's set this up exactly what's going on here,

James， 讓我們談談

what is the big case and why is the government so agitated towards Apple around it.

到底這件訴訟案是怎麼一回事，蘋果又為什麼會讓美國政府傷透腦筋。

Very roughly ever since Edward Snowden made his revelations about mass surveillance by U.S. and U.K intelligence services

大約從史諾登揭露英美情報局監聽案開始，

there's been a huge amount of tension between U.S. tech companies and Western intelligence agencies.

美國科技公司和情報局之間的緊張情勢便開始升高．

The tech companies say, we need to do everything possible to protect the information of our customers.

科技公司表示會盡一切努力保護用戶的隱私，

The intelligence services are saying, we're facing a massive terrorist threat from ISIS,

情報局則表示，國家正籠罩在ISIS巨大的威脅之中，

we need to have some penetration of those services even when they are encrypted.

因此即使是用戶加密的資料也要想辦法取得。

What's happened here is that Apple has basically said defiantly that it is not going to help the FBI

現在的情況是，蘋果已明確表示絕對不會協助FBI

on what is a very big test case regarding the San Bernardino killings.

調查這起嚴重的聖貝納迪諾槍擊案。

Now this is the thin end of the wedge though,

這就是事情的爭端，

I mean, this is the government's case is that this is very specific about one particular phone of one of the attackers.

因為政府認為他們只是針對其中一名攻擊者的手機解鎖

The tech industry thus says, probably legitimately, that actually this has much broader implications for how privacy's protected you mentioned Edward Snowden.

但科技公司認為此事可能會牽連到隱私權的保護方式，就像你剛剛說的史諾登事件，

Consumers themselves are saying we want to have much more privacy in our devices

用戶本身也希望使用手機時能保有隱私，

and at the same time the implications... much further than just this one company and this one device.

而且這涉及到的不單單只是一家公司，或一支手機而已。

Well I think ever since the Snowden revelations happened,

我認為自從史諾登揭發監聽案後，

the U.S. tech companies, all tech companies, are entitled to look very carefully at any request from intelligence services for this kind of information.

美國所有的科技公司都有權對任何來自情報局的要求保持謹慎的態度。

That's absolutely right, they've got to be careful.

沒錯，他們必須謹慎行事。

But in this particular case, the question is, is this justified?

但針對此案例，我們的疑慮是，這樣合理嗎？

What you're talking about here is a killing by U.S. citizens on U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.

你指的是在發生在美國本土，發生在美國公民之間的謀殺案，

This is not some fishing expedition by the FBI, they're actually looking at a specific case.

這不是什麼FBI的非法調查，而是特指單一案件。

And what they want to do is, get hold of the data, which was on the phone on one of the perpetrators in that killing

而他們想做的，就是取得在其中一名攻擊者手機上的資訊，

that looks pretty cupboard bottom to me.

這聽起來非常合理。

Now the question then is: If they accede to this request, is something substantially done to make the iPhone vulnerable,

現在的問題是：如果他們同意這項要求，是不是讓iPhone的安全出了很大的漏洞？

that's where the debate is.

這就是事件的爭論點。

And of course that is the case, isn't it?

而且事情必然會那樣發展，對吧？

Because right now the argument that Apple put forward is that no one can crack into an iPhone

因為現在蘋果強調的就是沒有任何人可以侵入iPhone，

and that's one of its, both key selling points, but one of the things that appeals to consumers and citizens around privacy.

而且這也是蘋果一大賣點，吸引了許多注重隱私權的大眾。

If they create this software to do what the FBI is asking it to do,

如果他們聽從FBI的指示設計可以解密的軟體，

it makes it inherently a much more breakable a device than it ever has been.

iPhone會比以往，多了很多安全漏洞，

It is the argument that Apple makes, but it's an argument that I would reject, basically.

這是蘋果的論點，但基本上我不太能接受。

I think yes, what the FBI is asking for is the creation of something that could potentially be a master key.

我認為，沒錯，FBI想要的是類似萬能鑰匙的工具，

But it's not as though Apple is going to be handing something over, as far as I can see, to the FBI

但這並不表示蘋果得授與FBI

that they can then use willy-nilly, whenever they want, in any situation they want.

任意使用資訊的權利。

They are getting this, they would be getting this under a specific judicial order.

FBI只有在特殊法令允許的情況下才能取得那些資訊。

Say they wanted to look at another phone in another situation, they would again have to get another judicial order,

也就是說，他們下次要侵入一台新裝置時，他們還要再申請一次特殊法令才行。

so I'm not convinced that there are some kind of blanket permission that's being given on surveillance here by the FBI is asking for from Apple.

所以我不覺得FBI有要向蘋果取得全面監控的意圖，

But of course it's not just the FBI, isn't it

但當然不只跟FBI有關，是吧？

There are repressive regimes to exterior ones like China, the Middle East, Russia,

一些專制的政權例如中國、中東、俄羅斯等

where the scruples are less gone through and the systems are less robust, maybe than in the U.S.

他們對於隱私權的保護，相對於美國，可能比較沒有那麼多顧忌，系統也較不健全，

And the implication, or the argument of the tech companies is that,

而科技公司認為

look, if we do it here, that's going to give all of us and the government the same right to access request,

一旦開啟了先例，其他地方就會跟進，要求一樣的資訊存取權

and that's going to pose big challenges for companies like Apple or Google in China.

而這勢必會對蘋果或谷歌在中國的分公司造成危機，

Again, that's something that has to be considered,

我們必須想到這點，

and one understands what Apple's commercial concerns are,

而且我們也知道蘋果財務上的憂慮

because in the end this is about a commercial concern.

因為到頭來這一切都跟金錢有關。

People want to be sure if they've got the iPhone, they're working in China, that this isn't going to happen.

在中國工作的人們如果有iPhone，他們就會希望能保有隱私權。

But this is a very specific case where the request that's being made in this case is quite justified

但在這個特殊情況下，這種要求是合理的。

and one could, for example, imagine a case, say in China,

我們可以想像一種情況，假設今天在中國

which the Chinese authorities wanted assistance with a specific act of murder that had taken place

發生了一場謀殺案，而中國官方希望可以得到協助，

and one could imagine that, of course,

而想當然爾，

if there's a case in which the Chinese are asking Apple for some kind of master key in order to look at dissidence

如果中國政府向蘋果要求類似萬能鑰匙來侵入異議份子的手機，

or whatever then clearly Apple should resist.

蘋果理當拒絕他們。

I didn't see though, that those issues have necessarily changed as a result of this particular case.

但我不認為，這些問題真的有因為這次事件的關係而改變。

But just to be clear, it's not just a consumer and a capitalist issue,

但要澄清一點，這不只是消費者和資本家的問題。

it's not just about selling more products,

也不只是賣更多商品的問題，

also a moral and ethical argument, isn't it?

這其實也關係到道德倫理之爭，是吧？

Because frankly, unless if the tech companies accede to this in the U.S.,

因為老實講，科技公司一旦在美國同意此要求，

then that opens up a can of worms that is impossible to kind of put back in.

結果將會覆水難收，

What it boils down to in the end, is whether you believe as I believe,

到頭來，無論你接不接受，

that there is no such thing as a right to absolute privacy.

是根本就沒有所謂的絕對隱私權。

In the end, there must always be circumstances in which security services in a state are in very specific circumstances

一定會有某些特定的情況，讓國安局必須採取特定的措施

able to access information in order to protect the wider public and protect national security.

取得資訊，以保護公眾與國家的安全。

I do think that that is a principle that can be justified.

我認為蘋果的論點是合理的，

In my view, Apple and other tech companies need to accept that principle.

在我看來，蘋果和其他科技公司必須接受這項要求，

That doesn't mean that they've got to give ground on everything,

這並不代表他們必須讓出所有一切，

they of course they've got to scrutinize everything on a case-by-case basis.

在特定案件才能取得資訊的基礎上，他們有審查一切的權利。

But I think our argument has always been that they should do everything possible to help the authorities

不過我們的論點一直是認為科技公司應該在特別需要援助的情況下，

in cases where there really is a strong argument for some kind of assistance being given.

盡己所能協助政府官方，

Thanks James very much for sharing with us.

感謝 James 的分享。