Love letters, phone sex, racy Polaroids.

人們利用各種媒介討論性由來已久。

There's even a story of a girl who eloped with a man that she met over the telegraph

情書、性愛電話以及辛辣的照片。

in 1886.

甚至有個女生與透過電報認識的 男生一同私奔，

Today we have sexting, and I am a sexting expert.

早在 1886 年就有了。

Not an expert sexter.

現今，我們有性愛調情簡訊， 而我是個研究性愛簡訊的專家。

Though, I do know what this means -- I think you do too.

不是喜歡傳情色簡訊的專家哦。

[it's a penis]

雖然我知道這玩意兒代表什麼意思， 我想你們也知道。

(Laughter)

（它代表著男性的陰莖）

I have been studying sexting since the media attention to it began in 2008.

（笑聲）

I wrote a book on the moral panic about sexting.

2008 年自從媒體開始注意到 性愛簡訊時，我就已經在研究它了。

And here's what I found:

我寫了本有關 性愛簡訊之道德恐慌的書。

most people are worrying about the wrong thing.

我發現

They're trying to just prevent sexting from happening entirely.

大多數人都擔錯心了。

But let me ask you this:

他們嘗試全面禁止性愛簡訊。

As long as it's completely consensual, what's the problem with sexting?

但是我問各位：

People are into all sorts of things that you may not be into,

只要他們是兩廂情願的， 性愛簡訊有什麼問題嗎?

like blue cheese or cilantro.

人家喜歡的，你可能不喜歡，

(Laughter)

譬如說藍起司或香菜。

Sexting is certainly risky, like anything that's fun,

（笑聲）

but as long as you're not sending an image to someone who doesn't want to receive it,

性愛簡訊確實具有風險， 就像其它好玩有趣的事物一樣。

there's no harm.

但是只要你不是將圖片寄到 不想收到的人手中，

What I do think is a serious problem

那根本無傷大雅啊。

is when people share private images of others

我真正在意的是另一個嚴重的問題，

without their permission.

就是人們在未經對方同意的情況下，

And instead of worrying about sexting,

將私人照片分享出去。

what I think we need to do is think a lot more about digital privacy.

與其擔心性愛簡訊，

The key is consent.

我們更應該關心數位隱私的議題。

Right now most people are thinking about sexting

關鍵點是得到對方的同意。

without really thinking about consent at all.

現在大多數的人只想到性愛簡訊，

Did you know that we currently criminalize teen sexting?

卻沒有想到對方同意與否的問題。

It can be a crime because it counts as child pornography,

你們知道目前青少年傳調情簡訊， 是違法的嗎?

if there's an image of someone under 18,

這可能會犯罪，因為如果訊息中 有未滿 18 歲青少年的圖片，

and it doesn't even matter

它會被視為兒童色情文物。

if they took that image of themselves and shared it willingly.

就算是當事人他們自拍後上傳，

So we end up with this bizarre legal situation

自願分享給別人看，也是一樣違法。

where two 17-year-olds can legally have sex in most US states

所以，我們現在卡在這個 詭異的法律情況中，

but they can't photograph it.

兩位年滿 17 歲的人發生性行為， 在美國大部分的州都視為合法，

Some states have also tried passing sexting misdemeanor laws

但是他們不能拍性愛照。

but these laws repeat the same problem

一些州亦試圖通過 性愛簡訊的輕罪法律，

because they still make consensual sexting illegal.

但是這些法規卻重複著相同的問題，

It doesn't make sense

因為它們仍將兩廂情願的 調情簡訊視為違法的。

to try to ban all sexting to try to address privacy violations.

試著要禁止所有的情色簡訊 與嘗試解決所謂隱私權的侵犯，

This is kind of like saying,

是沒有意義的。

let's solve the problem of date rape by just making dating completely illegal.

這就好像在說，

Most teens don't get arrested for sexting, but can you guess who does?

為了解決約會性侵害的問題，

It's often teens who are disliked by their partner's parents.

我們卻把全部的約會視為違法一樣。

And this can be because of class bias, racism or homophobia.

大多數青少年不因傳調情簡訊被捕， 但你們猜，誰會呢?

Most prosecutors are, of course, smart enough

通常是被對方父母討厭的青少年。

not to use child pornography charges against teenagers, but some do.

被討厭的原因有可能是階級偏見、 種族歧視或是對同性戀的憎惡。

According to researchers at the University of New Hampshire

當然，大部分的檢察官很聰明，

seven percent of all child pornography possession arrests are teens,

他們不會以違反兒童色情文物的罪名 來起訴青少年，但有些還是會。

sexting consensually with other teens.

根據新罕布夏大學的研究人員指出，

Child pornography is a serious crime,

因持有兒童色情文物而被定罪的 有 7% 是青少年，

but it's just not the same thing as teen sexting.

且是經雙方彼此同意下所傳的調情內容。

Parents and educators are also responding to sexting

持有兒童色情文物是一個嚴重的罪行，

without really thinking too much about consent.

但它和青少年互傳調情簡訊的情況 是迥然不同的。

Their message to teens is often: just don't do it.

父母與教育工作者 對調情簡訊的回應也是一樣，

And I totally get it -- there are serious legal risks

他們並沒有認真思考過 兩廂情願的情況。

and of course, that potential for privacy violations.

他們對青少年所傳達的訊息通常是： 不要傳就對了。

And when you were a teen,

而我完全能理解， 因為有很嚴重的法律風險，

I'm sure you did exactly as you were told, right?

當然，還有潛在侵害隱私權的問題。

You're probably thinking, my kid would never sext.

當你還是個青少年時，

And that's true, your little angel may not be sexting

我相信你一定照大人說的去做， 對吧?

because only 33 percent

你可能認為我的孩子 絕對不會傳情色簡訊。

of 16- and 17-year-olds are sexting.

對，是真的。你的小天使 也許不會傳情色簡訊，

But, sorry, by the time they're older, odds are they will be sexting.

因為只有 33% 的

Every study I've seen puts the rate above 50 percent for 18- to 24-year-olds.

16-17 歲的青少年在傳。

And most of the time, nothing goes wrong.

但不好意思，等到他們再長大一些， 他們會傳情色簡訊的機率會變高。

People ask me all the time things like, isn't sexting just so dangerous, though?

我看過的每個研究數據皆顯示， 18-24 歲會傳的比例，超過一半

It's like you wouldn't leave your wallet on a park bench

而大多數時間，沒出什麼差錯。

and you expect it's going to get stolen if you do that, right?

人們常問我這樣的問題， 傳性愛簡訊不是很危險嗎?

Here's how I think about it:

就像你不會將你的皮包留在 公園的長凳上，

sexting is like leaving your wallet at your boyfriend's house.

如果你這樣做的話， 皮包會被偷走，對吧?

If you come back the next day

我是這麼想的：

and all the money is just gone,

性愛簡訊就像妳把皮包 留在男友家中，

you really need to dump that guy.

如果隔天你回去男友家

(Laughter)

發現皮包裡的錢都不見了，

So instead of criminalizing sexting

你真的要把那個男生給甩了。

to try to prevent these privacy violations,

（笑聲）

instead we need to make consent central

所以，與其加諸罪名在性愛簡訊上

to how we think about the circulation of our private information.

以此來防範隱私受到侵害，

Every new media technology raises privacy concerns.

反而應該著重在彼此同意

In fact, in the US the very first major debates about privacy

我們的私訊如何流通。

were in response to technologies that were relatively new at the time.

每一個新媒體科技的出現， 都會引發我們對隱私權的關注。

In the late 1800s, people were worried about cameras,

實際上，美國史上首次有關 隱私權的辯論，

which were just suddenly more portable than ever before,

就是為了因應當時相當嶄新的科技。

and newspaper gossip columns.

在十九世紀末，人們擔心相機，

They were worried that the camera would capture information about them,

因為突然間它變得更方便、輕巧；

take it out of context and widely disseminate it.

還擔心報紙的八卦專欄。

Does this sound familiar?

他們擔心相機拍到他們的相關動態，

It's exactly what we're worrying about now with social media and drone cameras,

看圖說故事斷章取義地 將圖片廣為散播。

and, of course, sexting.

這聽起來很耳熟嗎?

And these fears about technology,

這正是我們現在所擔心的 社群媒體與無人機相機；

they make sense

當然，還有情色簡訊。

because technologies can amplify and bring out

這些對科技的恐懼，

our worst qualities and behaviors.

不無道理，

But there are solutions.

因為科技能夠放大並將我們人類

And we've been here before with a dangerous new technology.

最糟糕的特質與行為展露出來。

In 1908, Ford introduced the Model T car.

但還是有解決之道。

Traffic fatality rates were rising.

我們以前也曾經歷過所謂 危險的新科技。

It was a serious problem -- it looks so safe, right?

1980 年，福特推出了福特 T 型車。

Our first response was to try to change drivers' behavior,

交通事故的死亡率節節攀升。

so we developed speed limits and enforced them through fines.

這是個嚴重的問題。 它看起來很安全，對吧?

But over the following decades,

我們第一個反應是 嘗試改變駕駛人的駕駛行為，

we started to realize the technology of the car itself is not just neutral.

所以我們有了速限並 藉由罰鍰來強制執行。

We could design the car to make it safer.

但，經過幾十年後，

So in the 1920s, we got shatter-resistant windshields.

我們開始了解到汽車科技本身 並非停滯不前的，

In the 1950s, seat belts.

我們可以把車子設計得更安全。

And in the 1990s, airbags.

所以，在 1920 年代， 我們有了抗碎的擋風玻璃。

All three of these areas:

1950 年代，安全帶問世。

laws, individuals and industry came together over time

以及 1990 年代的安全氣囊。

to help solve the problem that a new technology causes.

這三個領域：

And we can do the same thing with digital privacy.

法律、個人和產業界，會聚在一起

Of course, it comes back to consent.

共同尋求解決新科技所帶來的問題。

Here's the idea.

我們對數位隱私權也可以如法炮製。

Before anyone can distribute your private information,

當然，這又回到 取得對方同意的議題上了。

they should have to get your permission.

我是這麼想的。

This idea of affirmative consent comes from anti-rape activists

在任何人可以將你的私人訊息 傳播出去之前，

who tell us that we need consent for every sexual act.

他們必須先取得你的同意。

And we have really high standards for consent in a lot of other areas.

確認同意的概念， 是從反性侵害活動中得到的，

Think about having surgery.

它告訴我們每次的性行為都需要 經過彼此的同意。

Your doctor has to make sure

在其他的領域上，我們對同意權的 行使有著極高的標準。

that you are meaningfully and knowingly consenting to that medical procedure.

想想當我們要進行手術。

This is not the type of consent like with an iTunes Terms of Service

你的醫師必須確認

where you just scroll to the bottom and you're like, agree, agree, whatever.

你知情、瞭解並同意醫療程序。

(Laughter)

這跟只需要把螢幕滑到最底下， 然後點選喜歡、同意、全都同意的

If we think more about consent, we can have better privacy laws.

iTunes 服務條款同意書 是不同的。

Right now, we just don't have that many protections.

（笑聲）

If your ex-husband or your ex-wife is a terrible person,

假如我們對同意這個議題多些關注， 我們就能有比較好的隱私權法律。

they can take your nude photos and upload them to a porn site.

目前，我們並沒有那麼多的 隱私權保護政策。

It can be really hard to get those images taken down.

假如你的前夫或前妻是個可怕的人，

And in a lot of states,

他們可以將你的裸照上傳到 色情網站上面。

you're actually better off if you took the images of yourself

要將那些裸照下架非常困難。

because then you can file a copyright claim.

在很多的州，

(Laughter)

如果那些照片是你自己拍攝的， 會比較好處理，

Right now, if someone violates your privacy,

因為你可以提出版權的聲明。

whether that's an individual or a company or the NSA,

（笑聲）

you can try filing a lawsuit,

現在，如果有人侵犯你的隱私權，

though you may not be successful

不論侵權者是個人或公司 或美國國家安全局，

because many courts assume that digital privacy is just impossible.

你都可以試著提起訴訟；

So they're not willing to punish anyone for violating it.

雖然你未必會成功，

I still hear people asking me all the time,

因為多數法庭認為數位隱私權 是無法掌控管理的。

isn't a digital image somehow blurring the line between public and private

所以，他們不想要懲罰違反的人。

because it's digital, right?

我仍然一直聽到有人問我，

No! No!

數位影像模糊了公眾與隱私的界限，

Everything digital is not just automatically public.

因為它是數位的，對嗎?

That doesn't make any sense.

不 ! 不是這樣的 !

As NYU legal scholar Helen Nissenbaum tells us,

數位化的東西，並不是 自然而然就變成公有的。

we have laws and policies and norms

那太沒有道理了。

that protect all kinds of information that's private,

紐約大學法律學者 海倫·尼森鮑姆告訴我們，

and it doesn't make a difference if it's digital or not.

我們有法律、政策和社會規範

All of your health records are digitized

能夠保護所有種類的隱私資訊，

but your doctor can't just share them with anyone.

跟數位化與否並無關係。

All of your financial information is held in digital databases,

所有的醫療紀錄都是數位化的，

but your credit card company can't just post your purchase history online.

但是你的醫師不能將其 任意分享給別人。

Better laws could help address privacy violations after they happen,

所有的財務資訊 也都存在數位資料庫裡，

but one of the easiest things we can all do is make personal changes

但你的信用卡公司不能將你的 購物明細放在網站上供人閱覽。

to help protect each other's privacy.

更好的法律能在事後 幫助解決隱私權的侵害問題，

We're always told that privacy

但保護彼此隱私權最簡單的方法，

is our own, sole, individual responsibility.

就是改變個人的使用習慣。

We're told, constantly monitor and update your privacy settings.

我們總是被告知隱私

We're told, never share anything you wouldn't want the entire world to see.

是我們自身、獨有、個人的責任。

This doesn't make sense.

我們被告知要經常性地偵測、 更新隱私設定。

Digital media are social environments

我們被告知絕對不要將你不想 被全世界看到的東西分享出去。

and we share things with people we trust all day, every day.

這沒有道理。

As Princeton researcher Janet Vertesi argues,

數位媒體是個社群環境，

our data and our privacy, they're not just personal,

我們每天與所信任的人 分享喜怒哀樂。

they're actually interpersonal.

普林斯頓研究員 珍妮· 瓦爾特絲認為，

And so one thing you can do that's really easy

我們的資訊與隱私， 它們不僅僅只是私人的，

is just start asking for permission before you share anyone else's information.

它們實際上還是一種人際關係。

If you want to post a photo of someone online, ask for permission.

所以，我們能做的事非常簡單，

If you want to forward an email thread,

就是當你要分享別人的資訊時， 先徵得當事人的同意。

ask for permission.

假如你要在網站上貼別人的照片， 先徵得當事人的同意。

And if you want to share someone's nude selfie,

如果你想要轉寄電子郵件，

obviously, ask for permission.

先徵得當事人的同意。

These individual changes can really help us protect each other's privacy,

如果你要分享某人的自拍裸照，

but we need technology companies on board as well.

顯然地，請先徵得自拍者的同意。

These companies have very little incentive to help protect our privacy

這些經由個人使用習慣的改變， 才能真正幫助我們保護彼此的隱私，

because their business models depend on us sharing everything

但我們仍需要科技公司的協助。

with as many people as possible.

這些公司幾乎沒有動機 要協助我們保護我們的隱私，

Right now, if I send you an image,

因為它們的商業模式有賴於 大家盡可能地

you can forward that to anyone that you want.

分享所有的東西給更多的人。

But what if I got to decide if that image was forwardable or not?

現在，我寄給你一張照片，

This would tell you, you don't have my permission to send this image out.

你可以轉寄給任何人。

We do this kind of thing all the time to protect copyright.

但，假如我能夠決定 這張照片可不可以被轉寄呢?

If you buy an e-book, you can't just send it out to as many people as you want.

這會告訴你， 我沒允許你寄照片出去。

So why not try this with mobile phones?

我們總是做這個動作來保護版權。

What you can do is we can demand that tech companies add these protections

假如你買了一本電子書， 你不能隨便就寄給別人。

to our devices and our platforms as the default.

為何我們不在手機上試試這個呢?

After all, you can choose the color of your car,

你我能要求科技公司把保護警語

but the airbags are always standard.

設成我們裝置與平台的預設值。

If we don't think more about digital privacy and consent,

畢竟，你可以選擇自己車子的顏色，

there can be serious consequences.

但是，安全氣囊一定是標準配備。

There was a teenager from Ohio --

如果我們不對數位隱私與同意權 多加考慮思索，

let's call her Jennifer, for the sake of her privacy.

可能會造成嚴重的後果。

She shared nude photos of herself with her high school boyfriend,

有一個來自俄亥俄州的少女，

thinking she could trust him.

為了保護她的隱私， 姑且稱她為珍妮佛。

Unfortunately, he betrayed her

她將自己的裸照分享給 她的高中男友，

and sent her photos around the entire school.

她以為他值得信任。

Jennifer was embarrassed and humiliated,

不幸的是，他背叛了她

but instead of being compassionate, her classmates harassed her.

將她的裸照寄給全校的同學。

They called her a slut and a whore

珍妮佛覺得受辱與無地自容，

and they made her life miserable.

她的同學非但沒有同情心， 還不斷騷擾她。

Jennifer started missing school and her grades dropped.

他們罵她是蕩婦和妓女，

Ultimately, Jennifer decided to end her own life.

讓她的人生陷入了愁雲慘霧。

Jennifer did nothing wrong.

珍妮佛開始缺課，成績也一落千丈。

All she did was share a nude photo

最終，珍妮佛選擇結束自己的生命。

with someone she thought that she could trust.

珍妮佛並沒有做錯什麼。

And yet our laws tell her

她只是把自己的裸照分享給

that she committed a horrible crime equivalent to child pornography.

自認可以信得過的人。

Our gender norms tell her

然而，法律告訴她，

that by producing this nude image of herself,

她犯了一個很可怕的罪， 相當於違反兒童色情文物法的罪。

she somehow did the most horrible, shameful thing.

我們的性別規範告訴她，

And when we assume that privacy is impossible in digital media,

她自拍裸照的這個行為，

we completely write off and excuse her boyfriend's bad, bad behavior.

是最可怕且最羞恥的事。

People are still saying all the time to victims of privacy violations,

當我們認為隱私權在 數位媒體的時代是無所遁形的，

"What were you thinking?

我們等於完全無視她男友所犯的過錯 並給與他脫罪的藉口。

You should have never sent that image."

人們還是常對隱私被侵害的人說 :

If you're trying to figure out what to say instead, try this.

「你到底在想什麼?

Imagine you've run into your friend who broke their leg skiing.

你本來就不應該把那照片寄出去。」

They took a risk to do something fun, and it didn't end well.

如果你在想如何反駁的話， 試試這個。

But you're probably not going to be the jerk who says,

想像你遇到了一個 滑雪摔斷腿的朋友，

"Well, I guess you shouldn't have gone skiing then."

他們當時冒險做了一些有趣的動作， 結果不小心摔傷了。

If we think more about consent,

你應該不會白目到去告訴他：

we can see that victims of privacy violations