MyOOPS開放式課程
請加入會員以使用更多個人化功能
來自全球頂尖大學的開放式課程,現在由世界各國的數千名義工志工為您翻譯成中文。請免費享用!
課程來源:TED
     

 

Rebecca MacKinnon 談讓我們收回網路使用自主權!

Rebecca MacKinnon: Let's take back the Internet!

 

Photo of three lions hunting on the Serengeti.

講者:Rebecca MacKinnon

2011年7月演講,2011年7月在TEDGlobal 2011上線

 

翻譯:TED

編輯:朱學恆、洪曉慧

簡繁轉換:洪曉慧

後製:洪曉慧

字幕影片後制:謝旻均

 

影片請按此下載

MAC及手持裝置版本請按此下載

閱讀中文字幕純文字版本

 

關於這場演講

在TEDGlobal這個充滿撼動力的演講中,Rebecca MacKinnon描述存在於電子網路空間,日益擴大的自由與控制的鬥爭,她問道:我們如何能以負責和自由,而非控制為核心,設計出下個階段的網際網路?她相信當全球人民要求政府保障言論自由和他們使用網路的權利時,就是引領網際網路邁向一個創制網路「大憲章」的關鍵時刻。

 

關於Rebecca MacKinnon

Rebecca MacKinnon關心存在於我們越來越依賴的數位網路、平台和服務中,隱私權、言論自由和管治(或缺乏管治)的問題。

 

為什麼要聽她演講

當我們逐漸將社交生活重心移到網路上時,我們應該(以及我們該如何)規範這些網路?我們會因為對人類與網路基本連結的信任而付出人權受到傷害的代價嗎?身為新美國基金會資深會員,Rebecca MacKinnon在她即將出版的新書《網路使用者共識》中探討這些大問題,這是一本「論述網際網路時代未來自由權」的著作。

 

Rebecca MacKinnon是CNN(美國有線電視新聞網)北京和東京分社前負責人,也是中國網路審查方面的專家。她(與Ethan Zuckerman)是全球之聲部落格網站共同創始人,這是一個聚集並翻譯世界各地新聞的網站,在她的Twitter@RMack上也可見到相關消息。

 

她說:「埃及革命清楚地顯示數位科技在全球政治上發揮了巨大作用。但我們應該瞭解這個作用的影響是無法預測的。」

 

「單單聽她說話就像閱讀一本好書,富有教育意義且蘊含著真理。」

-Richard Lewis於RConversation評論

 

Rebecca MacKinnon的英語網上資料

Home: rconversation.blogs.com

Twitter: @rmack

 

[TED科技‧娛樂‧設計]

已有中譯字幕的TED影片目錄(繁體)(簡體)。請注意繁簡目錄是不一樣的。

 

Rebecca MacKinnon 談讓我們收回網路使用自主權!

我以一個廣告作為開場,其創作靈感來自George Orwell,是蘋果電腦在1984年推出的廣告。

 

(影片)老大哥:我們是一個族群,意志一致,決心一致,有著共同的理想,我們的敵人必定會自取滅亡,我們將趁其自亂陣腳時攻克他們,我們必定會戰勝。

 

旁白:1月24日,蘋果電腦將推出麥金塔,你將明白,為何1984年會不同於《1984》。

 

Rebecca Mackinnon:這部短片所傳達的潛在訊息在今天仍非常具有影響力。各家創新企業所創造的科技將會解放我們所有人。時間快進到20多年後,蘋果公司在中國推出iPhone時,達賴喇嘛以及其他一些政治敏感的應用程式,都在中國政府的要求下,遭到蘋果公司在中國的軟體商店審查刪除。美國政治漫畫家Mark Fiore,他的諷刺作品應用程式也在美國審查遭拒,因為一些蘋果公司的審查人員認為其諷刺作品會冒犯某些團體;直到他贏得了普立茲獎,他的應用程式才准獲用。德國新聞雜誌《Stern》的應用程式遭受審查,因為蘋果公司審查人員認為刊物內容對其用戶來說有點太過辛辣煽情,儘管事實上這個雜誌絕對合法,可正當銷售,在全德國各個報攤都可見。最近備受爭議的是蘋果公司審查巴勒斯坦的抗議軟體,因為以色列政府表示擔憂,此類軟體可能被用於組織暴力攻擊。

 

事情是這樣的;現今的情況是,私營企業施行的審查制度標準通常相當獨斷專制,一般比民主國家憲法上規定的言論自由標準更嚴苛。也就是說,他們回應的是未能反映人民意願之權威體制的審查要求;換言之,他們回應的是對此沒有司法管轄權之政府的要求和關切,而忽略了許多或大部分與此程式內容息息相關的使用者和瀏覽者。

 

這就是現今的情況。在網際網路出現之前的世界,國家主權支配著我們的物質自由,或者說是缺乏物質自由,幾乎完全受制於國家;但現在,我們的網際網路空間存在一個新階層:私營統治主權。而他們所作的決定,如軟體編碼、工程、設計、服務條款,都成為某種法律,在我們數位生活中,規範我們什麼可以做、什麼不能做。他們的統治主權縱橫全球、環環相扣,就某些方面來說,能以一些非常刺激的方式挑戰國家主權。但他們有時也採取行動,凸顯並擴展其統治主權。每當他們控制人們能用這些資訊做什麼或不能做什麼時,比我們在現實世界中權力的運作造成更多影響。畢竟,甚至是自由世界的領導者,都需要一些來自Facebook蘇丹王的幫助(指Facebook創辦人Mark Zuckerberg),如果他明年還想連任的話。

 

這些平臺在今年春天及之後期間,對突尼西亞和埃及的改革活動者確實大有幫助。Wael Ghonim白天是Google駐埃及行政主管,夜晚則潛行於Facebook鼓吹抗議行動。他在穆巴拉克下臺後受CNN採訪時說了一句名言,「如果你要解放一個社會,給他們網際網路就行了。」但推翻一個政府是一回事,建立一個穩定的民主政體就更複雜了。左邊這張照片是埃及參與改革者拍下的,他於今年三月份參與埃及國安辦事處的突擊行動,許多國安情報人員儘可能地把檔案以碎紙機切碎,成堆遺留在現場,但有些檔案還完好留著。一些參與改革者發現他們自己受監視的卷宗,包括所有電子郵件往來的副本、手機簡訊收發內容、甚至是Skype通話。其中一位改革者確實發現一份西方公司銷售監控技術給埃及安全部隊的合約。埃及改革者認為,這些監控系統依然被接管網路通訊的臨時管理組織使用著。

 

五月時,突尼西亞的審查制度又重新開始進行,但審查範圍不像總統Ben Ali執政時那麼廣泛,但你可以看到有些網頁遭封鎖,你無法連結到特定Facebook網頁和一些其他網站,因為臨時管理組織認定網頁內容可能會煽動暴亂。為了抗議網頁遭封鎖,部落客Slim Amamou,他曾在Ben Ali執政時期被監禁,革命後他成了臨時政府的一員,為了抗議網頁被封鎖,他退出內閣,但關於突尼西亞如何處理這類問題,一直存在許多爭議。

 

事實上,Twitter上有很多支持改革的人說,「我們確實希望有民主政體和言論自由,但某些類型的言論有必要被限制,因為它太過暴力,可能會動搖民主。」但問題是,如何決定誰有權做決定,且如何能確保他們不濫權?善用數位媒體鼓動改革的突尼西亞人Riadh Guerfali對該事件的評論是,「以往事情很簡單,一派是好人,另一派是壞人;今天,世事變得更加微妙且複雜。」歡迎來到民主世界,突尼西亞和埃及的朋友們。

 

事實是,即使處於今日的民主社會,我們依然沒有合適的答案來回應,在數位網路世界中如何平衡:一方面安全和法律執行的需要,以及另一方面保障公民自由和言論自由的需要。事實上,在美國,無論你對Julian Assange(維基解密創辦人)做何感想,即使不是他的擁護者,也非常關切美國政府和企業如何對待維基解密。亞馬遜網站將維基解密逐出其雲端平臺,因為收到美國參議員Joe Lieberman的抗議,儘管事實上維基解密並沒有被起訴,更別提被宣判任何罪名。

 

我們認為網路是跨越疆界的科技,這是一個全球社交網路的地圖,毫無疑問Facebook已佔領這個世界版圖上的多數面積,這是好事也是壞事,全憑你怎麼看待Facebook經營網站服務的方式。但疆界確實存在於某些電子網路空間,以巴西和日本來說,疆界存在是因為其獨特的文化和語言的緣故,但如果你瞧瞧中國、越南和一些前蘇聯國家,那裡發生的事更為棘手。有個情形是,政府和當地社群網站公司往來的關係正形成了一種局面,事實上這些社交平臺的自主力是受到牽制的,因為這層存在於企業和政府之間的關係所致。

 

目前在中國有個相當有名的「長城防火牆」,封鎖了Facebook、Twitter、Google+和很多其他國外的網站,其中有些功能是拜西方科技協助所賜。這還不是故事的全貌,故事的下半部是,中國當局強加於所有在中國網路營運企業的要求,是一套所謂的「自律系統」,簡單來說就是施行審查制度,監控網路用戶。這是我在2009年參加的一個典禮,典禮上,中國互聯網協會頒獎給20家最佳中國企業,獎勵他們「實施自我審查」上的傑出貢獻,也就是監控他們網站上內容;中國最大的搜尋引擎「百度」執行長李彥宏也是領獎人之一。

 

在俄羅斯,他們通常不封鎖網際網路或直接偵查網站,但有個叫Rospil的網站,是個反貪污網站,今年稍早時發生了一件麻煩事;那些透過一個叫Yandex Money的付款處理系統捐款給Rospil的人,突然接到國家黨黨員打來的威脅電話,他們經Yandex Money內部人員,用某種方式,藉由用戶資訊安全人員取得Rospil捐助人的詳細資訊,這種寒蟬效應影響人們使用網路監督政府的能力。今天這個世界存在一種狀況,有愈來愈多的國家人民和政府的關係是透過網路傳達的,而且主要是由私人擁有和營運的服務系統操作。

 

因此我認為最重要的問題,不是爭論網路是否能幫助更多好人而不是壞人,當然它有利於任何最善用科技和最熟悉網路的人,無論他們的對手是誰。今天我們必須問的最迫切的問題是,我們如何確保網路的發展是以服務人民為本的方式。我想大家都會同意,政府存在的唯一合法目的就是服務人民,而我認為科技唯一的合法目的是改善人民的生活,而非操控或奴役人民。

 

所以問題是,我們要知道如何追究政府的責任?我們不一定總是能做得非常好,但我們要懂得運用何種政治和制度模式達到目的。你如何讓電子網路空間的統治者對公眾利益負責,當大多數執行長主張他們主要義務是讓股東的利潤最大化?

 

政府法令通常幫不上太多忙。有很多情形,舉例來說,在法國,薩科齊總統對網路公司的執行長說,「我們是唯一合法的公眾利益代表。」但接著他公開擁護聲名狼藉的三振出局法,中斷人民網路連線,禁止檔案分享,這已被聯合國特別調查報告員譴責為:就言論自由而言,不合理的侵犯人民通訊的權利,在公民社團間已激起反對聲浪,質疑是否某些政客更感興趣的是維護娛樂業的利益,而非捍衛人民的權利。而在英國,也有令人關注的法令-數位經濟法案,下放更多的舉證責任給私營仲介,以監管人民的行為。

 

所以我們必須承認的是,在未來,如果我們希望有以服務人民為本的網際網路,我們需要一個更全面且長久持續的網路自由發展,畢竟企業不會理所當然地停止污染地下水或僱用10歲的孩童,僅僅因為某天主管開始醒覺,並決定這是正確且該做的事。這是數十年來持續實踐的結果,維護股東權利和保護消費者權益,政府不會僅僅因為政治官員某天醒覺,就頒布頗具智慧的環境保護和勞動法規,這是日積月累的持續政治積極行動的結果,即制定公正合理的法規,並有效規範企業的行為。我們必須在網際網路世界採用同樣的方法。

 

我們也需要政治革新。大約800年前,英國貴族決定君權神授對他們不再適用,他們逼迫約翰國王簽署大憲章,其內容是承認即使君王宣稱上帝賦予其統治權,仍必須遵守一些基本規則。這個事件引發了一個我們稱之為政治革新的循環,最終導致「人民共識」的概念。首次將此概念付諸行動的是一洋之隔的美國激進革命政府。所以現在我們必須解決的是,如何建立網路使用者共識。

 

那會是什麼情形?目前我們還不知道,但革新是必然的,不只是將焦點放在政治領域、地緣政治領域,也必須處理一些問題,有關商業管理、投資行為、消費者選擇、甚至是軟體設計和工程設計的議題。在構建這樣的世界當中,我們每個人都扮演重要的角色,其中政府組織和科技是為了世界人民而服務,而非其他不合理意圖。

 

非常感謝。

 

(掌聲)

 

以下為系統擷取之英文原文

About this Talk

In this powerful talk from TEDGlobal, Rebecca MacKinnon describes the expanding struggle for freedom and control in cyberspace, and asks: How do we design the next phase of the Internet with accountability and freedom at its core, rather than control? She believes the internet is headed for a "Magna Carta" moment when citizens around the world demand that their governments protect free speech and their right to connection.

About the Speaker

Rebecca MacKinnon looks at issues of privacy, free expression and governance (or lack of) in the digital networks, platforms and services on which we are all increasingly dependent. Full bio and more links

Transcript

So I begin with an advertisement inspired by George Orwell that Apple ran in 1984.

(Video) Big Brother: We are one people with one will, one resolve, one cause. Our enemies shall talk themselves to death, and we will fight them with their own confusion. We shall prevail. Narrator: On January 24th, Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you'll see why 1984 won't be like "1984."

Rebecca MacKinnon: So the underlying message of this video remains very powerful even today. Technology created by innovative companies will set us all free. Fast-forward more than two decades. Apple launches the iPhone in China and censors the Dalai Lama out along with several other politically sensitive applications at the request of the Chinese government for its Chinese app store. The American political cartoonist Mark Fiore also had his satire application censored in the United States because some of Apple's staff were concerned it would be offensive to some groups. His app wasn't reinstated until he won the Pulitzer Prize. The German magazine Stern, a news magazine, had its app censored because the Apple nannies deemed it to be a little bit too racy for their users, and despite the fact that this magazine is perfectly legal for sale on newsstands throughout Germany. And more controversially, recently, Apple censored a Palestinian protest app after the Israeli government voiced concerns that it might be used to organize violent attacks.

So here's the thing, we have a situation where private companies are applying censorship standards that are often quite arbitrary and generally more narrow than the free speech constitutional standards that we have in democracies. Or they're responding to censorship requests by authoritarian regimes that do not reflect consent of the governed. Or they're responding to requests and concerns by governments that have no jurisdiction over many, or most, of the users and viewers who are interacting with the content in question.

So here's the situation. In a pre-Internet world, sovereignty over our physical freedoms, or lack thereof, was controlled almost entirely by nation states. But now we have this new layer of private sovereignty in cyberspace. And their decisions about software coding, engineering, design, terms of service all act as a kind of law that shapes what we can and cannot do with our digital lives. And their sovereignties, cross-cutting, globally interlinked, can in some ways challenge the sovereignties of nation states in very exciting ways, but sometimes also act to project and extend it at a time when control over what people can and cannot do with information has more effect than ever on the exercise of power in our physical world. After all, even the leader of the free world needs a little help from the sultan of Facebookistan if he wants to get reelected next year.

And these platforms were certainly very helpful to activists in Tunisia and Egypt this past spring and beyond. As Wael Ghonim, the Google Egyptian executive by day, secret Facebook activist by night, famously said to CNN after Mubarak stepped down, "If you want to liberate a society, just give them the Internet." But overthrowing a government is one thing and building a stable democracy is a bit more complicated. On the left there's a photo taken by an Egyptian activist who was part of the storming of the Egyptian state security offices in March. And many of the agents shredded as many of the documents as they could and left them behind in piles. But some of the files were left behind intact, and activists, some of them, found their own surveillance dossiers full of transcripts of their email exchanges, their cellphone text message exchanges, even Skype conversations. And one activist actually found a contract from a Western company for the sale of surveillance technology to the Egyptian security forces. And Egyptian activists are assuming that these technologies for surveillance are still being used by the transitional authorities running the networks there.

And in Tunisia, censorship actually began to return in May -- not nearly as extensively as under President Ben Ali. But you'll see here a blocked page of what happens when you try to reach certain Facebook pages and some other websites that the transitional authorities have determined might incite violence. In protest over this, blogger Slim Amamou, who had been jailed under Ben Ali and then became part of the transitional government after the revolution, he resigned in protest from the cabinet. But there's been a lot of debate in Tunisia about how to handle this kind of problem.

In fact, on Twitter, there were a number of people who were supportive of the revolution who said, "Well actually, we do want democracy and free expression, but there is some kinds of speech that need to be off-bounds because it's too violent and it might be destabilizing for our democracy. But the problem is, how do you decide who is in power to make these decisions and how do you make sure that they do not abuse their power? As Riadh Guerfali, the veteran digital activist from Tunisia, remarked over this incident, "Before things were simple: you had the good guys on one side and the bad guys on the other. Today, things are a lot more subtle." Welcome to democracy, our Tunisian and Egyptian friends.

The reality is that even in democratic societies today, we do not have good answers for how you balance the need for security and law enforcement on one hand and protection of civil liberties and free speech on the other in our digital networks. In fact, in the United States, whatever you may think of Julian Assange, even people who are not necessarily big fans of his are very concerned about the way in which the United States government and some companies have handled Wikileaks. Amazon webhosting dropped Wikileaks as a customer after receiving a complaint from U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman, despite the fact that Wikileaks had not been charged, let alone convicted, of any crime.

So we assume that the Internet is a border-busting technology. This is a map of social networks worldwide, and certainly Facebook has conquered much of the world -- which is either a good or a bad thing, depending on how you like the way Facebook manages its service. But borders do persist in some parts of cyberspace. In Brazil and Japan, it's for unique cultural and linguistic reasons. But if you look at China, Vietnam and a number of the former Soviet states, what's happening there is more troubling. You have a situation where the relationship between government and local social networking companies is creating a situation where, effectively, the empowering potential of these platforms is being constrained because of these relationships between companies and government.

Now in China, you have the "great firewall," as it's well-known, that blocks Facebook and Twitter and now Google+ and many of the other overseas websites. And that's done in part with the help from Western technology. But that's only half of the story. The other part of the story are requirements that the Chinese government places on all companies operating on the Chinese internet, known as a system of self-discipline. In plain English, that means censorship and surveillance of their users. And this is a ceremony I actually attended in 2009 where the Internet Society of China presented awards to the top 20 Chinese companies that are best at exercising self-discipline -- i.e. policing their content. And Robin Li, CEO of Baidu, China's dominant search engine, was one of the recipients.

In Russia, they do not generally block the Internet and directly censor websites. But this is a website called Rospil that's an anti-corruption site. And earlier this year, there was a troubling incident where people who had made donations to Rospil through a payments processing system called Yandex Money suddenly received threatening phone calls from members of a nationalist party who had obtained details about donors to Rospil through members of the security services who had somehow obtained this information from people at Yandex Money. This has a chilling effect on people's ability to use the Internet to hold government accountable. So we have a situation in the world today where in more and more countries the relationship between citizens and governments is mediated through the Internet, which is comprised primarily of privately owned and operated services.

So the important question, I think, is not this debate over whether the Internet is going to help the good guys more than the bad guys. Of course, it's going to empower whoever is most skilled at using the technology and best understands the Internet in comparison with whoever their adversary is. The most urgent question we need to be asking today is how do we make sure that the Internet evolves in a citizen-centric manner. Because I think all of you will agree that the only legitimate purpose of government is to serve citizens. And I would argue that the only legitimate purpose of technology is to improve our lives, not to manipulate or enslave us.

So the question is, we know how to hold government accountable. We don't necessarily always do it very well, but we have a sense of what the models are, politically and institutionally, to do that. How do you hold the sovereigns of cyberspace accountable to the public interest when most CEO's argue that their main obligation is to maximize shareholder profit?

And government regulation often isn't helping all that much. You have situations, for instance, in France where president Sarkozy tells the CEO's of Internet companies, "We're the only legitimate representatives of the public interest." But then he goes and champions laws like the infamous three strikes law that would disconnect citizens from the Internet for file sharing, which has been condemned by the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression as being a disproportionate violation of citizens' right to communications, and has raised questions amongst civil society groups about whether some political representatives are more interested in preserving the interests of the entertainment industry than they are in defending the rights of their citizens. And here in the United Kingdom there's also concern over a law called the Digital Economy Act that's placing more onus on private intermediaries to police citizen behavior.

So what we need to recognize is that if we want to have a citizen-centric Internet in the future, we need a broader and more sustained Internet freedom movement. After all, companies didn't stop polluting groundwater as a matter of course, or employing 10 year-olds as a matter of course, just because executives woke up one day and decided it was the right thing to do. It was the result of decades of sustained activism, shareholder advocacy and consumer advocacy. Similarly, governments don't enact intelligent environmental and labor laws just because politicians wake up one day. It's the result of very sustained and prolonged political activism that you get the right regulations, and that you get the right corporate behavior. We need to make the same approach with the Internet.

We also are going to need political innovation. 800 years ago, approximately, the barons of England decided that the divine right of kings was no longer working for them so well, and they forced King John to sign the Magna Carta, which recognized that even the king who claimed to have divine rule still had to abide by a basic set of rules. This set off a cycle of what we can call political innovation, which led eventually to the idea of consent of the governed -- which was implemented for the first time by that radical revolutionary government in America across the pond. So now we need to figure out how to build consent of the networked.

And what does that look like? At the moment, we still don't know. But it's going to require innovation that's not only going to need to focus on politics, on geopolitics, but it's also going to need to deal with questions of business management, investor behavior, consumer choice and even software design and engineering. Each and every one of us has a vital part to play in building the kind of world in which government and technology serve the world's people and not the other way around.

Thank you very much.

(Applause)
 


留下您對本課程的評論
標題:
您目前為非會員,留言名稱將顯示「匿名非會員」
只能進行20字留言

留言內容:

驗證碼請輸入9 + 8 =

標籤

現有標籤:1
新增標籤:


有關本課程的討論

目前暫無評論,快來留言吧!

Creative Commons授權條款 本站一切著作係採用 Creative Commons 授權條款授權。
協助推廣單位: