当前位置:首页 > 企业新闻

亚博安全有保障_科技公司不能拿网络自由作挡箭牌
本文摘要:In the beginning — and by that I mean, say, 20 years ago — all was simple. The internet belonged to everyone and no one. It was a space free of state interference, a place for individuals to make their voices heard. The billions upon billions of digital connections defied national borders or crusty arguments about competing systems of political organisation. Oh, and the web promised untold riches for the technology geeks of Silicon Valley and beyond.最开始(我的意思是讲到,例如,20年前),一切都很比较简单。

亚博APp安全有保障

In the beginning — and by that I mean, say, 20 years ago — all was simple. The internet belonged to everyone and no one. It was a space free of state interference, a place for individuals to make their voices heard. The billions upon billions of digital connections defied national borders or crusty arguments about competing systems of political organisation. Oh, and the web promised untold riches for the technology geeks of Silicon Valley and beyond.最开始(我的意思是讲到,例如,20年前),一切都很比较简单。互联网属于每一个人,又不属于所有人。

它是一个也不受政府部门干预的室内空间,是一个让本人的响声得到 聆听的地区。数不尽的智能化相接超过了国家中间的界限,也消除了有关各有不同政冶的组织体系的长期争论。

也有,互联网还曾为美国硅谷和美国硅谷之外的高新科技我们们许过数不尽的財富。This idealised story of cyber space as an independent, anarchic realm still has great resonance. To suggest there might be a need for national regulation is to be accused of “Balkanisation” of the one truly global community. To blame Google or Facebook for publishing vile propaganda soliciting the murder of innocents is to challenge the liberties of everyone with a smartphone or a tablet.这类将网络环境看作单独国家的无政府帝国的理性化说辞,仍能引起很多人回荡。好像世界各国或许有适度对网络环境推行管控,你肯定不会被控告为将这一的确经济全球化的小区“分裂化”。

斥责Google(Google)或Facebook发布魔鬼的宣传策划內容、扇动他人去滥杀,你就是挑戰每一个具有智能机或平板的人的权利。You can see why. The web has been a source of empowerment and freedom. It serves as an ally of the individual against the overmighty and a channel of influence for those denied a say. It has broken the information monopoly of the elites and nurtured new communities across borders. It is completing the global political awakening that began with satellite television.能够看到这在其中的缘由。

互联网是一个突显大家能量和权利的地区。它是本人的友军——协同应对霸权主义,是被褫夺话语权的人们充分运用知名度的方式。它超过了精锐的信息内容独享,并促使了新的海外界小区。

亚博APp安全有保障

它已经顺利完成始自电视卫星的这次全世界政冶唤起。It is no accident that the governments most eager to control the web have been those most fearful of liberty and democracy. Wherever you see an unpleasant autocrat you will find teams of technicians censoring social networks and shutting down digital dissent.最用意操控互联网的政府部门也是最畏惧权利和民主化的政府部门,这一点并不是不经意。要是是有喜爱的独裁者不会有的地区,你也就不容易看到由专业技术人员组成的精英团队,在核查社交媒体、击溃数据全球中的质疑人士。There has, of course, been an element of pretence. Some rules have always applied. No one complains when websites promoting brazen criminality are shut down, when child pornography is expunged or when cyber fraudsters are caught. Democracy distinguishes between liberty and licence — free speech does not extend to shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre.这在其中自然依然不会有托辞的成份。

一些标准一直是仅限于的。当煽动破口大骂罪刑的网址被再开时、当儿童色情內容被清除时、或是当电信诈骗分子结构被逃走时,没人指责。民主政治懂权利和无所顾忌的各有不同——自由言论并不限于于在挤迫的剧场里喊出来“着火了”的状况。

For their part, the technology companies have positioned themselves adroitly. Even as they have become global behemoths, they have cast themselves as guardians of the powerless against the state. When Apple refuses a legal request to break the encryption on one of its expensive gadgets, it wraps itself in the mantle of freedom.科技有限公司依然娴熟地操控着自身的精准定位。就算他们已经是了全世界巨型,他们仍将自身精准定位为应对国家的没有权利者的守护人。当iPhone(Apple)拒不接受登陆密码其一个便宜手机上文件加密的法律法规回绝时,它把权利当做了自身的背黑锅。

When Google or Facebook are accused of publishing illegal incitements to violence they claim, straight-faced, that they are not media companies at all. No, they are libraries or post offices — mere agents at the mercy of their own algorithms. Of course, if someone else complains about this or that web page they will consider taking it down — and then expect applause for their social responsibility.当Google或Facebook被测发布煽动暴力行为的不法內容时,他们一本正经地宣称他们显而易见并不是文化传媒公司。不,他们是公共图书馆或邮政局,他们不过是任自身的优化算法冷淡的委托人。自然,假如别人侵扰这一或哪个网页页面,他们不容易充分考虑删掉该网页页面,而且期待大家为他们的责任感站起欢呼声。

These nonsenses are born of a mindset that says such companies must be set above the rest of us. After spending a recent weekend with a significant slice of the Silicon Valley set, I think they actually believe their own advertising这类好笑逻辑性源自那样一种逻辑思维,即这种企业必不可少小于大家别人。在近期与一些美国硅谷最重要人士儿时一个礼拜天以后,我强调她们本质上确信他们自己营销的各不相同。The web cannot pay homage to national preferences or cultural sensitivities. Why should mere politicians decide where, for example, the border should be set between national security and the right to publish videos delineating the finer points of bomb-making?互联网没法遵循国家的喜好或是文化艺术敏感度。

亚博APp安全有保障

小小政冶人士为何规定,例如,国家安全系数与发布表明火炮制做关键点视頻的权利中间的界限确实有?By these lights, Apple has a stronger claim than government or the courts to decide if society is better served by unbreakable encryption or by arrangements to allow law enforcement agencies access to iPhones when they are chasing down terrorists.从这种视角到达,美国苹果公司比政府部门或法院更为有权利规定哪一种状况对社会发展更为不好——没法登陆密码的加密算法,還是让稽查人员组织在迎击恐怖份子时必须访谈iPhone。So you must be on the side of the “deep state”, is the response to seditious thoughts otherwise. To suggest, say, that the spooks be permitted to monitor the digital traffic of extremists such as those responsible for the Manchester and London murders is to be in favour of “mass surveillance”.针对不那样强调的感染力见解,对于此事是:那麼你一定是地铁站在“暗深阵营”(deep state)那一旁了。例如,强调理应允许情报员们检测极端分子(例如这些对墨尔本和纽约进攻恶性事件部门管理的人)的互联网趋势,便是抵制“规模性监管”。

In this Alice in Wonderland world, the technology companies scrape every detail of personal information from the accounts of their users in order to sell it on to advertisers. Then they rail against any state intrusion as a charter for snoo pers or a march towards authoritarianism.在这个如同“爱丽丝梦游梦幻仙境”的反转世界里,科技有限公司从客户账户里挖到每一丝私人信息,为了将这种信息内容卖给广告主。殊不知他们却大骂一切政府部门干预,称之为这是在容许窥探私人信息,或称之为这是朝威权主义迈入的一步。In truth, of course, the anarchic promise of an internet under the benign oversight of entrepreneurs, innovators and well-meaning geeks was always an unachievable ideal. Today’s web is dominated by a handful of global corporations whose self-serving sense of “otherness” has become an excuse to avoid the responsibilities demanded of everyone else. One-time disrupters — think of Amazon — are now rent seekers.实际上,对互联网的以下无政府主义希望:互联网正处在商界精英、开创者和想要我们的良性监管下,自然是一个没法搭建的理想化。

今日的互联网由少数几家跨国企业操纵,这种企业贪欲地以“特别是在”自称,这是他们避开别的每一个人必须分摊的义务的托词。曾一度的颠覆者——看一下amazon(Amazon)——如今出了寻租者。This market power — Google has three-quarters of global search; Google and Facebook together account for three-fifths of digital advertising revenues — allows the companies to set their own tax rates, to shut out competitors, and to choose what rules to apply.Google操控着全世界寻找的四分之三;Google和Facebook俩家占到数据广告宣传盈利的五分之三——那样的销售市场动能让这种企业原著自身的征收率、将竞争者逃避独自一人、并自主随意选择遵从什么标准。

The answer provided by the economics textbook is to break them up. No such concentrations of power would be tolerated in other sectors of the economy — witness past antitrust rulings in the oil and telecoms sectors. We also need, though, a statement of political intent: they cannot operate beyond the values and standards of our societies.社会经济学教材获得的回答是将这种企业合并。在经济发展的别的行业,显而易见会允许销售市场动能这般集中化于——想起原油和电信业以往的反垄断法裁定就懂了。殊不知,大家也务必申明政冶用意:这种企业没法凌驾于大家社会发展的价值观念和规范以上。For a nation such as Britain, under attack from terrorists who have been inspired by propaganda on the web, there will never be a “right” answer on where to fix the balance between security and privacy, or free speech and licence. It seems clear enough, though, that this is a judgment that should be made in Westminster rather than on some Californian campus. Some call this Balkanisation. I think democratisation is a better description.针对像美国那样,遭受不会受到网上宣传设计灵感的恐怖份子进攻的国家,怎样确定安全系数和隐私保护、或是自由言论和无所顾忌中间的平衡,总有一天没一个“精确”回答。

殊不知,有一点也许很准确,做出这一鉴别的理应是威斯敏斯特,而不是一些身处加利福尼亚州大学校园内的人。一些人讲到这是“分化化”。我强调,更为合适的各不相同是民主建设。


本文关键词:亚博安全有保障,亚博APp安全有保障

本文来源:亚博安全有保障-www.dunyaweb.net