FT社評:數字隱私保護的是非曲直

The US looks like a Wild West for personal data. Information gathered by companies — most prominently Google and Facebook — trades at lightning speed on advertising markets that most users do not even know exist. If search engines and social networks can turn customer data into cash, why should broadband sellers such as Verizon be excluded from the gold rush?

就個人數據而言，美國看起來像荒野西部(Wild West)。企業——主要是谷歌(Google)和Facebook——收集的信息以閃電般的速度在多數用戶甚至不知道存在的廣告市場上交易。如果搜索引擎和社交網絡可以把用戶數據轉化爲現金，Verizon等寬帶提供商憑什麼要被排除在這場淘金熱之外？

That is the cynical, if understandable, reaction to a vote by Republican lawmakers to do away with data rules faced by cable and telecoms companies. A Federal Communications Commission regulation, adopted days before last November’s election, would force broadband providers to get permission from customers before selling on data about them. Congress has voted to reverse that requirement.

這是對美國共和黨議員投票廢除有線電視和電信公司面臨的數據規則的憤世嫉俗（如果說可以理解的話）的反應。去年11月美國大選幾天前，聯邦通信委員會(FCC)出臺一項規定，擬強迫寬帶提供商在出售用戶數據前必須得到用戶許可。國會已投票撤銷這一要求。

There are good arguments for placing limits on the owners of the “pipes” that carry the internet that do not apply to the services that travel over those pipes. Consumers already pay for internet access. Many might not be pleased to discover that the networks are making extra money by trading in their personal data. Many US broadband markets are also a duopoly. Customers unhappy with the terms of service have few options.

有很好的理由對承載互聯網流量的“管道”的所有者進行限制，而對依託管道提供的服務不要求這些限制。消費者已經爲互聯網接入支付了費用。許多人可能不滿網絡提供商通過交易他們的個人數據來賺取外快。同時美國多地的寬帶市場處於雙強壟斷狀態。不滿意此類服務條款的用戶很少有其他選擇。

Yet a two-tier privacy regime entrenches Google and Facebook in a market where they are already dominant. Advertisers want more choice, and supported the Republican Congress’ position. The big players of search and social networking are themselves becoming unavoidable utilities.

然而，這種二級隱私保護機制鞏固了谷歌和Facebook在它們已經主宰的市場中的地位。廣告商希望有更多選擇，它們支持共和黨主導的國會的立場。搜索和社交網絡領域的巨頭本身也已變成迴避不了的公用事業。

One response would be for Congress to level the privacy standards up, not down. But with the new administration bent on cutting the power of agencies such as the FCC, that is too much to hope for. It is also not clear how much consumers benefit from the “opt-in” rules that the broadband companies have been facing. Brussels adopted a regime like this, forcing websites to warn visitors that they plant tracking “cookies” for advertising purposes, and to seek approval. For most users, clicking their approval became a reflex.

一個迴應將是由美國國會提升（而非下調）隱私保護標準。但鑑於特朗普政府一心想削弱聯邦通信委員會等機構的權力，這似乎要求太高了。同樣還不清楚的是，消費者能在多大程度上獲益於寬帶公司迄今面臨的“選擇性加入”規則。布魯塞爾實行一種類似的機制，強制網站提醒訪問者注意，他們爲了廣告目的而植入了追蹤“cookie”，爲此徵求用戶同意。對大多數用戶來說，點擊同意已成爲本能反應。

The debate should not be reduced to a simple choice, where companies are either required to seek customers’ approval before selling their personal data (an opt-in regime), or are free to use it unless customers say otherwise (opt out). To be effective, such a binary choice would require much better-informed consumers with more options. It is not clear to most people why — other than a vague sense of dread — they should worry about their data being shown to advertisers. By contrast, the benefits of ad-supported internet services are obvious.

這場辯論不應被簡化爲一個簡單的選擇——公司或是被要求在出售用戶個人數據之前徵求用戶同意（選擇性加入機制），或者隨意使用這些數據，除非用戶說不（選擇性退出機制）。爲了行之有效，這種二選一的選擇將依靠消息更加靈通、擁有更多選擇的消費者。除了模糊的恐懼感，多數人並不清楚自己爲何要擔心個人數據被提供給廣告商。相比之下，由廣告支撐的互聯網服務的好處是顯而易見的。

Internet users still do not know enough about the digital dossiers that have been built up about them. Internet companies have gone some way to letting their users see what assumptions about them have been sold to advertisers. But the data are tricky to find, and patchy. Sensible regulation would require that the disclosures are always one click away, and mandate periodic “push” notifications about the information being collected.

互聯網用戶仍不夠了解企業對他們建立的數字檔案。互聯網公司已付出一定努力讓用戶看到，關於他們的哪些假設被賣給了廣告商。但這些數據很難找到，且分佈零散。合理的監管規則應該要求信息披露通過一次點擊即可完成，並要求對收集的信息發佈週期性“推送”通知。

Another idea would be to give customers the option to pay for Google or Facebook — in return for seeing no advertising and a guarantee that no information is collected. Average ad revenue per US user at Facebook, for example, is $6 a month (and a fraction of that in the rest of the world). If users could pay that sum in return for Facebook’s technology protecting, rather than selling, their personal information, only a few might do so. For that few, though, the option might be very valuable — and its very existence might make all users think more about the trade-offs they are making.

另一個構想是給用戶向谷歌或Facebook付費的選擇權——以換取看不到任何廣告，也沒有任何數據被收集的保證。例如，Facebook上每個美國用戶每月平均帶來的廣告收入是6美元（其他國家更少）。如果用戶可以支付這筆費用，以換取Facebook對他們的個人信息給予技術保護（而非出售），可能只有很少人會這樣做。不過，對這部分人而言，這一選擇可能非常有價值，而它的存在或許會讓所有用戶多想一想自己的取捨。