互聯網不應成爲法外之地

The sophisticated encryption software that now comes as standard with many electronic gadgets is, in many ways, just another instrument of modern life. Like air travel, international banking and mobile telephones, it contributes to all kinds of productive human endeavour — and also presents new security risks. But there is a difference. Its rapid and organic growth left little scope for regulatory control and balance.

從許多方面來說，那些如今已成爲許多電子設備標準配置的精密加密軟件，不過是現代生活中的又一個工具而已。和航空旅行、國際銀行結算以及移動電話一樣，這種軟件也在爲人類的各種生產活動作出貢獻——同時也帶來了新的安全隱患。不過不同的是，加密軟件迅速而有機的增長，幾乎沒有爲監管控制和平衡留下多少餘地。

The police are sometimes characterised as despotic agents of digital repression. That is wrong. I have never believed that encryption should be banned; it is a fundamental part of how the internet works. But its utility and effectiveness, like that of the internet as a whole, also creates significant criminal opportunity by masking identity and hiding communication.

有的時候，警方會被描述爲進行數字鎮壓的專制機構。這種說法是錯誤的。我從來不認爲應該禁止加密技術的使用，它是確保互聯網運轉的基礎之一。但是，通過屏蔽身份和隱藏通信內容，對加密技術的運用及其有效性也催生了巨大的犯罪機會——這一點和互聯網整體的情況類似。

Other innovations that have multiplied the freedoms of modern life were the product of democratic deliberation, and incorporated security by design. When telephones were introduced, a set of balanced legal instruments gave police the power to intercept them. Financial institutions have become more complex, but they are compelled to operate strong anti-money laundering controls.

相比之下，其他成倍擴大現代生活自由的創新都是民主深思的成果，從設計之初就植入了安全方面的考慮。當電話進入人類生活的時候，一系列相應的法律文件賦予了警方攔截電話的權力。同樣，金融機構也已變得更加複雜，但是它們被強制要求實施了嚴密的反洗錢控制。

When Europe’s Schengen agreement abolished internal border controls in the 1990s, measures designed to increase cross-border police co-operation were adopted at the same time, so the system would not be undermined by enterprising drug traffickers and terrorists. The development of the internet has been different.

上世紀90年代，當歐洲《申根協定》(Schengen Agreement)廢除歐洲內部的邊境管控之時，多種旨在加強警方跨境合作的舉措也同時引入。這樣，整個系統就不會因膽大妄爲的毒品販子和恐怖分子而遭到削弱。相比之下，互聯網的發展則與上述情況不同。

This is not really about privacy. People accept the imposition of reasonable controls on the way they drive, take flights, and conduct banking transactions.

這個問題實際上與隱私無關。比如，在如何開車、乘坐飛機及開展銀行交易的問題上，人們對實行合理管控是接受的。

Why should the internet, alone in the territories in which we live our lives, be one in which rules do not apply. It should not, of course. We have to craft rules that will operate in a balanced way.

那麼，同樣是在我們生活的領域內，爲何單單互聯網應成爲法外之地？顯然不應該。我們必須精心設計法律法規，讓它們平衡地起作用。

That has proved to be a challenge. The European Court of Justice last year struck down a law that would have required telecommunications companies to store data on the use of their networks. Yet it accepted that police should have access to communications data. It decided that the safeguards, as drafted, were not enough to ensure police did not overstep the mark. This is just a matter of technical design. It will be fixed.

事實已經證明，要做到這一點是一大挑戰。去年，歐洲法院(European Court of Justice)駁回了一條法規，該法規要求電信公司將自己網絡使用情況的數據存儲起來。不過，該法院承認警方應有權訪問通信數據。該法院裁定，這個法規草案中的保護性條款不足以確保警方不過線。這個問題其實只是個技術層面的問題，它應該會得到解決。

There are promising signs that technology companies are willing to work in partnership with the police. Some leading companies are helping us to set up a system for removing terrorist content online. But at the same time, the industry’s most recent innovations on encryption have made the task of the security services harder. They may not be deliberately making police work more difficult, but they are not showing much appetite for accommodation either.

許多令人充滿信心的證據顯示，高科技企業願意與警方合作。部分主要企業正在幫助我們建立在線刪除恐怖主義內容的系統。然而，與此同時，信息產業內加密技術上的最新創新已經令安保任務變得更加困難。這些技術創新的用意也許不是要故意加大警方的工作難度，但它們也沒有顯示出太多配合警方的意願。

Some argue that technology companies should be required to give the authorities a backdoor key, to allow encryption to be broken. Clearly, engineering deliberate security vulnerabilities in our digital systems has some serious downsides.

有的人聲稱，應該要求高科技企業向當局提交後門祕鑰，以便讓當局能夠破解相關加密技術。顯然，在數字化系統中故意留下安全漏洞，會帶來某些嚴重的不利影響。

And it is a principle implacably opposed by most in the tech sector. The divide on the issue is symptomatic of a serious decline in the level of trust between government and industry partners, fuelled in particular by the revelations of Edward Snowden about National Security Agency surveillance. This does not serve public interest well.

不過，高科技產業中的多數人對這一原則抱持的是毫不妥協的反對態度。圍繞這個問題的分歧，體現出政府與業界合作伙伴間的信任程度嚴重下降。而愛德華•斯諾登(Edward Snowden)有關美國國家安全局(NSA)監控活動的爆料，更是令雙方信任的下滑進一步加劇。這種局面對公衆的利益並沒有太大好處。

The digital age has changed our way of life but police teams are still in the same business of preventing crime, tracking offenders and securing evidence with which to convict them. It is just that, these days, much of the information needed to do that is in the hands of the private companies that run online services. To do our job, we need to earn their trust. Together, we can keep the internet both a free and safe part of our lives.

數字化時代改變了我們的生活方式，然而警方團隊的職責依然是阻止犯罪、跟蹤罪犯並獲取用來指控罪犯的證據。問題在於，如今在履行上述職責時所需的許多信息，掌握在運營網絡服務的私有企業手中。爲履行職責，我們必須贏得他們的信任。通過雙方通力合作，我們將能確保互聯網成爲人們生活中自由而又安全的一部分。