硅谷在反恐戰爭中的領導力

The political debate about the role of the internet in terrorism, following three attacks in the UK, has become confused. It is driven by frustration on one side that the ethics, values and legalities of the real world are not simply applied online. On the other, politicians of all parties do not always understand the technology or the economics of the internet and are portrayed as asking for the impossible.

在英國發生3起恐怖襲擊之後，圍繞互聯網在恐怖主義中所扮演角色的政治辯論變得令人困惑。一方面，人們由於對真實世界的道德、價值觀和法律並未簡單地適用於網上而倍感挫折。另一方面，所有政黨的政客們並不總是理解互聯網技術或者互聯網經濟學，他們被描述爲要求完成不可能完成的任務。

But it is in the interests of both sides — and all of us — that the internet is not a values-free zone. Technology is morally neutral, but providers and consumers are not. The digital and “real” worlds are not separate, they are the same. If we are to preserve the freedom of the internet, the greatest achievement of this age, we need to meet this challenge. How to do so is complex and needs untangling.

但互聯網不是價值觀中立區域，這符合辯論雙方（以及我們所有人）的利益。技術在道德上是中性的，但提供者和消費者並非如此。數字世界和“真實”世界並非是分開的，他們是一體的。如果我們要維護互聯網上的自由——互聯網是當今時代最偉大的成就——我們就需要解決這種挑戰。如何做到這一點是非常複雜的，而且需要解開困惑。

There are two separate complaints about the internet: that it facilitates covert communication between terrorists through encrypted messaging, and that it enables the spread of radicalising propaganda by hosting extremist material.

人們對互聯網有兩種不同的抱怨：一個是它通過加密信息方便了恐怖分子的祕密交流，另一個是它通過託管極端主義內容使激進宣傳得以傳播。

The first is a technical issue: “end-to-end” encryption — where only the user has the key and neither service provider nor law enforcement can read the content — is here to stay. It cannot be uninvented and those of us focused on cyber security would not want encryption weakened even if it were possible. But there are things that can be done to tackle the abuse of encryption by terrorists and criminals, through private co-operation, under the law, between companies and government agencies. That co-operation has improved markedly, even if it has further to go.

第一個是技術問題：“端對端”加密——只有用戶擁有密鑰，無論是服務提供商還是執法者都無法閱讀內容——已經被普遍接受。這種加密技術無法抹除，我們這些致力於網絡安全的人不願削弱加密技術，即便它是有可能的。但公司和政府機構可以採取一些措施，在合法的前提下私下合作以解決恐怖分子和犯罪分子對加密技術的濫用。這種合作如今已經明顯改善，雖然它還有進一步改進的空間。

The hosting of extremist material is a different issue and goes to the heart of the ideological struggle driving Islamist terrorism. We should be clear about what we are asking for. This is not about suppressing freedom of speech. The west did not win the ideological struggle against totalitarian communism by never discussing it. Islamism needs exposing and countering.

極端主義內容託管的問題有所不同，它觸及到了推動伊斯蘭恐怖主義的意識形態鬥爭的核心。我們應該明確我們的要求。這不是說要遏制言論自由。西方沒有因從未討論過而贏得與極權共產主義的意識形態鬥爭。伊斯蘭主義需要曝光和反擊。

But those trying to counter the ideas of terrorist groups often feel they are fighting against a wave of material produced by well-funded organisations that understand strategic communications better than the west. They feel that the very openness of the internet, and its economics, crudely based on the volume of “clicks” on sensational or grotesque material, are used against them.

但那些試圖反擊恐怖主義組織的思想的人往往覺得，他們對抗的是由資金充足、比西方更明白戰略交流的組織製作的一系列內容。他們覺得，被用來反對他們的正是互聯網的開放性及其基本建立於對譁衆取寵或荒誕內容“點擊”量基礎之上的經濟性。

The glory of the internet is that it creates networks and communities of interest; the downside is that it can rapidly validate extreme behaviour which in the past would have been moderated by real communities. We know from convicted terrorists the effect of watching brutal videos of captives set on fire or drowned, of children crucified in front of their parents, or graphic images glorifying atrocities in London or Paris. While it is fashionable to blame technology companies, these images are more likely to be found on video hosting sites that are not household names, on news sites or even academic services.

互聯網的優點在於，它創造了志趣相投的網絡和社區；缺點是，它能夠迅速證實極端行爲——過去通過實體社區證實的效果會減弱。我們從已經伏法的恐怖分子那裏知道了觀看殘忍視頻的效果——燒死或淹死俘虜，在孩子父母面前將孩子釘死在十字架上，或者讚美倫敦或巴黎暴行的畫面。儘管人們一般會譴責技術公司，但這些畫面更可能在並非家喻戶曉的視頻託管網站或者新聞網站、乃至學術服務網站上找到。

There will of course always be dark spaces and hidden sites where fanatics will find this material. But that is why we have law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

當然總是存在能讓狂熱分子發現這種內容的黑暗空間和隱藏網站。但這正是我們擁有執法和情報機構的原因。

The rest of us should focus on driving material off the mainstream and seek to make the open internet a civilised space, reflecting the liberal democratic values that led to its creation in the first place. For the internet and the web would not have been invented and could not have flourished in Islamist or totalitarian regimes.

我們其他人應該致力於將恐怖內容逐出主流網站之外，並設法讓開放的互聯網成爲文明之地，反映出最初導致其誕生的自由民主價值觀。這是因爲在伊斯蘭或極權政權下，互聯網和網絡不會被髮明並蓬勃發展。

How do we achieve this? We need a practical coalition, led and funded by Silicon Valley, which has been making progress but now needs to accelerate, and by global online advertisers, which have been too slow to look forensically at what their ads are supporting. This coalition should agree a code of what is acceptable, working with democratic governments and civil society. It should apply technology and human beings to the rapid removal of material and the isolation of offending sites. It should not be afraid to exercise judgment and it should not wait for legislation, the courts or proposed fines, which will inevitably be slow and blunt.

我們如何才能做到這些？我們需要一個務實的聯盟，由硅谷和全球網絡廣告主領導並提供資金，前者不斷進步，但現在需要加快腳步，後者過於遲緩而無法看真切他們的廣告在支持什麼內容。該聯盟應該就可接受準則達成一致，並與民主政府和公民社會合作。它應該運用技術和人類快速消除恐怖主義內容並孤立違規網站。它不應害怕做出判斷，也不應等待法律、法庭或者擬議的罰款，後者將會不可避免地反應遲鈍。

Finally, it should do all this in order to preserve the freedom of the internet, as well as our safety.

最後，它應該爲了維護互聯網自由以及我們的安全而採取所有這些行動。

The writer is a former director of GCHQ, a UK government intelligence and security organisation

本文作者曾經擔任英國政府情報和安全機構——英國政府通信總部(GCHQ)的主管