Amy+Webb+楊瑞

去年12月3日，美國加州圣貝納迪諾發(fā)生一起重大槍殺案，為了更加深入調(diào)查此案背景，美國聯(lián)邦調(diào)查局要求蘋果公司解鎖其中一名兇手的iPhone手機，這一要求遭到蘋果公司的拒絕，此事引起了當事雙方及社會的激烈爭論。今年2月份，聯(lián)邦法院的地方法庭裁定蘋果公司必須配合FBI對手機解鎖，而其依據(jù)竟是于1789年美國第一國會通過的《全令法案》，不禁令人大跌眼鏡。這一案例不僅事關該如何在個人隱私與公眾安全間進行權衡，更折射出美國在科技方面的立法已遠遠滯后于新興科技的發(fā)展。縱觀全球，情況又何嘗不是如此？科技發(fā)展正以人類無法想象的步伐向前推進，是時候讓高素質(zhì)的科學家和技術人員介入立法過程，填補我們在新興科技方面的法律空白了。

Last week， a federal magistrate ordered Apple to create a back door into the iPhone and thus set the stage for the biggest and most important public debate about privacy and security in this new technological era. Those in favor of breaking encryption1） when its in the public interest are our government and its law enforcement agencies. Arguing against government intrusion into our digital freedoms are tech companies and civil liberties groups.

Apple CEO Tim Cook said that “this moment calls for public discussion.” I agree. But it has to be the right one. We cannot rely on lawsuits to trigger debate retroactively2）. Nor can we wait for a courts decision to decide technologys future place in our society. We must plan in earnest right now， together， for the good of everyone.

This is an issue that extends far beyond Apple and the FBI. Today， we are arguing over an iPhone， and whether or not the government can compel a tech company to help it break into a device. Tomorrows problems will be far more complex， involving science and technology the likes of which youve only ever read about in sci-fi books.

If anything， the case pitting the government against Apple only illustrates the dire3） situation we now find ourselves in： The pace of scientific and technological change has surpassed our legal frameworks， our laws and the people charged4） with making decisions that affect us all.

上周（編注：英文原文發(fā)表于2月25日），一位聯(lián)邦法官命令蘋果公司在iPhone上創(chuàng)建后門，由此引發(fā)了這個新技術時代有關隱私與安全問題規(guī)模最大也是最重要的公眾辯論。支持在有利于公眾利益時進行解密的是我們的政府及其執(zhí)法機構(gòu)；反對政府侵犯我們數(shù)據(jù)自由的是那些高科技公司及公民自由團體。

蘋果公司首席執(zhí)行官蒂姆·庫克說“這一刻需要公眾討論”。對此我同意，但必須是正確的討論，我們不能依賴法律訴訟事后來展開辯論，也不能等待法庭的宣判來決定科技將來在我們這個社會中的地位。我們必須現(xiàn)在就開始一起認真規(guī)劃，這是為我們每一個人好。

這是一個遠遠超出蘋果公司和聯(lián)邦調(diào)查局本身的議題。今天，我們討論的是一部iPhone，爭論的是政府能否迫使科技公司幫助其破解一個裝置。明天的問題將遠比這個復雜，其中涉及的是你們只會在科幻小說里讀到的那類科學和技術。

如果說政府與蘋果公司對薄公堂這件事意味著什么的話，那可以說這件事只是折射出我們目前所處的可怕境地：科學和技術變化的步伐已經(jīng)超越了我們的法律框架，超越了我們的法律，也超越了決策者——這些決策者所做的決策關系到我們所有人。

Elected Officials Dont Have the Answers

民選官員沒有答案

We ought to be discussing these technologies before theres a tragedy forcing the debate into a courtroom. But who among our elected officials is in a position to have5） that conversation？ Of the 535 senators and representatives in the 114th Congress， only two hold doctorates in the natural and hard sciences. There is one physicist， one microbiologist， one chemist and eight engineers spread across the House and Senate. Back in 2008， former Rep. Rush Holt， D-6）New Jersey， told The New York Times that while there are 435 people in the House， “420 dont know much about science and choose not to.”

Our elected officials lack of experience with technology resulted in a similarly raucous7） debate that year： Whether or not electronic voting machines should be used. Arguing whether or not a technology should be implemented after the fact is a waste of time. Especially since， as Holt put it， the potential glitches8） “would [have been] obvious to any computer scientist but went right past some people here in Congress.”

A Ph.D. in the hard sciences shouldnt be a requirement to hold elected office in America. However， those responsible for making and enforcing our laws ought to concern themselves with tech thats over the horizon9）， especially since technology now intersects with every facet of our daily lives.

Years ago， the now-shuttered Office of Technology Assessment was charged with researching， forecasting and advising Congress on matters of emerging technology. During its existence， the OTA released more than 750 prescient10） studies ranging from robots in the workplace， to bioterrorism， to acid rain and climate change. Without the OTA in place， the Congress was free to bring in its own lobbyists， think tanks and interest groups to weigh in on important emerging science and technology issues.

Aside from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency （DARPA）， which is a military research-and-development division， and IARPA， which is part of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence， the only agency left now to investigate emerging science and technology is the Congressional Research Service， which is a century-old division of the Library of Congress. However， its primary concern is research and analysis on existing policies and proposed legislation. There is no agency looking ahead into the future.

Without an unbiased arm of Congress left to evaluate the meaning of emerging science and technology， we have abdicated11） our future to a motley12） crew of interest groups， law enforcement agencies， elected officials and CEOs. Its a terrifying prospect.

Its precisely that lack of planning and foresight that enabled the blowup involving Apple and the FBI. Because there are no other legal frameworks to use， the government is citing an ancient and obscure law called the All Writs Act， which was originally passed in 1789. For context， that was the year that Thomas Jefferson was appointed our first-ever secretary of state and the cutting-edge13） technology he employed in office was a quill14） and parchment15）.

在悲劇迫使這場辯論進入法庭之前，我們就應該討論這些技術了。但是我們的民選官員中誰有能力來進行這樣的商討呢？在第114屆國會的535位眾議院和參議院議員中，只有兩人有自然科學和硬科學的博士學位。整個參議院和眾議院僅有一位物理學家、一位微生物學家、一位化學家和八位工程師。早在2008年，前新澤西州眾議院議員、民主黨人拉什·霍爾特就對《紐約時報》說，眾議院的435號人中，“有420人對科學不甚了解，并且還有意不去了解”。

由于我們的民選官員們?nèi)狈萍挤矫娴慕?jīng)驗，才有了當年那場差不多同樣亂哄哄的辯論：是否該用電子投票器。一項技術已經(jīng)是既成事實了，還去討論是否該用，這等于是浪費時間。考慮到下面的情況更是如此：用霍爾特的話來說，那些潛在的缺陷“在任何一位計算機科學家看來都是顯而易見的，但國會這邊有些人對之卻一無所知”。

在美國，硬科學領域的博士學位不應該成為官員當選的一個要求。然而，負責制定及實施法律的官員應該去研究初露端倪的科技，尤其是考慮到科技現(xiàn)在已關系到我們?nèi)粘Ｉ畹姆椒矫婷妗?/p>

多年前，技術評估局負責研究和預測新興科技，并就相關事務為國會提出建議。如今該局已關閉。在其運行期間，該局發(fā)布了超過750項有預見性的研究報告，從工作場所的機器人到生物恐怖主義，再到酸雨和氣候變化，無所不包。技術評估局不復存在之后，國會隨意引入自己的說客、智庫和利益團體，參與重大新興科技問題的討論。

除了軍方的研發(fā)部門國防部高級研究計劃局以及國家情報總監(jiān)辦公室下屬的高級情報研究計劃署，現(xiàn)在負責調(diào)查新興科技的部門只剩下國會研究服務部了。該部已有百年歷史，隸屬于國會圖書館。但是，該部的主要任務是研究和分析現(xiàn)行的政策與立法提案。目前沒有任何部門負責展望未來。

由于國會沒有一個公正的機構(gòu)來評估新興科技的意義，我們已經(jīng)把自己的未來交給了亂七八糟的一群人，其中包括利益集團、執(zhí)法機構(gòu)、民選官員和首席執(zhí)行官們。這個前景令人恐怖。

正是因為缺乏計劃和遠見，蘋果公司和聯(lián)邦調(diào)查局之間才有了此次爭端。因為沒有其他法律框架可用，政府引用了一個時間久遠、含糊不清的法律，叫作《全令法案》，該法案最初于1789年通過。提供點背景知識：那一年托馬斯·杰斐遜被任命為美國首任國務卿，他辦公室里用的前沿科技是鵝毛筆和羊皮紙。

Think Big

眼光放長遠

If you think weve reached the zenith16） of this debate now that Apple and the FBI are in court， youre not thinking big enough.

For example， if you use an iPhone 6， you probably unlock it using your fingerprint. If you have an arrest record， a law enforcement agency already has your fingerprints. It wouldnt be difficult to transfer them on to a model to unlock the data on your seized phone. However， in this case， who technically17） owns the right to your fingerprint？ Once your biometric data is in a government database， does the FBI have the legal clearance18） to use it to unlock any of your devices？ Right now， there is no clear answer.

What happens if someone sexually abuses another person in a virtual world？ When youre wired in to a virtual-reality experience， studies have shown that our actual sense of reality is distorted. （I have ample experience using VR， and I agree.） When something happens in a virtual world， that visceral19） experience is encoded in our memories as if it actually happened. There are federal laws explicitly prohibiting sexual assault， but what happens when the attack occurs between two players in a virtual reality game？

What happens in the future， when your encrypted technology goes rogue20）？ In fact， that has already happened. The Random Darknet Shopper21）， an art project and bot， was programmed to make a random Internet purchase every day using bitcoins. Once， it bought 10 ecstasy pills and a fake Hungarian passport. Whos at fault， the coder or the technology？ Again， we dont have any laws covering bots written by humans. Indeed， our lawmakers havent even had the necessary conversations about our impending bot-assisted society.

如果你認為，既然蘋果公司和聯(lián)邦調(diào)查局已進入司法程序，這場辯論已到了最高潮，那說明你的眼光還不夠長遠。

比方說，假如你用的是iPhone6，你可能會用指紋解鎖。如果你被逮捕過，那執(zhí)法部門就已經(jīng)有了你的指紋。獲取了你的手機后，把你的指紋轉(zhuǎn)印到一個模型上以解開手機里的數(shù)據(jù)，這并不難。不過，那樣一來誰在法律上擁有使用你指紋的權利呢？一旦你的生物識別數(shù)據(jù)進入政府的數(shù)據(jù)庫，聯(lián)邦調(diào)查局是否就有了法律許可，可以用其來解開你的各種裝置呢？眼下，這些還沒有明確的答案。

如果有人在虛擬世界性侵了他人，會怎么樣？研究顯示，當我們接入虛擬現(xiàn)實的體驗時，我們對于現(xiàn)實的真實感受會被扭曲（我有使用虛擬現(xiàn)實的豐富經(jīng)驗，我同意這一點）。虛擬世界一旦發(fā)生了什么事，那種本能的體驗就會編碼進入我們的記憶，好像真的發(fā)生過一樣。聯(lián)邦法律明確地禁止性侵犯，但如果性侵發(fā)生在虛擬現(xiàn)實游戲中的兩位玩家之間，怎么辦？

如果將來你們使用的加密技術耍無賴，怎么辦？實際上，已經(jīng)有這種事了。“隨機暗網(wǎng)購物者”是一個藝術項目，也是一款網(wǎng)上機器人程序，人們設計這款程序是讓它用比特幣每天隨機在網(wǎng)上購物一次。這款機器人程序曾買過十粒搖頭丸和一張假匈牙利護照。這算誰的錯？程序員，還是技術？我們還是沒有什么法律來規(guī)范人類編寫的自動程序。實際上，機器人程序輔助的社會就近在眼前，而我們的立法者們卻壓根還沒有就此進行必要的討論。

iPhone Encryption May Be an Easier Issue

iPhone加密可能是件更簡單的事情

Relatively speaking， encryption is much less confounding22） than the other emerging technologies of our near future. CRISPR-Cas9 is a gene-editing technique allowing scientists to redesign precise positions on DNA using a bacterial enzyme23）. It can be used to edit mosquitoes so that they no longer carry malaria but， as weve seen in a recent paper published by Chinese researchers—it can also be used to edit human embryos. What happens when divorced， acrimonious24） parents want to sue over the rights to edit their childrens DNA？

Did you know that in a handful of labs， researchers are testing systems that allow monkeys to send their thoughts to each other over the Internet？ Or that in one experiment， a monkey was able to control the arm of another monkey who wasnt even in the same room？ That technology will someday help stroke victims learn to walk again. And it could also be weaponized， giving soldiers superhuman powers. Inevitably， lawmakers are going to get involved， and that debate is going to make us long for the days when we bickered about iPhone encryption.

This is certainly not an argument for more government regulation. It is also not a free pass for tech companies to ignore the fact that humans use their devices， and we have a track record of being horrible to each other.

Instead， it is a call for our lawmakers to acknowledge that the future is coming and to depoliticize the technology thats on our horizon. Like it or not， they must play an informed， active role in how technology intersects with American society.

We cannot be in reactive mode all the time. Our strongest option is to reinstate the OTA， and to do it now. Short of that， the best choice is for lawmakers and law enforcement agencies to seek out highly qualified， nonpartisan scientists and technologists who seek nothing in return， aside from their having their voices heard. Listen to what they have to say and act on their advice. Empower them to help us make better decisions for our future， here in the present.

相對來說，與不遠的將來興起的其他科技相比，加密技術還不那么令人困惑。CRISPR-Cas9是一種基因編輯技術，有了這種技術，科學家可以用菌酶來精確地重新設計DNA中的基因位置。這種技術可以用來編輯蚊子的基因，使蚊子不再攜帶瘧疾。但正如我們在中國研究人員近期發(fā)表的一篇論文中看到的那樣，這一技術也可以用來編輯人類的胚胎。如果撕破臉的離異父母想提起訴訟，爭奪編輯孩子DNA的權利，該怎么辦？

你知道嗎？在一些實驗室里，研究者正在測試可以讓猴子通過網(wǎng)絡相互傳遞想法的系統(tǒng)。也就是說，在一項實驗中，一只猴子能夠控制另一只猴子的胳膊，而這兩只猴子根本不在一個房間。這項技術將來某一天會幫助中風的人重新學習行走。而該技術也可成為武器，賦予士兵們超人的力量。不可避免地，立法者將會參與進來，而屆時的辯論將讓我們懷念因為iPhone加密而爭吵的日子。

這么說當然不是主張政府加強監(jiān)管，同時科技公司也不能把這當做自由通行證，而忽視以下事實：人們使用它們制造的裝置，而人類在歷史上曾有互不友好的記錄。

相反，這么說是要呼吁立法者承認未來正在逼近，停止從政治角度處理初露端倪的科技。不管立法者們喜不喜歡，在科技如何與美國社會交織這一問題上，他們必須要了解相關情況，發(fā)揮積極作用。

我們不能總是處于被動的應對狀態(tài)。我們最好的選擇是恢復技術評估局，并且現(xiàn)在就恢復。除此之外，立法者和執(zhí)法機構(gòu)最好的選擇是物色素質(zhì)極高而且沒有黨派立場的科學家和技術人員——這些人別無他求，只求自己的聲音被社會聽到。聽聽他們怎么說，根據(jù)他們的建議去做。給他們授權，讓他們?yōu)榱宋覀兊奈磥?，幫助我們做出更明智的決策，就在此時此刻。