觀點
警惕信息技術成為獨裁體制的工具
朱利安·阿桑奇 2013年06月04日
《新數碼時代》(The New Digital
Age)是為技術官僚帝國主義繪製的一幅極其清晰且發人深思的藍圖。兩位領先的巫醫埃里克·施密特(Eric
Schmidt)和傑拉德·科恩(Jared Cohen)為美國21世紀的全球影響力打造了一個新的語彙。該語彙反映了美國國務院和硅谷之間不斷走近的
聯合關係，而施密特和科恩兩人正是其代表。施密特是谷歌(Google)的執行董事，而科恩是康多莉扎·賴斯(Condoleezza
Rice)和希拉里·克林頓(Hillary Clinton)的前顧問，如今是谷歌理念(Google Ideas)的新負責人。
這兩名作者於2009年在美軍佔領下的巴格達相見，併產生了寫這本書的想法。當兩人在廢墟中閑逛時，他們興奮地談起，消費科技正在改變一個被美軍踏平的社會。他們得出結論，科技工業可以成為美國外交政策的有力代理。
該書主張科技的作用，稱科技正在把世界上的人民和國家重塑成主導世界的超級大國，不管這些人民和國家是否願意。該書行文簡潔，論證有力，體現出的智慧——卻很平庸。但這本書的目的不是供人閱讀，而是一個重大宣言，旨在促成同盟。
歸根到底，谷歌公司試圖通過《新數碼時代》一書把自己定位為美國地緣政治的遠識之士——一個可以回答「美國何去何從？」問題的公司。不足為奇，一些受世人尊敬的最知名的好戰者多次對這本展現出對西方軟實力迷戀的
書表示認同。在該書的致謝部分，首要位置留給了亨利·基辛格(Henry Kissinger)，他和托尼·布萊爾(Tony
Blair)以及前中央情報局(CIA)局長邁克爾·海登(Michael Hayden)一起先對該書表示讚揚。
兩名作者在該書中欣然承擔起白人怪才的責任。書中也出現了幾位適合情景、假想的值得白人關注的黑皮膚人物：剛果的女漁民、博茨瓦納的平面設計師、聖薩爾瓦多的反腐活動人士和塞倫蓋蒂平原不識字的馬賽牧民。這些人物都被順從地召來表現西方帝國信息供應鏈中谷歌手機的進步性。
兩位作者對未來世界提出了經過專業迂腐化處理的展望：據他
們預計，從今往後幾十年的電子設備將會和目前的相差不多——只是更酷而已。「進步」是由美國消費科技在地球表面勢不可擋的擴張所驅動的。如今，每天都有大
約100萬台運行谷歌系統的新電子設備被激活。谷歌會介入到世界上除中國（不聽話的中國）以外的所有人的通訊中，因而美國政府也會介入其中。商品會變得更
加了不起；年輕的城市專業人士睡覺、工作、購物都變得更加容易舒適；民主被監控技術不知不覺地破壞，控制被熱情地重新標榜為「參與」；而我們現有的制度化
統治、恐嚇和壓迫的世界秩序將繼續存在，無人提及，不被挑戰，最多不過被略微衝擊一下。
這兩名作者對2011年的埃及革命勝利感到不快。他們嚴厲
批評埃及青年，稱「年輕人身上激進與傲慢的混合是普遍存在的」。受數字科技啟發的暴民意味着革命「更容易發生」但「更難以結束」。因為革命缺乏強有力的領導，結果就是（基辛格告訴這兩名作者），世界將出現淪為獨裁專制的聯合政府。他們說，世界上「不再會有革命」（但中國正岌岌可危）。
兩名作者幻想，未來將出現「資源豐富」的革命群體。一批新的「顧問」將「用數據來打造政治人物，並調整使其完美」。
「他的」講話（未來也不是全然不同）和公文將「通過複雜的特徵提取和趨勢分析軟件組合」來完成，而「繪製他的大腦運行」和其他「複雜的診斷」將被用於「評估其政治技能的薄弱之處」。
該書映照出國務院的制度禁忌和痴迷。該書避免對以色列和沙
特阿拉伯進行有意義的批判。該書還極其誇張地假裝，拉丁美洲的主權運動從未發生，而主權運動在過去30年中推翻了很多美國支持的金權政治和獨裁統治，解放了這些地區。相反，在提到該地區「年事漸高的領導人」時，該書過分注意古巴，而無視拉美的大勢變化。當然，該書還頗具戲劇性地為華盛頓的惡魔而苦惱：朝鮮
和伊朗。
起初，谷歌只是獨立的加州研究生文化的體現——這是一種體面、人道及嬉戲的文化——但隨着它進入這個巨大、醜陋的世界，谷歌便開始自動投入傳統的華盛頓權力部門，從國務院到國家安全局。
儘管恐怖主義造成的死亡只佔全球暴力死亡中極小的一部分，
但恐怖主義是美國政策領域受歡迎的一個主題。這也是個必須迎合的癖好，而這樣一來，「恐怖主義的未來」就可以用一整章來描寫。從書中我們了解到，恐怖主義
的未來是網絡恐怖主義。然後有人開始瘋狂散布恐怖言論，其中包括一段情節震撼的災難電影情節：網絡恐怖分子控制了美國航空交通管制系統，指揮飛機撞擊大
樓，切斷電網，並發射核武器。然後，作者們又認為那些參與數字靜坐的活動人士也和恐怖分子是一丘之貉。
我的看法十分不同。以谷歌為代表的信息技術發展，預示着大
多數人隱私的死亡，並將世界轉向威權主義。這是我的書《解密朋克》(Cypherpunks)中的主要論點。然而，雖然施密特和科恩向我們表示，隱私消亡
將幫助壓制性獨裁體制下的政府更好地「瞄準其公民」，但他們也說「開放」民主體制下的政府也會把它看做一個禮物，使它們能夠「更好地對公民和消費者的需求
做出回應」。事實上，在西方，個人隱私遭到侵蝕，伴隨着權力的集中，侵權事件將不可避免，「好」社會被進一步推向「壞」社會。
關於「壓制性獨裁體制」的章節批判性地記述了不同的壓制性
監控手段：通過立法在軟件上安裝後門程序，以此來暗中監視公民，監聽社交網絡，並收集針對所有人的情報信息。在美國，所有這些措施都已被廣泛使用。事實
上，這其中有些措施——比如要求實名註冊社交網絡帳號的舉措——是谷歌帶頭做的。
字就寫在牆上，只是兩位作者看不見。（「牆上的字」取自
《聖經：但以理書》的一則故事，意指「不祥之兆」。——譯註）他們借用威廉·道布森(William
Dobson)的觀點，說在獨裁體制下，「媒體圈內允許反對派媒體存在，只要政權反對者清楚未說明的界限在哪裡。」但在美國也開始出現這樣的趨勢了。沒人
懷疑針對美聯社(The Associated Press)以及福克斯(Fox)的詹姆斯·羅森(James
Rosen)的調查所產生的恫嚇效果。但谷歌服從羅森案的傳票，則少有人去分析。這些趨勢是我個人親身體驗到的。
司法部在3月承認，對維基解密(WikiLeaks)的持
續刑事調查已進入第三年。根據法庭證言，司法部的目標包括」維基解密的建立者、所有者以及管理者」。布拉德利·曼寧(Bradley
Manning)就是其中一位被指控的信息提供者，他將面臨12周的審判，將於明天開始，24名控方證人將秘密作證。
在這本將帶來災難性影響的書中，兩位作者都沒有足夠強的語
言功底來看到，更沒有足夠的語言來表達，他們所構建的巨大集權惡魔。「就像洛克希德·馬丁(Lockheed
Martin)之於20世紀一樣，」兩位作者說，「技術以及網絡安全公司也將在21世紀發揮巨大作用。」他們不着痕迹地實現了喬治·奧威爾(George
Orwell)的預言，賦予了那預言新的意義，而他們甚至不知道自己是如何做到這一點的。如果你想看到未來，想像一下華盛頓支持的谷歌眼鏡被綁在人們茫然
的臉上的情景吧——而且是永久的。膜拜電子消費科技的狂熱分子將發現這裡沒有任何能夠啟發他們的東西，我倒不是說他們有什麼得到啟發的需求。但對於每一個
被迫為未來而戰的人來說，這是本必讀之書，只為一項當務之急：了解你的敵人。
朱利安·阿桑奇(Julian Assange)是維基解密主編，也是《解密高手：互聯網的自由和未來》(Cypherpunks: Freedom and the Future of the Internet)的作者。
翻譯：陶夢縈、谷菁璐
Opinion
The Banality of ‘Don’t Be Evil’
June 04, 2013
“THE New Digital Age” is a startlingly clear and
provocative blueprint for technocratic imperialism, from two of its
leading witch doctors, Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen, who construct a new
idiom for United States global power in the 21st century. This idiom
reflects the ever closer union between the State Department and Silicon
Valley, as personified by Mr. Schmidt, the executive chairman of Google, and Mr. Cohen, a former adviser to Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton who is now director of Google Ideas.
The authors met in occupied
Baghdad in 2009, when the book was conceived. Strolling among the
ruins, the two became excited that consumer technology was transforming a
society flattened by United States military occupation. They decided
the tech industry could be a powerful agent of American foreign policy.
The book proselytizes the
role of technology in reshaping the world’s people and nations into
likenesses of the world’s dominant superpower, whether they want to be
reshaped or not. The prose is terse, the argument confident and the
wisdom — banal. But this isn’t a book designed to be read. It is a major
declaration designed to foster alliances.
“The New Digital Age” is,
beyond anything else, an attempt by Google to position itself as
America’s geopolitical visionary — the one company that can answer the
question “Where should America go?” It is not surprising that a
respectable cast of the world’s most famous warmongers has been trotted
out to give its stamp of approval to this enticement to Western soft
power. The acknowledgments give pride of place to Henry Kissinger, who
along with Tony Blair and the former C.I.A. director Michael Hayden
provided advance praise for the book.
In the book the authors
happily take up the white geek’s burden. A liberal sprinkling of
convenient, hypothetical dark-skinned worthies appear: Congolese
fisherwomen, graphic designers in Botswana, anticorruption activists in
San Salvador and illiterate Masai cattle herders in the Serengeti are
all obediently summoned to demonstrate the progressive properties of
Google phones jacked into the informational supply chain of the Western
empire.
The authors offer an
expertly banalized version of tomorrow’s world: the gadgetry of decades
hence is predicted to be much like what we have right now — only cooler.
“Progress” is driven by the inexorable spread of American consumer
technology over the surface of the earth. Already, every day, another
million or so Google-run mobile devices are activated. Google will
interpose itself, and hence the United States government, between the
communications of every human being not in China (naughty China).
Commodities just become more marvelous; young, urban professionals
sleep, work and shop with greater ease and comfort; democracy is
insidiously subverted by technologies of surveillance, and control is
enthusiastically rebranded as “participation”; and our present world
order of systematized domination, intimidation and oppression continues,
unmentioned, unafflicted or only faintly perturbed.
The authors are sour about
the Egyptian triumph of 2011. They dismiss the Egyptian youth
witheringly, claiming that “the mix of activism and arrogance in young
people is universal.” Digitally inspired mobs mean revolutions will be
“easier to start” but “harder to finish.” Because of the absence of
strong leaders, the result, or so Mr. Kissinger tells the authors, will
be coalition governments that descend into autocracies. They say there
will be “no more springs” (but China is on the ropes).
The authors fantasize about
the future of “well resourced” revolutionary groups. A new “crop of
consultants” will “use data to build and fine-tune a political figure.”
“His” speeches (the future
isn’t all that different) and writing will be fed “through complex
feature-extraction and trend-analysis software suites” while “mapping
his brain function,” and other “sophisticated diagnostics” will be used
to “assess the weak parts of his political repertoire.”
The book mirrors State
Department institutional taboos and obsessions. It avoids meaningful
criticism of Israel and Saudi Arabia. It pretends, quite
extraordinarily, that the Latin American sovereignty movement, which has
liberated so many from United States-backed plutocracies and
dictatorships over the last 30 years, never happened. Referring instead
to the region’s “aging leaders,” the book can’t see Latin America for
Cuba. And, of course, the book frets theatrically over Washington’s
favorite boogeymen: North Korea and Iran.
Google, which started out
as an expression of independent Californian graduate student culture — a
decent, humane and playful culture — has, as it encountered the big,
bad world, thrown its lot in with traditional Washington power elements,
from the State Department to the National Security Agency.
Despite accounting for an
infinitesimal fraction of violent deaths globally, terrorism is a
favorite brand in United States policy circles. This is a fetish that
must also be catered to, and so “The Future of Terrorism” gets a whole
chapter. The future of terrorism, we learn, is cyberterrorism. A session
of indulgent scaremongering follows, including a breathless
disaster-movie scenario, wherein cyberterrorists take control of
American air-traffic control systems and send planes crashing into
buildings, shutting down power grids and launching nuclear weapons. The
authors then tar activists who engage in digital sit-ins with the same
brush.
I have a very different
perspective. The advance of information technology epitomized by Google
heralds the death of privacy for most people and shifts the world toward
authoritarianism. This is the principal thesis in my book,
“Cypherpunks.” But while Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Cohen tell us that the
death of privacy will aid governments in “repressive autocracies” in
“targeting their citizens,” they also say governments in “open”
democracies will see it as “a gift” enabling them to “better respond to
citizen and customer concerns.” In reality, the erosion of individual
privacy in the West and the attendant centralization of power make
abuses inevitable, moving the “good” societies closer to the “bad” ones.
The section on “repressive
autocracies” describes, disapprovingly, various repressive surveillance
measures: legislation to insert back doors into software to enable
spying on citizens, monitoring of social networks and the collection of
intelligence on entire populations. All of these are already in
widespread use in the United States. In fact, some of those measures —
like the push to require every social-network profile to be linked to a
real name — were spearheaded by Google itself.
THE writing is on the wall,
but the authors cannot see it. They borrow from William Dobson the idea
that the media, in an autocracy, “allows for an opposition press as
long as regime opponents understand where the unspoken limits are.” But
these trends are beginning to emerge in the United States. No one doubts
the chilling effects of the investigations into The Associated Press
and Fox’s James Rosen. But there has been little analysis of Google’s
role in complying with the Rosen subpoena. I have personal experience of
these trends.
The Department of Justice admitted in March that it was in its third year of a continuing criminal investigation
of WikiLeaks. Court testimony states that its targets include “the
founders, owners, or managers of WikiLeaks.” One alleged source, Bradley
Manning, faces a 12-week trial beginning tomorrow, with 24 prosecution
witnesses expected to testify in secret.
This book is a balefully
seminal work in which neither author has the language to see, much less
to express, the titanic centralizing evil they are constructing. “What
Lockheed Martin was to the 20th century,” they tell us, “technology and
cybersecurity companies will be to the 21st.” Without even understanding
how, they have updated and seamlessly implemented George Orwell’s
prophecy. If you want a vision of the future, imagine Washington-backed
Google Glasses strapped onto vacant human faces — forever. Zealots of
the cult of consumer technology will find little to inspire them here,
not that they ever seem to need it. But this is essential reading for
anyone caught up in the struggle for the future, in view of one simple
imperative: Know your enemy.
沒有留言:
張貼留言