評論
打印
Every new media technology raises privacy concerns.
每個新的媒體技術(shù)都會引起隱私問題。
In fact, in the US the very first major debates about privacy were in response to technologies that were relatively new at the time.
實際上，在美國，關(guān)于隱私的最初辯論是對當時嶄新的科技的回應(yīng)。
In the late 1800s, people were worried about cameras, which were just suddenly more portable than ever before, and newspaper gossip columns.
19世紀末，人們擔(dān)心那較過去突然輕便許多的照相機以及報紙上的八卦板塊。
They were worried that the camera would capture information about them, take it out of context and widely disseminate it.
他們擔(dān)心照相機會獲取他們的信息，斷章取義，大肆宣揚。
Does this sound familiar? It's exactly what we're worrying about now with social media and drone cameras, and, of course, sexting.
聽起來是不是很熟悉？就像我們擔(dān)憂社交媒體和無人機攝像頭，當然，還有色情短信。
And these fears about technology, they make sense because technologies can amplify and bring out our worst qualities and behaviors.
這些對于科技的恐懼不無道理，因為科技能夠展露出并放大我們最為糟糕的品質(zhì)與行為。
But there are solutions. And we've been here before with a dangerous new technology.
但這是有解決方法的。我們就曾經(jīng)歷過一個危險的新科技。
In 1908, Ford introduced the Model T car. Traffic fatality rates were rising.
1908年，福特推出了T系車。交通死亡率不斷上升。
It was a serious problem -- it looks so safe, right? Our first response was to try to change drivers' behavior,
這曾是一個嚴重的問題-- 它看起來很安全，對吧？我們第一反應(yīng)是嘗試改變司機的駕駛行為，
so we developed speed limits and enforced them through fines.
所以我們建立了速度限制并通過罰款來強制實行。
But over the following decades, we started to realize the technology of the car itself is not just neutral.
但在此后的幾十年里，我們開始認識到汽車技術(shù)本身不是一成不變的。
We could design the car to make it safer.
我們可以設(shè)計出更安全的汽車。
So in the 1920s, we got shatter-resistant windshields. In the 1950s, seat belts. And in the 1990s, airbags.
于是上世紀20年代，我們有了抗碎擋風(fēng)玻璃。到了50年代有了安全帶。到了90年代，安全氣囊。
All three of these areas: laws, individuals and industry came together over time to help solve the problem that a new technology causes.
這三個領(lǐng)域：法律、個人及工業(yè)，可以隨著時間的推移集合在一起，來幫助解決新科技所造成的問題。
And we can do the same thing with digital privacy. Of course, it comes back to consent.
我們在數(shù)字信息隱私上亦可以如法炮制。當然，這又回到同意的話題上來。
Here's the idea. Before anyone can distribute your private information, they should have to get your permission.
我有個想法。在任何人可以傳播你的個人信息之前，他們應(yīng)該得到你的同意。
This idea of affirmative consent comes from anti-rape activists who tell us that we need consent for every sexual act.
明確同意的觀點源自于反性侵害人士，他們告訴我們對于每個性行為都需要得到雙方同意。
And we have really high standards for consent in a lot of other areas.
我們在很多領(lǐng)域?qū)Υ舛加兄鴺O高的標準。
