評論
打印
At the hearings, Zuckerberg expressed some openness to new rules from Congress.
在聽證會上，扎克伯格表達了一定程度的，對國會新規定的開放態度。
“My position is not that there should be no regulation,” he said, while emphasizing that the U.S. needs to debate the nature of the oversight.
“我不是說不應該監管，”他一邊強調美國需要就監管的性質展開辯論一邊說到。
Ideas being floated for bills range from requirements for greater disclosure in online political advertising to enhanced protections for minors.
提議納入法案的，從要求在線政治廣告披露更多信息，到加強對未成年人的保護的各種想法都被否決了。
Many lawmakers are calling for tech companies to rewrite terms-of-service agreements in plain English,
許多議員都呼吁科技公司用通俗易懂的英語重寫服務條款協議，
so users have a better idea of what bargains they’re getting into when they sign up for free services.
以便用戶注冊免費服務項目時對協議內容有更清楚的概念。
And industry experts want defaults to be opt-in, so users proactively choose when to share their data.
行業專家則希望加入默認設置，方便用戶自主選擇何時分享他們的數據。
Khanna says he plans to introduce an Internet “bill of rights.”
坎那說，他計劃提出一項互聯網“權利法案”的議案。
Leaving the difficulties of enforcement aside,
撇開落實的難度不談，
those principles might include a right to know which companies have data about you,
這類原則可能包括用戶有權了解哪些公司可以掌握自己的信息，
the right to delete that information and the right to be notified when there is a data breach.
用戶有權刪除自己的信息，以及發生數據泄露時用戶有權被通知等內容。
Facebook users were getting alerts that their data had been compromised as Zuckerberg headed to Washington,
扎克伯格前往華盛頓時，Facebook用戶收到了他們的數據被泄露的警告，
although the breach of trust occurred years before.
盡管這種違背信任的事幾年前就發生了。
The company has said the 87 million user proiles were attained by Cambridge Analytica,
該公司表示，有8700萬用戶的資料被劍橋分析公司獲取了，
which had ties to the 2016 election campaign of Donald Trump,
而該公司在2016年總統大選時與唐納德·特朗普有過接觸，
because a researcher improperly sold that information after collecting it in 2013 under the auspices of doing academic work.
因為該公司某研究人員在2013年以學術工作的名義收集了這些信息，后對這些信息進行了不當出售。
THE SCANDAL is bad enough that a bipartisan group of 37 state attorneys general has also launched an inquiry into the matter—
這起丑聞實在太過不堪，以致于37名州總檢察長組成了一個跨黨小組，就此事展開調查——
which might lead to an update in state laws regarding privacy—
調查最后可能引起州法律有關隱私的內容的調整——
as has the Federal Trade Commission,
正如聯邦貿易委員會所做的那樣，
the agency charged with protecting Americans from unfair and deceptive business practices.
該機構的職責是保護美國人免受不公平和欺騙性商業行為的傷害。
GOP staffers say that many Republican members will be citing the FTC investigation as a key reason to hold off on legislation,
共和黨工作人員表示，許多共和黨成員都將援引聯邦貿易委員會的調查，作為推遲立法的關鍵理由，
with hopes that America’s consumer watchdog will prove it has suficient authority to keep tech firms in check.
而且他們希望美國消費者監管機構能證明它有足夠的權力控制科技公司。
At the hearings, many lawmakers questioned whether Facebook can really change so long as its business model depends on monetizing users’ data to sell ads.
聽證會上，許多議員都對Facebook是否真的能改過自新，只要它的商業模式還要依賴于銷售廣告，拿用戶數據換錢，表示了質疑。
Some suggested that more competition might lead to better options.
一些人認為，更激烈的競爭或許也能帶來更好的選擇。
Zuckerberg, while defending the model as a means of making the product free and therefore afordable to everyone,
在為這種模式辯護，聲稱這種方式也是讓產品走向免費的途徑，因此對所有人來說都有借鑒意義時，
suggested he would be open to outside experts’ helping to check up on the company’s practices.
扎克伯格表示，他將對外界專家幫助監察公司的做法持開放態度。
But the billionaire almost always stopped short of offering support for specific proposals, repeating that “the details matter.”
但這位億萬富翁幾乎總是會一到支持具體提議的時候就止步不前了，嘴上重復著那句“細節很重要”。
The CEO’s hedging rubbed some lawmakers the wrong way.
這位CEO模棱兩可的操作令一些議員感到頗為不快。
“I don’t want to vote to have to regulate Facebook, but by God I will,”
“我本不想投票支持必須對Facebook進行監管這種觀點，但是我發誓一定會這么做，”
said Senator John Kennedy, a Republican from Louisiana.
來自路易斯安那州的共和黨參議員約翰·肯尼迪說到。
“You can go back home, spend $10 million on lobbyists and fight us.
“你們可以回家，花一千萬美元請說客來跟我們作對。
Or you can go back home and help us solve this problem.”
你也可以回家幫我們一起解決這個問題。”
譯文由可可原創，僅供學習交流使用，未經許可請勿轉載。
