律師、技術專家和 TED 研究員 Albert Fox Cahn 說，大規(guī)模監(jiān)控比你想象的要糟糕，但解決方案比你想象的要簡單。他分解了執(zhí)法部門用來清理我們日常技術收集的大量關于我們的數據的粗暴策略，闡述了新的法律防火墻如何保護公眾免受地理圍欄令和其他監(jiān)視濫用的侵害——以及我們如何結束迫在眉睫的情況大規(guī)模監(jiān)視的反烏托邦。

We all know we're tracked everywhere we go.?But as a lawyer, a technologist and anti-surveillance activist,?I'm here to tell you two things:?the threat is way worse than you realize?and the solutions simpler than you think.?And no, it's not wearing a tinfoil hat.

我們都知道我們走到哪里都會被跟蹤。?但作為一名律師、技術專家和反監(jiān)視活動家，?我在這里告訴你兩件事：?威脅比你意識到?的要嚴重得多，解決方案比你想象的要簡單。?不，它沒有戴錫紙帽子。

You may know that advertisers can record every link you clickand every place you've been,?but you may not realize the government can buy that data, too.?If the NYPD wants to track a BLM protest, they can buy the data.?If Texas wants to watch an abortion clinic,?they can buy the data.?And when the IRS wants to know?if your Florida company is really doing work in California,they don't need to buy the data.?They already did.?Millions of our location records.

你可能知道廣告商可以記錄你點擊?的每一個鏈接和你去過的每一個地方，?但你可能沒有意識到政府也可以購買這些數據。?如果紐約警察局想要追蹤 BLM 抗議，他們可以購買數據。?如果德州想觀察墮胎診所，?他們可以購買數據。?而當 IRS 想知道?您在佛羅里達州的公司是否真的在加利福尼亞州開展業(yè)務時，?他們不需要購買數據。他們已經做到了。?數以百萬計的位置記錄。

And what the government can't buy, it can take by force,?crudely wielding our 18th century constitution?against 21st century technology.?With a geofence warrant,?companies are forced to hand over our location data -- not for one person,?but everyone, every single user in a geographic area,?whether a single room or an entire city.?In one Virginia case, police cast a digital dragnet?far beyond the crime scene,?forcing Google to identify everyone nearby,?even those at a church,?even though they weren't even suspects.?It's not only Orwellian, it's bad policing.?Search widely enough?and someone's movements will always look suspicious.Like an Arizona man wrongly arrested for murder miles awaysimply because someone was logged into his Google account.Or a Florida man connected to a crime scene?for biking around the neighborhood.

政府買不到的東西，它可以用武力拿走，?粗暴地用我們的 18 世紀憲法?對抗 21 世紀的技術。?有了地理圍欄令，?公司被迫交出我們的位置數據——不是一個人，?而是每個人，一個地理區(qū)域中的每個用戶，?無論是一個房間還是整個城市。?在弗吉尼亞州的一個案例中，警方在犯罪現場之外撒下了一張數字拉網，?迫使谷歌識別附近的每個人，甚至是教堂里的人，即使他們甚至不是嫌疑人。這不僅是奧威爾式的，而且是糟糕的治安。搜索得足夠廣泛，某人的動作總是看起來很可疑。?就像一個亞利桑那州的男子僅僅因為有人登錄了他的谷歌賬戶就因在?數英里外的謀殺罪而被錯誤地逮捕。或者一個佛羅里達男子連接到犯罪現場?，在附近騎自行車。

Look, I don't know about you,?but I find it hard enough to work up the energy to work out?without worrying that my Fitbit is going to land me in jail.

聽著，我不了解你，?但我發(fā)現很難增加精力去鍛煉，?而不用擔心我的 Fitbit 會把我送進監(jiān)獄。

Technology makes tracking possible,?but it's our laws that give it force,?posing a deeply discriminatory danger to BIPOC communities,?LGBTQ individuals and undocumented families.?We can't continue to watch officers shred the Fourth Amendment safeguards?against search and seizure.?We can't wait for the Supreme Court to act.?We must ban geofence warrants and other surveillance abuses today.

技術使追蹤成為可能，?但賦予它力量的是我們的法律，?對 BIPOC 社區(qū)、?LGBTQ 個人和無證家庭構成了極具歧視性的危險。?我們不能繼續(xù)眼睜睜地看著警察撕碎第四修正案?防止搜查和扣押的保障措施。?我們不能等待最高法院采取行動。?我們今天必須禁止地理圍欄令和其他監(jiān)視濫用行為。

For years, privacy advocates have fought how companies collect our data.?And we failed.?Maybe we should have tried the tinfoil hats after all.

多年來，隱私權倡導者一直在與公司收集我們數據的方式作斗爭。而我們失敗了。?也許我們畢竟應該嘗試過錫紙帽子。

But we can stop mass surveillance?if we change the problem we're trying to fix.?Shifting our focus from how companies collect our data?to how governments abuse it.

但如果我們改變我們試圖解決的問題，我們就?可以停止大規(guī)模監(jiān)視。將我們的重點從公司如何收集我們的數據?轉移到政府如何濫用它。

In America, our default rule is?that every smartphone, computer and Internet-enabled toaster oven?is a police tool in the making.Officers can seize our devices and wiretap Alexa,?but they don't control the contours of our Constitution.?It's our decision, our democratic decision,?whether our data can be used for undemocratic ends.?We can create new firewalls to protect our information --?not computer code, but legal codes?that shield us from having our data used against us in a court of law.?Legal firewalls are already becoming a reality in New York.?At the pandemic's height,?we feared how police and ICE?might misuse data from new contact tracing apps?that monitor everyone nearby.?So we worked with the New York Civil Liberties Union,doctors, grassroots organizers?to create the first ban on police access to contact tracing data in the country.

在美國，我們的默認規(guī)則是?，每部智能手機、電腦和聯(lián)網烤箱?都是制作中的警察工具。?警察可以沒收我們的設備并竊聽 Alexa，?但他們無法控制我們憲法的輪廓。?這是我們的決定，我們的民主決定，我們的數據是否可以用于不民主的目的。?我們可以創(chuàng)建新的防火墻來保護我們的信息——?不是計算機代碼，而是?保護我們的數據免于在法庭上對我們不利的法律代碼。?法律防火墻已經在紐約成為現實。?在大流行的高峰期，?我們擔心警察和 ICE?可能會濫用來自新的接觸者追蹤應用程序的數據?監(jiān)視附近的每個人。?因此，我們與紐約公民自由聯(lián)盟、?醫(yī)生、基層組織者?合作，制定了該國第一個禁止警察獲取接觸者追蹤數據的禁令。

No one should fear that they'll be arrested?because of public health data,?but that remains a risk in 49 states.?Legal firewalls let us have our technology and our Constitution too,?enabling innovation by outlawing oppression.?We see glimmers of Beltway bipartisanship,?but state and local governments are our brightest hope.?That's because it can take millions of people?to enact a national statute,?but just a handful of committed activists can make changes in their community.?And we already see a deluge of state and local protections,?including a bill I helped write,?New York's first in the nation ban on geofence warrants.

沒有人應該擔心他們會?因為公共衛(wèi)生數據而被捕，?但這在 49 個州仍然存在風險。?法律防火墻讓我們也擁有我們的技術和憲法，?通過取締壓迫來實現創(chuàng)新。?我們看到了環(huán)城公路兩黨合作的曙光，?但州和地方政府是我們最光明的希望。?這是因為?制定一項國家法規(guī)可能需要數百萬人，?但只有少數忠誠的活動家可以在他們的社區(qū)中做出改變。?我們已經看到了大量的州和地方保護措施，?包括我?guī)椭帉懙囊豁椃ò?，這?是紐約在全國范圍內第一個禁止地理圍欄令的法案。

And even some courts agree.?Just last month, a federal judge struck down?that sprawling Virginia geofence,?calling on state lawmakers to enact bills like my own.?As a teenage protester, NYPD camcorders shoved in my face,?I saw surveillance as a threat,?and people thought my fears were something out of science fiction.?Today, they increasingly think that surveillance is inevitable?and that privacy is the fantasy.

甚至一些法院也同意。?就在上個月，一位聯(lián)邦法官推翻了?弗吉尼亞州龐大的地理圍欄，?呼吁州立法者制定像我自己一樣的法案。?作為一名十幾歲的抗議者，紐約警察局的攝像機被推到了我的臉上，?我將監(jiān)視視為一種威脅，?人們認為我的恐懼來自科幻小說。?今天，他們越來越多地認為監(jiān)視是不可避免?的，而隱私是幻想。

But I'm actually more optimistic than ever.?It had to get this bad for the denial to break?and for the public to act.?I know we can push back that looming dystopia.?I know we can protect everything?that technology might make possible tomorrow,

但我實際上比以往任何時候都更加樂觀。?為了打破否認并讓公眾采取行動，它必須變得如此糟糕。?我知道我們可以推翻迫在眉睫的反烏托邦。我知道我們可以保護明天技術可能實現的一切，

but only if we ban surveillance abuses today.

但前提是我們今天禁止濫用監(jiān)控。