更新时间：2024-10-27 16:38:02点击：
To watch the confrontation between the US’s most valuable company and its top law enforcement agency is to find oneself in a state of nearly permanent cognitive dissonance. 仔细观察一下美国最有价值的公司与美国最低执法人员机构之间的僵持，你不会陷于一种几近永久性“认知失调”的状态中。Apparently, America’s government agencies are both omnipotent and helpless. Omnipotent because, as this week’s batch of surveillance revelations from WikiLeaks suggests, they have no problems intercepting highly secretive communications between their European allies. Helpless because, as the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s bosses keep repeating, they need Apple’s co-operation in order to break into the iPhone of the shooter in the San Bernardino attacks. 似乎，美国政府机构既无所不能，又很绝望。之所以说道无所不能是因为，正如上周维基解密(WikiLeaks)爆料的数起监控案例所指出的那样，它们在截击欧洲盟友之间高度机密的通信内容方面神通广大。
之所以说道绝望是因为，正如联邦调查局(FBI)的头头们屡屡申明的那样，它们必须苹果(Apple)的合作，以关卡圣贝纳迪诺枪击案凶手的iPhone。It gets worse. On February 9, James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, boasted in his Senate testimony that “in the future, intelligence services might use the [internet of things] for identification, surveillance, monitoring, location tracking, and targeting for recruitment, or to gain access to networks or user credentials.” Now we learn that such agencies cannot get into our smartphones … let alone our smart fridges. 更糟的还在后面。今年2月9日，美国国家情报总监(DNI)詹姆斯克拉珀(James Clapper)在参议院出庭作证时炫耀称之为，“未来，情报部门有可能用于（物联网）来证实、监听、监控、定位以及定向召募，或者转入网络或者用户凭据”。
现在我们告诉，这些机构无法转入我们的智能手机……更加别说我们的智能冰箱了。Something in the government’s rhetoric does not add up. The FBI either has solid reasons to break into that phone — in which case it is not obvious why the mighty power of the National Security Agency and other government bodies has not yet been mobilised — or it is simply using the San Bernardino case as an excuse to redefine its relationship with Silicon Valley. 美国政府的某些言论并无法自圆其说。FBI要么有关卡那部手机的充裕理由——如果是这种情况的话，美国国家安全局(NSA)和其他政府机构的强劲能力知道为何没被动用——要么只是以圣贝纳迪诺枪击案为借口来新的界定它与硅谷的关系。
Asked by a judge about its willingness to enlist the help of all the federal agencies in a similar case from 2015, the government responded that “federal prosecutors don’t have an obligation to consult the intelligence community in order to investigate crime.” 在2015年的一起类似于案件中，当被一名法官问到否不愿谋求所有联邦机构的协助时，美国政府对此称之为，“联邦检察机关没咨询情报部门以调查犯罪行为的义务”。And since very little is known about the true capabilities of America’s intelligence community, everyone involved in the current debate has to pretend that the world’s most powerful spying agency does not exist. 既然人们对美国情报机关的现实能力知之甚少，所有接踵而来当前辩论的人被迫假装，这个全球最强劲的情报机构并不不存在。While the FBI’s defence has been that their request is extremely narrow — once Apple has facilitated access to that single phone, it is free to destroy the code required to do so — the broader political context in which this battle unfolds suggests that Apple’s stance will have far-reaching implications. 尽管FBI仍然坚称，他们的拒绝极低——一旦苹果协助关卡了那部手机，就可以封存为此研发的代码——但这场争斗所处的更加普遍的政治环境指出，苹果的立场将具备深远影响的影响。First, the FBI’s request comes at a time when the US government is exerting immense pressure on America’s largest technology companies to join it in the fight against Isis. Both the state department and the Department of Defense have recently expanded their presence in Silicon Valley. 首先，FBI明确提出催促之际，正值美国政府对美国大型科技公司产生极大压力，拒绝它们重新加入到压制“伊斯兰国”(ISIS)中。
FBI和美国国防部最近都不断扩大了在硅谷的不存在。While many such requests are straightforward — removing jihadist propaganda from YouTube or Twitter, for example — there are concerns that such pressure might extend to modifying their algorithms in order to hide certain types of content from easily susceptible users. 尽管许多此类拒绝很必要——例如，避免YouTube或Twitter上的圣战宣传标语——但仍有人担忧，此类压力有可能延伸至拒绝科技公司调整算法，以便向更容易不受影响的用户屏蔽某些类型的内容。Google knows what is in your inbox; why should it not modify your search results to make you less of a terrorist? 谷歌(Google)告诉你的收件箱里有什么；它为何不不应调整你的搜寻结果以便减少你发展成恐怖分子的可能性？ Second, it is hard to believe that the San Bernardino case will be an isolated episode. Not only are there several similar cases already pending in US courts but many prosecutors have already indicated they have their own backlog of phones to unlock. 其次，很难坚信圣贝纳迪诺枪击案不会是一个孤立无援事件。
美国法院有数多起类似于的案件等候裁决，而且很多检察官已回应，他们也有大量手机等候关卡。Manhattan district attorney Cyrus Vance said recently that he would “absolutely ... want access to all those phones that are crucial in a criminal investigation.” 曼哈顿地区检察官塞勒斯万斯(Cyrus Vance)最近回应，他“认同……期望密码所有在刑事调查中起关键作用的手机。
” Even if Apple chose to destroy the code it writes to help the FBI on this occasion, it would need to rewrite it for a new request. Should it keep this code forever, it would be holding on to a magic key to its devices — a highly prized asset for any hacker. 即便苹果自由选择封存这次为协助FBI而撰写的代码，以后再有新的拒绝时它还得改写。如果苹果总有一天保有这个代码，这将为其设备保留一把具有魔力的钥匙：这对于任何黑客而言都是一项十足贵重的资产。
Given the publicity of the case, any terrorists would probably stop using Apple’s products anyway. The only people to suffer would be ordinary users, stuck with their iPhones and iPads. 鉴于此案的曝光度，所有恐怖主义分子难道都会再行用苹果产品。唯一的受害者将是那些必不可少iPhone和iPad的普通用户。Third, the FBI’s rationale in this case would make any other manufacturer of smart devices — including all those smart fridges and smart thermostats in your smart home — subject to similar requests. 第三，联邦调查局在此案中明确提出的理由将令所有其他生产智能设备的制造商（还包括你的智能家居中的智能冰箱和智能恒温器）遵从类似于的拒绝。
If Apple can be forced to modify security protocols on its phone, what stops the FBI from asking the manufacturer of the smart smoke detector to trigger a fake smoke alarm? Or asking the manufacturer of the smart car to drive suspects directly to the police station? 如果苹果可以不得不改动其手机的安全性协议，那么还有什么能制止FBI拒绝智能烟雾报警器制造商收到欺诈烟雾报警？或者拒绝生产智能汽车的制造商让嫌疑人搭乘的汽车必要进到警察局？ All of this would seem neat so long as the government agencies were competent and nobody else could take advantage of such vulnerabilities. 所有这些或许都会安然无事，只要政府机构有能力，而且其他人无法利用这些脆弱性。This is not so. The San Bernardino case — where the FBI had a chance to break into the phone but blew it by changing the suspect’s Apple password — suggests that the FBI’s technical competence does not yet match the NSA’s. 但情况并非如此，在圣贝纳迪诺枪击案中，联邦调查局曾多次有机会密码那部手机，但在改动嫌疑人的苹果密码时搞砸了。这指出，联邦调查局的技术能力还追不上美国国家安全局。
And it would be suicidal to force technology companies to weaken security at a time when institutions of all sorts are vulnerable to hackers demanding ransoms — earlier this month, a hospital in California paid the bitcoin equivalent of $17,000 to hackers who had breached its computer network. 在各类机构更容易受到索取赎金的黑客的反击之际，被迫科技公司巩固产品的安全性无异于自杀身亡。本月早些时候，加州一家医院向反击其电脑网络的黑客缴纳了价值相等于1.7万美元的比特币。Apple’s proposed solution is the right one: America needs a comprehensive political debate on the issue — one that would bypass inter-agency squabbling. 苹果明确提出的解决方案是准确的：美国必须就这个问题进行一场全面的政治辩论，这场辩论将绕过机构之间的争执。
Alas, given how little the current batch of presidential candidates seems to care, or even understand, these issues, this debate is not likely to happen. 唉，当前的各位总统候选人或许都不过于关心这些问题，甚至不过于理解，因此这场辩论不太可能经常出现。
本文来源：南宫NG·28-www.etmoc.net
