服务热线:

新闻动态
NEWS

推荐产品

海口市dedesos科技有限公司

服务热线:
公司地址:
联系电话:

邮 箱:admin@dedesos.com

当前位置:官网首页 > 新闻动态 > 公司新闻 >

公司新闻

硅谷企业应该走下云端

时间:2019-12-20来源:dedesos.com

The other day the Financial Times reported that Apple wants to disable its own access to the iCloud, thus making it impossible for the company to comply with legal warrants for customer data. You could reframe this goal: America’s most valuable company is looking for technical fixes that will allow it to defy the elected politicians, law enforcement bodies and judges responsible for the nation’s security. If Apple does not like a law, it will invent some computer coding to circumvent it.

近来英国《金融时报》报导,苹果方案禁用其本身对iCloud的拜访,这将使该公司无法遵照要求获取用户数据的法庭令。你可以从头描绘一下这个方针:美国最有价值的公司正在寻求作出技能调整,使其可以违背对国家安全负有责任的民选政治人士、法令部分和法官。假如苹果不喜欢某项法令,它将创造一些计算机代码来绕过它。

Tim Cook would probably not put it quite like that. Yet the Apple chief executive has elevated his fight with the Federal Bureau of Investigation over access to an iPhone belonging to one of the shooters in the San Bernardino terrorist outrage into a struggle between liberty and tyranny, privacy and intrusion.

蒂姆•库克很或许不会这么说,可是这位苹果首席执行官已将他与美国联邦调查局就解锁圣贝纳迪诺恐惧暴行中一名枪手的iPhone的争论,上升为自在和暴政、隐私和侵略之争。

Mr Cook says that to accede to the FBI’s request that Apple write a piece of code to permit access to data on the phone would be to create “the software equivalent of cancer”. Hundreds of millions of customers would be put at risk. “This is not about one phone,” he told ABC News, “this is about the future.”

库克表明,遵从FBI的要求编写一段代码以拜访那部手机上的数据,就像是编写“等同于癌症的软件”。数亿用户将被置于风险之中。“这关乎的不是一部手机,”他告知美国广播公司,“这关乎未来。”

A victory for the FBI would threaten “everyone’s civil liberties”. This is vaulting language from the chief executive of a company that, when all is said and done, is in the business of making luxury-end digital gadgets. Apple is innovative. Its products look nice. But civilisation would survive the absence of iPads and iPhones.

FBI的成功将要挟“每个人的公民自在”。这是这家公司首席执行官的夸大之词,而它说到底不过是一家出产高端数码产品的公司。苹果很有立异性。它的产品看起来很棒。但就算没有iPad和iPhone,文明也会存续下去。

The FBI says that the San Bernardino case is sui generis. It is not asking Apple to hand over any coding and the company can destroy the code once the handset is accessed. Mr Cook’s motives, it suggests, are not entirely altruistic. In the wake of the Edward Snowden leaks, Apple has seen privacy and encryption as powerful marketing tools. Unfashionable as it may be post-Snowden, I tend to agree with the FBI that the natural tension between privacy and national security “should not be resolved by corporations that sell stuff”.

FBI表明,圣贝纳迪诺案是个特例。FBI不会要求苹果交出任何代码,该公司可以在解锁那部手机后当即毁掉代码。FBI以为,库克的动机并非彻底出于利他主义。在爱德华•斯诺登泄密工作后,苹果将隐私和加密视为强有力的营销东西。虽然在后斯诺登年代这么说或许有点不行时尚,但我倾向于认同FBI的说法:隐私和国家安全之间的天然严重联系“不该该由一家卖东西的公司来处理”。

Apple sets itself apart from the tech pack — Mr Cook often accuses the rest of harvesting and selling personal data — but on this issue the company has won the backing of most of Silicon Valley. Apple and Google have also been joined by Facebook, Twitter and Microsoft in lining up on the other side of the Atlantic against a planned British law to codify the state’s access to data.

苹果将本身超逸于科技职业之外——库克常常责备其他科技公司获取和贩卖个人信息——但在这次的问题上,苹果赢得了大多数硅谷企业的支撑。在大西洋的另一边,Facebook、Twitter和微软加入了苹果和谷歌的队伍,对立英国方案出台的一项将政府对数据的拜访权写入法令的法案。

As in the San Bernardino case, the companies say the UK government is seeking “back doors” into their technology that would undermine security for customers. They argue that the British law would set a precedent for authoritarian states. I am not sure that President Vladimir Putin has ever waited for Britain to take the lead before brushing aside personal freedoms and data privacy in the name of the Russian state.

就像在圣贝纳迪诺案中相同,这些公司表明,英国政府在寻求侵入它们的技能的“后门”,这会削弱用户安全。它们以为英国的这项法令将为威权国家建立先例。但我很置疑,弗拉基米尔•普京以俄罗斯国家之名把个人自在和数据隐私抛到一边之前,曾等过英国来带头。

It is perfectly proper and legitimate, of course, for Mr Cook to challenge the FBI in the US courts and there is nothing to say that technology companies should not lobby, like any business, against laws they do not like. He is right, also, that there is a vital debate to be had about the proper balance between personal privacy and collective security.

当然,库克在美国法庭上应战FBI是彻底合理合法的,科技公司像其他任何公司相同为对立它们不喜欢的法令而游说,这种行为也无可厚非。库克宣称应该就个人隐私和团体安全间的合理平衡进行一场要害争辩,这也是正确的。

In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the pendulum probably swung too far in the direction of law enforcement and intelligence agencies. At the very least there was insufficient transparency about the extent to which governments had adapted to the digital age by accessing — then, incidentally, with the willing co-operation of Apple and others — personal communications and data. Tighter oversight was necessary.

在“9/11”恐惧袭击今后,平衡很或许朝着法令和情报机构的方向移动得太远了。至少关于政府已在多大程度上经过拜访个人通讯和信息——趁便一提其时是在苹果和其他公司乐意协作的情况下——来习惯数字年代,透明度还不行。更严厉的监管必不可少。

Mr Snowden’s revelations risk shifting the balance too far in the opposite direction. Civil libertarians might say otherwise but the storage of metadata does not amount to digital mass surveillance. What matters are the conditions under which such data can be searched — the safeguards, legal authority and reporting responsibilities that militate against misuse of personal information while allowing the state to protect its citizens.

斯诺登的泄密或许又使平衡朝着相反的方向移动得太远。推重公民自在的人士或许会说并非如此,但存储元数据并不等同于数字化大规模监控。重要的是在什么情况下这些数据可以被查找——设置什么样的维护措施、法令授权和报告责任来阻挠个人信息被乱用,一起使国家可以维护其公民。

My guess is that there is no perfect balance and even if there was, it would probably be overtaken soon enough by newer technology. Intelligence agencies will always want too much access, while civil libertarians, and nowadays the tech companies, will stand at the other extreme. The best that politicians can do is update the frameworks and ensure that the courts have effective oversight.

我猜测,不存在完美的平衡,就算真的有,也很有或许在短时间内被更新的科技压倒。情报机构总是期望具有过多的拜访权限,而公民自在人士和当今的科技公司则站在另一个极点。政治人士所能做的最好的工作便是更新法令结构,保证法庭能进行有用的监管。

Mr Cook seems to think Apple can stand above such a democratic process. If it loses the argument, it will find a way around the law. Apple is not alone. To listen to Google, Facebook and the rest is to hear corporations that have come to believe their own propaganda: as custodians of the digital future, theirs is a higher calling that should grant them immunity from the meddling of courts or the judgments of elected politicians.

库克好像以为苹果可以立于这个民主进程之上。假如苹果在论争中失利,它将找到绕过法令的方法。苹果并不是仅有这样以为的公司。听听谷歌、Facebook和其他公司的说辞,你会感到这些公司现已开端信任本身的宣扬:作为数字化未来的守护者,它们具有更为崇高的任务,这应该答应它们不受法庭干涉、不受民选政治人士的评判。

The inflated sense of self-worth is not confined to the realm of privacy. It explains the indignation with which the companies greet demands that they pay a fair share of corporate tax. For Mr Cook it is the US government’s fault that Apple shelters tens of billions of dollars in offshore tax havens. Google seems genuinely shocked when British politicians take umbrage at the way it shuffles off to low-tax Ireland billions of dollars in profits made on its UK sales.

这种胀大的自我价值感不只限于隐私范畴。这解说了这些企业在有关部分要求它们交纳合理比例的企业税时的怒火中烧。对库克而言,苹果将数百亿美元藏在海外避税港是美国政府的错。在英国政治人士气愤于谷歌将其在英国出售所得的数十亿美元赢利转移到税率较低的爱尔兰时,谷歌好像真的很震动。

For all Mr Cook’s messianism, the tech giants are in business to make money. They have a valid point of view — just like everyone else. But, no, Silicon Valley does not inhabit a higher plane, and Apple’s profits should not trump democratic choices about security.

虽然库克摆出了救世主的姿势,但这些科技巨子做这行是为了挣钱。它们的观念很合理——就像其他任何人相同。可是,不,硅谷并不占有更高的层面,苹果的赢利也不该该凌驾于有关安全的民主挑选之上。


上一篇:聚烯烃催化技能与高性能资料国家重点实验室实
下一篇:没有了


要害词:法令 库克 它们 公司 苹果 

官方微博

Copyright © 2018 凯发体育网址凯发体育网址-凯发体育官网 All Rights Reserved
公司地址:
联系电话:

企业邮箱:admin@dedesos.com

  • 友情链接 :