Amy+Webb+杨瑞

去年12月3日，美国加州圣贝纳迪诺发生一起重大枪杀案，为了更加深入调查此案背景，美国联邦调查局要求苹果公司解锁其中一名凶手的iPhone手机，这一要求遭到苹果公司的拒绝，此事引起了当事双方及社会的激烈争论。今年2月份，联邦法院的地方法庭裁定苹果公司必须配合FBI对手机解锁，而其依据竟是于1789年美国第一国会通过的《全令法案》，不禁令人大跌眼镜。这一案例不仅事关该如何在个人隐私与公众安全间进行权衡，更折射出美国在科技方面的立法已远远滞后于新兴科技的发展。纵观全球，情况又何尝不是如此？科技发展正以人类无法想象的步伐向前推进，是时候让高素质的科学家和技术人员介入立法过程，填补我们在新兴科技方面的法律空白了。

Last week， a federal magistrate ordered Apple to create a back door into the iPhone and thus set the stage for the biggest and most important public debate about privacy and security in this new technological era. Those in favor of breaking encryption1） when its in the public interest are our government and its law enforcement agencies. Arguing against government intrusion into our digital freedoms are tech companies and civil liberties groups.

Apple CEO Tim Cook said that “this moment calls for public discussion.” I agree. But it has to be the right one. We cannot rely on lawsuits to trigger debate retroactively2）. Nor can we wait for a courts decision to decide technologys future place in our society. We must plan in earnest right now， together， for the good of everyone.

This is an issue that extends far beyond Apple and the FBI. Today， we are arguing over an iPhone， and whether or not the government can compel a tech company to help it break into a device. Tomorrows problems will be far more complex， involving science and technology the likes of which youve only ever read about in sci-fi books.

If anything， the case pitting the government against Apple only illustrates the dire3） situation we now find ourselves in： The pace of scientific and technological change has surpassed our legal frameworks， our laws and the people charged4） with making decisions that affect us all.

上周（编注：英文原文发表于2月25日），一位联邦法官命令苹果公司在iPhone上创建后门，由此引发了这个新技术时代有关隐私与安全问题规模最大也是最重要的公众辩论。支持在有利于公众利益时进行解密的是我们的政府及其执法机构；反对政府侵犯我们数据自由的是那些高科技公司及公民自由团体。

苹果公司首席执行官蒂姆·库克说“这一刻需要公众讨论”。对此我同意，但必须是正确的讨论，我们不能依赖法律诉讼事后来展开辩论，也不能等待法庭的宣判来决定科技将来在我们这个社会中的地位。我们必须现在就开始一起认真规划，这是为我们每一个人好。

这是一个远远超出苹果公司和联邦调查局本身的议题。今天，我们讨论的是一部iPhone，争论的是政府能否迫使科技公司帮助其破解一个装置。明天的问题将远比这个复杂，其中涉及的是你们只会在科幻小说里读到的那类科学和技术。

如果说政府与苹果公司对薄公堂这件事意味着什么的话，那可以说这件事只是折射出我们目前所处的可怕境地：科学和技术变化的步伐已经超越了我们的法律框架，超越了我们的法律，也超越了决策者——这些决策者所做的决策关系到我们所有人。

Elected Officials Dont Have the Answers

民选官员没有答案

We ought to be discussing these technologies before theres a tragedy forcing the debate into a courtroom. But who among our elected officials is in a position to have5） that conversation？ Of the 535 senators and representatives in the 114th Congress， only two hold doctorates in the natural and hard sciences. There is one physicist， one microbiologist， one chemist and eight engineers spread across the House and Senate. Back in 2008， former Rep. Rush Holt， D-6）New Jersey， told The New York Times that while there are 435 people in the House， “420 dont know much about science and choose not to.”

Our elected officials lack of experience with technology resulted in a similarly raucous7） debate that year： Whether or not electronic voting machines should be used. Arguing whether or not a technology should be implemented after the fact is a waste of time. Especially since， as Holt put it， the potential glitches8） “would [have been] obvious to any computer scientist but went right past some people here in Congress.”

A Ph.D. in the hard sciences shouldnt be a requirement to hold elected office in America. However， those responsible for making and enforcing our laws ought to concern themselves with tech thats over the horizon9）， especially since technology now intersects with every facet of our daily lives.

Years ago， the now-shuttered Office of Technology Assessment was charged with researching， forecasting and advising Congress on matters of emerging technology. During its existence， the OTA released more than 750 prescient10） studies ranging from robots in the workplace， to bioterrorism， to acid rain and climate change. Without the OTA in place， the Congress was free to bring in its own lobbyists， think tanks and interest groups to weigh in on important emerging science and technology issues.

Aside from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency （DARPA）， which is a military research-and-development division， and IARPA， which is part of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence， the only agency left now to investigate emerging science and technology is the Congressional Research Service， which is a century-old division of the Library of Congress. However， its primary concern is research and analysis on existing policies and proposed legislation. There is no agency looking ahead into the future.

Without an unbiased arm of Congress left to evaluate the meaning of emerging science and technology， we have abdicated11） our future to a motley12） crew of interest groups， law enforcement agencies， elected officials and CEOs. Its a terrifying prospect.

Its precisely that lack of planning and foresight that enabled the blowup involving Apple and the FBI. Because there are no other legal frameworks to use， the government is citing an ancient and obscure law called the All Writs Act， which was originally passed in 1789. For context， that was the year that Thomas Jefferson was appointed our first-ever secretary of state and the cutting-edge13） technology he employed in office was a quill14） and parchment15）.

在悲剧迫使这场辩论进入法庭之前，我们就应该讨论这些技术了。但是我们的民选官员中谁有能力来进行这样的商讨呢？在第114届国会的535位众议院和参议院议员中，只有两人有自然科学和硬科学的博士学位。整个参议院和众议院仅有一位物理学家、一位微生物学家、一位化学家和八位工程师。早在2008年，前新泽西州众议院议员、民主党人拉什·霍尔特就对《纽约时报》说，众议院的435号人中，“有420人对科学不甚了解，并且还有意不去了解”。

由于我们的民选官员们缺乏科技方面的经验，才有了当年那场差不多同样乱哄哄的辩论：是否该用电子投票器。一项技术已经是既成事实了，还去讨论是否该用，这等于是浪费时间。考虑到下面的情况更是如此：用霍尔特的话来说，那些潜在的缺陷“在任何一位计算机科学家看来都是显而易见的，但国会这边有些人对之却一无所知”。

在美国，硬科学领域的博士学位不应该成为官员当选的一个要求。然而，负责制定及实施法律的官员应该去研究初露端倪的科技，尤其是考虑到科技现在已关系到我们日常生活的方方面面。

多年前，技术评估局负责研究和预测新兴科技，并就相关事务为国会提出建议。如今该局已关闭。在其运行期间，该局发布了超过750项有预见性的研究报告，从工作场所的机器人到生物恐怖主义，再到酸雨和气候变化，无所不包。技术评估局不复存在之后，国会随意引入自己的说客、智库和利益团体，参与重大新兴科技问题的讨论。

除了军方的研发部门国防部高级研究计划局以及国家情报总监办公室下属的高级情报研究计划署，现在负责调查新兴科技的部门只剩下国会研究服务部了。该部已有百年历史，隶属于国会图书馆。但是，该部的主要任务是研究和分析现行的政策与立法提案。目前没有任何部门负责展望未来。

由于国会没有一个公正的机构来评估新兴科技的意义，我们已经把自己的未来交给了乱七八糟的一群人，其中包括利益集团、执法机构、民选官员和首席执行官们。这个前景令人恐怖。

正是因为缺乏计划和远见，苹果公司和联邦调查局之间才有了此次争端。因为没有其他法律框架可用，政府引用了一个时间久远、含糊不清的法律，叫作《全令法案》，该法案最初于1789年通过。提供点背景知识：那一年托马斯·杰斐逊被任命为美国首任国务卿，他办公室里用的前沿科技是鹅毛笔和羊皮纸。

Think Big

眼光放长远

If you think weve reached the zenith16） of this debate now that Apple and the FBI are in court， youre not thinking big enough.

For example， if you use an iPhone 6， you probably unlock it using your fingerprint. If you have an arrest record， a law enforcement agency already has your fingerprints. It wouldnt be difficult to transfer them on to a model to unlock the data on your seized phone. However， in this case， who technically17） owns the right to your fingerprint？ Once your biometric data is in a government database， does the FBI have the legal clearance18） to use it to unlock any of your devices？ Right now， there is no clear answer.

What happens if someone sexually abuses another person in a virtual world？ When youre wired in to a virtual-reality experience， studies have shown that our actual sense of reality is distorted. （I have ample experience using VR， and I agree.） When something happens in a virtual world， that visceral19） experience is encoded in our memories as if it actually happened. There are federal laws explicitly prohibiting sexual assault， but what happens when the attack occurs between two players in a virtual reality game？

What happens in the future， when your encrypted technology goes rogue20）？ In fact， that has already happened. The Random Darknet Shopper21）， an art project and bot， was programmed to make a random Internet purchase every day using bitcoins. Once， it bought 10 ecstasy pills and a fake Hungarian passport. Whos at fault， the coder or the technology？ Again， we dont have any laws covering bots written by humans. Indeed， our lawmakers havent even had the necessary conversations about our impending bot-assisted society.

如果你认为，既然苹果公司和联邦调查局已进入司法程序，这场辩论已到了最高潮，那说明你的眼光还不够长远。

比方说，假如你用的是iPhone6，你可能会用指纹解锁。如果你被逮捕过，那执法部门就已经有了你的指纹。获取了你的手机后，把你的指纹转印到一个模型上以解开手机里的数据，这并不难。不过，那样一来谁在法律上拥有使用你指纹的权利呢？一旦你的生物识别数据进入政府的数据库，联邦调查局是否就有了法律许可，可以用其来解开你的各种装置呢？眼下，这些还没有明确的答案。

如果有人在虚拟世界性侵了他人，会怎么样？研究显示，当我们接入虚拟现实的体验时，我们对于现实的真实感受会被扭曲（我有使用虚拟现实的丰富经验，我同意这一点）。虚拟世界一旦发生了什么事，那种本能的体验就会编码进入我们的记忆，好像真的发生过一样。联邦法律明确地禁止性侵犯，但如果性侵发生在虚拟现实游戏中的两位玩家之间，怎么办？

如果将来你们使用的加密技术耍无赖，怎么办？实际上，已经有这种事了。“随机暗网购物者”是一个艺术项目，也是一款网上机器人程序，人们设计这款程序是让它用比特币每天随机在网上购物一次。这款机器人程序曾买过十粒摇头丸和一张假匈牙利护照。这算谁的错？程序员，还是技术？我们还是没有什么法律来规范人类编写的自动程序。实际上，机器人程序辅助的社会就近在眼前，而我们的立法者们却压根还没有就此进行必要的讨论。

iPhone Encryption May Be an Easier Issue

iPhone加密可能是件更简单的事情

Relatively speaking， encryption is much less confounding22） than the other emerging technologies of our near future. CRISPR-Cas9 is a gene-editing technique allowing scientists to redesign precise positions on DNA using a bacterial enzyme23）. It can be used to edit mosquitoes so that they no longer carry malaria but， as weve seen in a recent paper published by Chinese researchers—it can also be used to edit human embryos. What happens when divorced， acrimonious24） parents want to sue over the rights to edit their childrens DNA？

Did you know that in a handful of labs， researchers are testing systems that allow monkeys to send their thoughts to each other over the Internet？ Or that in one experiment， a monkey was able to control the arm of another monkey who wasnt even in the same room？ That technology will someday help stroke victims learn to walk again. And it could also be weaponized， giving soldiers superhuman powers. Inevitably， lawmakers are going to get involved， and that debate is going to make us long for the days when we bickered about iPhone encryption.

This is certainly not an argument for more government regulation. It is also not a free pass for tech companies to ignore the fact that humans use their devices， and we have a track record of being horrible to each other.

Instead， it is a call for our lawmakers to acknowledge that the future is coming and to depoliticize the technology thats on our horizon. Like it or not， they must play an informed， active role in how technology intersects with American society.

We cannot be in reactive mode all the time. Our strongest option is to reinstate the OTA， and to do it now. Short of that， the best choice is for lawmakers and law enforcement agencies to seek out highly qualified， nonpartisan scientists and technologists who seek nothing in return， aside from their having their voices heard. Listen to what they have to say and act on their advice. Empower them to help us make better decisions for our future， here in the present.

相对来说，与不远的将来兴起的其他科技相比，加密技术还不那么令人困惑。CRISPR-Cas9是一种基因编辑技术，有了这种技术，科学家可以用菌酶来精确地重新设计DNA中的基因位置。这种技术可以用来编辑蚊子的基因，使蚊子不再携带疟疾。但正如我们在中国研究人员近期发表的一篇论文中看到的那样，这一技术也可以用来编辑人类的胚胎。如果撕破脸的离异父母想提起诉讼，争夺编辑孩子DNA的权利，该怎么办？

你知道吗？在一些实验室里，研究者正在测试可以让猴子通过网络相互传递想法的系统。也就是说，在一项实验中，一只猴子能够控制另一只猴子的胳膊，而这两只猴子根本不在一个房间。这项技术将来某一天会帮助中风的人重新学习行走。而该技术也可成为武器，赋予士兵们超人的力量。不可避免地，立法者将会参与进来，而届时的辩论将让我们怀念因为iPhone加密而争吵的日子。

这么说当然不是主张政府加强监管，同时科技公司也不能把这当做自由通行证，而忽视以下事实：人们使用它们制造的装置，而人类在历史上曾有互不友好的记录。

相反，这么说是要呼吁立法者承认未来正在逼近，停止从政治角度处理初露端倪的科技。不管立法者们喜不喜欢，在科技如何与美国社会交织这一问题上，他们必须要了解相关情况，发挥积极作用。

我们不能总是处于被动的应对状态。我们最好的选择是恢复技术评估局，并且现在就恢复。除此之外，立法者和执法机构最好的选择是物色素质极高而且没有党派立场的科学家和技术人员——这些人别无他求，只求自己的声音被社会听到。听听他们怎么说，根据他们的建议去做。给他们授权，让他们为了我们的未来，帮助我们做出更明智的决策，就在此时此刻。