Without privacy， at no time are you permitted to have a space that is only just for you.

沒了隐私，任何时候我们都没有只属于自己的空间。

—爱德华·斯诺登

My son is 14 today and for his birthday—in addition to a bicycle， a basketball， and a T-shirt—I am giving him the gift of privacy. And I am giving him this gift because of Snowden.

Thats right. Edward Snowden， NSA1） whistle-blower2） and hero to some， traitor to others， has changed not only the way I view privacy but also the way I view my teens privacy and the way I safeguard it—from myself.

When Snowdens revelations about mass government surveillance3） made headlines in 2013， I—like many other Americans—was shocked and disturbed. The PRISM program4）， in which the communications of millions of Americans were collected and stored by the government， without warrant or probable cause， seemed to violate the Constitutions Fourth Amendment， which prohibits warrantless search and seizure. The argument that the innocent should have nothing to fear from such programs rang hollow to me and many others in America.

Then in March， as part of my research on another story I am writing， I listened to a live conversation on privacy between Snowden， constitutional lawyer and co-founder of The Intercept Glen Greenwald and historian and linguist Noam Chomsky.

While the conversation between these three thought leaders fascinated me， it was the remarks of 33-year-old Snowden that affected me most profoundly. “Privacy，” he asserted， “is the right to self…. Privacy is the right to a free mind.” He went on to explain that “privacy is what allows us to determine our beliefs without being influenced by others， subject to peer pressure， or judged before those beliefs are fully formed. Without privacy，” he added， “at no time are you permitted to have a space that is only just for you.”

Consider that statement for a moment： “Without privacy， at no time are you permitted to have a space that is only just for you.”

Greenwald reinforced this idea when he explained that people secure their homes and rooms with locks and their email and social media with passwords in part “to ensure that there is a place they can go in the world to think and reason and explore without the judgmental eyes of other people being cast upon them.… When we lose privacy，” he went on， “we lose a really critical part of what it means to be an independent and free individual.”

All of this was relevant to the research I was doing for my story， but as I listened I realized it was equally relevant to my role as a parent. Like many other parents in the digital age， I have adopted and imperfectly enforced various rules regarding my sons use of media. In fact， it is an issue that has dominated my thinking about parenting and my conversations with other parents. Kids media use is the subject of numerous studies， books， and articles.endprint

When my son spent the summer mowing lawns and pet sitting so that he could purchase his first smart phone at the age of 13， I asserted the right to randomly monitor his online activity and communications. I demanded his passwords， followed him on Instagram， and periodically checked his search history and read his text messages. I strictly forbade the use of Snapchat.

Likely this was appropriate to his age at the time. It certainly was in keeping with conventional wisdom—if there can be such a thing when the technologies involved are so new.

An informal poll of parents in middle-class， progressive neighborhood suggests that many parents are fairly vigilant about monitoring social media， reading texts， and setting up parental controls on all electronic devices. And their reasons for doing so are valid and related to concerns for their childrens safety. In short， we monitor our kids online behavior for the same reason we make them wear bicycle helmets—to protect them.

I cannot help but notice， however， that this is exactly the same reason the NSA and other federal agencies give for mass surveillance programs like PRISM. They are protecting us！ Since 9/11， terrorists have become the public enemy No. 1. Warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens is necessary to keep us safe， we are repeatedly told.

Yet as many have pointed out， statistically speaking， we have little to fear from terrorism. I am much more likely to be killed by my own furniture than by a terrorist. This fact makes me wonder if our fears for our childrens online safety are equally unfounded.

Statistics are difficult to come by， but my own experiences monitoring my son have revealed a few frightening online incidents—the stuff of digital parenting nightmares.

For instance， one night when he was sleeping over with a friend， I checked his Instagram page and noticed that an image he had posted of himself had attracted more than 200 mostly derogatory5） comments—and the insults and threats were still coming. These included bullying and name-calling on the part of high school boys threatening to beat up my middle-school-aged son. My first instinct was to intervene6） immediately. Here was exactly the kind of situation that Id read about and dreaded. As I monitored the comment thread， however， I saw that my son was standing up for himself and holding his own7）. I saw that his friends had his back. In short， I saw that he was handling it and did not need my help.endprint

On another occasion I read a text message in which a friend offered to send my son a “nekid pic” of a girl they both knew. His texted response？ “Hell， no！”

I felt reassured. Nonetheless， my policy of random surveillance remained in place. Without warning or probable cause， I could and did read his private communications， check his search history and monitor his social media use.

Normal， prudent， and part and parcel8） of my responsibility as a parent in the digital age， right？ Perhaps. But consider these parenting policies in light of the following passage from George Orwells 1984：

There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often， or on what system， the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You have to live—did live， from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard， and， except in darkness， every movement scrutinized.

I have been acting， in effect， as the Thought Police in my sons life.

Now consider the developmental task of the adolescent， who is deep in the alchemical process of creating a unique self and personality—developing personal beliefs and a value system. In light of this， Snowdens words struck me like a revelation.

And so today， on his fourteenth birthday， I am giving my son the gift of privacy. I will no longer monitor his private communications or online behavior or history unless I have probable cause. By probable cause， I mean reasonable suspicion that he is in danger or involved in criminal activity. And I have told him so. And yes， I secured my sons permission before publishing this essay.

I am giving him the gift of privacy because if I have not taught him what he needs to know to navigate the world with his own moral compass by now， there is little chance that doing something that sets the needle in my own compass spinning will help. I am giving him the gift of privacy because trying to protect my son from every injury or harm deprives him of the opportunity to learn for himself that fire burns and some dogs bite. I am giving him the gift of privacy because the Golden Rule9） dictates that I treat others as I would like to be treated. And， finally， I am giving my son the gift of privacy because of Edward Snowden.

我兒子今天满14周岁。除了自行车、篮球和一件T恤衫外，我还要给他一份生日礼物——隐私。给他这个礼物是因为斯诺登。endprint

对！爱德华·斯诺登，美国国家安全局的泄密者，一些人眼中的英雄，另一些人眼中的叛徒，他不仅改变了我对隐私的看法，也改变了我对十几岁儿子隐私的看法，改变了我保护儿子隐私—不被我窥探—的方式。

2013年，当斯诺登揭发政府大规模监听这件事登上头条时，我和许多其他美国人一样感到震惊和恐慌。美国政府的棱镜计划在没有征得授权也没有任何说得过去的理由的情况下，收集、储存了数百万美国人的通讯信息。这似乎违反了《宪法第四修正案》，该修正案禁止无授权的搜查和没收行为。清白者无惧此类计划的言论让我感觉空洞而无意义，其他很多美国人也有同感。

然后到了3月，为了我正在写的另一篇故事，我进行调研，听了斯诺登、宪法律师同时也是拦截网站联合创始人的格伦·格林沃德以及历史学家兼语言学家的诺姆·乔姆斯基之间关于隐私的实时对话。

这三个思想领袖间的谈话让我很是着迷，但还是33岁的斯诺登的一番言论对我影响最为深刻。“隐私，”他坚称，“是自己的权利……隐私是自由思考者的权利。”他继续解释说，“隐私让我们能够决定自己的信念，而不受他人影响，不受同辈压力，不需要在信念完全形成之前接受裁决。没了隐私，”他补充道，“任何时候我们都没有只属于自己的空间。”

请花片刻时间思考一下这句话：“没了隐私，任何时候我们都没有只属于自己的空间。”

格林沃德进一步阐释了这个观点，他解释说，人们用锁保护自己的家和房间，用密码保护邮件和社交媒体，有个目的就是“确保他们在这世界上有个地方可以去思考、推论和探索，而不用接受他人投给你的评判性目光……当我们失去隐私，”他继续道，“我们也就失去了一个独立自由的个体所代表的意义中真正关键的一部分。”

所有这些都和我为写作而做的调研大有关系，但是我在听的时候，我意识到这和我为人父母的角色同样有关。和很多处于数字时代的父母一样，就儿子如何使用媒介这个问题，我采用并且不够完美地实施了各种各样的规则。实际上，这个话题主导着我对为人父母的思考，以及与其他父母的交谈。儿童对媒体的使用也是无数研究、著作及文章的主题。

儿子在13岁那年的夏天，又是修整草坪，又是照顾宠物，为的就是买自己人生中的第一部智能手机，而我则坚持了不定时检查他的上网活动和通信的权利，我强行要了他的各种密码，关注了他的Instagram，定期检查他的搜索历史，翻看他的手机短信，并严格禁止他使用Snapchat。

这个时候，这种做法对他这个年纪的孩子大概是合适的。这种做法无疑符合传统智慧——还有没有传统智慧也很难说，毕竟牵涉的是这么新的科技。

在中产阶级的开明社区里举行的一次父母间的非正式投票表明，很多父母都非常警惕，他们监督孩子的社交媒体，阅读他们的手机短信，在所有的电子设备上建立起父母控制机制。他们这么做的理由是正当的，出于他们对孩子安全的担忧。简言之，我们监视孩子的上网行为和我们给他们戴自行车头盔是出于同样的原因——保护他们。

我不禁想到NSA及其他联邦机构在为诸如棱镜之类的计划辩护时，提出的也是完全同样的原因。他们在保护我们！自9·11以来，恐怖分子已经变成公众的头号敌人。为了保护美国公民的安全，无授权情况下的监听是必要的——政府一次又一次地跟我们这么说。

然而，正如很多人指出的那样，从统计学的角度来说，我们对恐怖主义没有多少可怕的。我被自己家的家具砸死的可能性要高于被恐怖分子杀死的可能性。这让我怀疑我们对于孩子上网安全的担心是否也一样没有依据。

统计数据很难获得，但是我自己监视儿子的经历揭示了一些令人恐惧的网络事件——这些是父母们实施电子监控时遇到的噩梦。

例如，有一天晚上他在朋友那里过夜，我就检查了他的Instagram主页，注意到他上传的一张自己的照片招来了两百多条评论，大部分都是贬斥的言辞，并且带有侮辱性和威胁性的言论还在不断出现。其中包括高中男孩的欺辱和谩骂，他们威胁要揍我只有初中生年纪的儿子。我的第一反应是要立刻介入。这正是我以前在书上读到过并担心的情况。但当查看后续评论时，我看到儿子站出来维护自己的权利，坚持自己的立场。我看到他的朋友们都支持他。简言之，我看到他自己在处理这件事，不需要我的帮助。

还有一次，我读到他的一则短信，他的一个朋友要发给他一张一个姑娘的“裸图”。这个姑娘他们都认识。他怎么回复的？“天哪！不要！”

我松了一口气。但是我随机检查的规定还保留着。没有通知，没有任何理由，我可以翻阅他的私人通信，检查他的搜索历史，监视他的社交情况，而且我真的这么做了。

这是正常、谨慎的，是作为数字时代父母职责的重要部分，对吗？也许吧。但是结合乔治·奥威尔《1984》中的这段话，再掂量掂量为人父母制定的这些政策吧：

当然，没有办法知道你自己在某一时间里是否受到监视。“思想警察”多久一次又是用什么样的系统进入任何私人通信，这些都只能靠猜测。甚至有可能他们无时无刻不在监视着每一个人。至少他们有能力随时侵入你的通信，只要他们想这么做。你不得不生活在这样的猜想中，从习惯变成本能——你每发出一个声音都会被窃听，你的每个动作都会被审视，除非你在黑暗中。

实际上，在儿子的生活中，我一直扮演着“思想警察”的角色。

现在考虑一下青少年的发展任务，这个时期的他们正处于打造独立人格和品格修炼的关键阶段，正在形成自己的个人信念和价值體系。从这一点来看，斯诺登的话对我来说如同醍醐灌顶。

所以，今天，在儿子14岁生日这天，我要把隐私作为礼物送给他。我不再监视他的私人通信、网络行为或历史记录，除非出于有充分根据的理由。有充分根据的理由，我指的是对他可能有危险或者可能参与犯罪活动的合理怀疑。我是这么跟他说的。而且，没错，发布本文前，我已经获得儿子的允许。

我把隐私作为礼物送给他，因为如果我现在不教给儿子他所需的知识—带着自己的道德罗盘航行于这个世界所需的知识，那么往后即便我能调整自己罗盘上的针也不大可能给他任何帮助。我把隐私作为礼物送给他，因为一味努力保护他，让他远离任何苦痛和伤害，这只会剥夺他学习的机会—认识到火会造成烧伤，狗也会咬人的机会。我把隐私作为礼物送给他，因为黄金法则告诉我，己所不欲，勿施于人。最后，我把隐私作为礼物送给儿子，是因为爱德华·斯诺登。

1. NSA：National Security Agency的缩写，指美国国家安全局，是美国政府机构中最大的情报部门，专门负责收集和分析外国及本国通讯资料，隶属于美国国防部。

2. whistle-blower：（尤指政府部门或公司里的）告发者，揭发者

3. surveillance [s?（r）?ve?l?ns] n. 监督；监视

4. PRISM program：美国棱镜计划，是一项由美国国家安全局自2007年起开始实施的绝密级电子监听计划。

5. derogatory [d??r?ɡ?t（?）ri] adj. 侮辱的，贬义的

6. intervene [??nt?（r）?vi?n] vi. 干涉；干预

7. hold ones own：坚持自己的立场；坚守住，不退让

8. part and parcel：重要（或主要、基本）部分；不可缺少的部分

9. Golden Rule：（尤指在某种情况下使用的）重要的原则，指导准则endprint