硅谷在反恐战争中的领导力

The political debate about the role of the internet in terrorism, following three attacks in the UK, has become confused. It is driven by frustration on one side that the ethics, values and legalities of the real world are not simply applied online. On the other, politicians of all parties do not always understand the technology or the economics of the internet and are portrayed as asking for the impossible.

在英国发生3起恐怖袭击之后，围绕互联网在恐怖主义中所扮演角色的政治辩论变得令人困惑。一方面，人们由于对真实世界的道德、价值观和法律并未简单地适用于网上而倍感挫折。另一方面，所有政党的政客们并不总是理解互联网技术或者互联网经济学，他们被描述为要求完成不可能完成的任务。

But it is in the interests of both sides — and all of us — that the internet is not a values-free zone. Technology is morally neutral, but providers and consumers are not. The digital and “real” worlds are not separate, they are the same. If we are to preserve the freedom of the internet, the greatest achievement of this age, we need to meet this challenge. How to do so is complex and needs untangling.

但互联网不是价值观中立区域，这符合辩论双方(以及我们所有人)的利益。技术在道德上是中性的，但提供者和消费者并非如此。数字世界和“真实”世界并非是分开的，他们是一体的。如果我们要维护互联网上的自由——互联网是当今时代最伟大的成就——我们就需要解决这种挑战。如何做到这一点是非常复杂的，而且需要解开困惑。

There are two separate complaints about the internet: that it facilitates covert communication between terrorists through encrypted messaging, and that it enables the spread of radicalising propaganda by hosting extremist material.

人们对互联网有两种不同的抱怨：一个是它通过加密信息方便了恐怖分子的秘密交流，另一个是它通过托管极端主义内容使激进宣传得以传播。

The first is a technical issue: “end-to-end” encryption — where only the user has the key and neither service provider nor law enforcement can read the content — is here to stay. It cannot be uninvented and those of us focused on cyber security would not want encryption weakened even if it were possible. But there are things that can be done to tackle the abuse of encryption by terrorists and criminals, through private co-operation, under the law, between companies and government agencies. That co-operation has improved markedly, even if it has further to go.

第一个是技术问题：“端对端”加密——只有用户拥有密钥，无论是服务提供商还是执法者都无法阅读内容——已经被普遍接受。这种加密技术无法抹除，我们这些致力于网络安全的人不愿削弱加密技术，即便它是有可能的。但公司和政府机构可以采取一些措施，在合法的前提下私下合作以解决恐怖分子和犯罪分子对加密技术的滥用。这种合作如今已经明显改善，虽然它还有进一步改进的空间。

The hosting of extremist material is a different issue and goes to the heart of the ideological struggle driving Islamist terrorism. We should be clear about what we are asking for. This is not about suppressing freedom of speech. The west did not win the ideological struggle against totalitarian communism by never discussing it. Islamism needs exposing and countering.

极端主义内容托管的问题有所不同，它触及到了推动伊斯兰恐怖主义的意识形态斗争的核心。我们应该明确我们的要求。这不是说要遏制言论自由。西方没有因从未讨论过而赢得与极权共产主义的意识形态斗争。伊斯兰主义需要曝光和反击。

But those trying to counter the ideas of terrorist groups often feel they are fighting against a wave of material produced by well-funded organisations that understand strategic communications better than the west. They feel that the very openness of the internet, and its economics, crudely based on the volume of “clicks” on sensational or grotesque material, are used against them.

但那些试图反击恐怖主义组织的思想的人往往觉得，他们对抗的是由资金充足、比西方更明白战略交流的组织制作的一系列内容。他们觉得，被用来反对他们的正是互联网的开放性及其基本建立于对哗众取宠或荒诞内容“点击”量基础之上的经济性。

The glory of the internet is that it creates networks and communities of interest; the downside is that it can rapidly validate extreme behaviour which in the past would have been moderated by real communities. We know from convicted terrorists the effect of watching brutal videos of captives set on fire or drowned, of children crucified in front of their parents, or graphic images glorifying atrocities in London or Paris. While it is fashionable to blame technology companies, these images are more likely to be found on video hosting sites that are not household names, on news sites or even academic services.

互联网的优点在于，它创造了志趣相投的网络和社区;缺点是，它能够迅速证实极端行为——过去通过实体社区证实的效果会减弱。我们从已经伏法的恐怖分子那里知道了观看残忍视频的效果——烧死或淹死俘虏，在孩子父母面前将孩子钉死在十字架上，或者赞美伦敦或巴黎暴行的画面。尽管人们一般会谴责技术公司，但这些画面更可能在并非家喻户晓的视频托管网站或者新闻网站、乃至学术服务网站上找到。

There will of course always be dark spaces and hidden sites where fanatics will find this material. But that is why we have law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

当然总是存在能让狂热分子发现这种内容的黑暗空间和隐藏网站。但这正是我们拥有执法和情报机构的原因。

The rest of us should focus on driving material off the mainstream and seek to make the open internet a civilised space, reflecting the liberal democratic values that led to its creation in the first place. For the internet and the web would not have been invented and could not have flourished in Islamist or totalitarian regimes.

我们其他人应该致力于将恐怖内容逐出主流网站之外，并设法让开放的互联网成为文明之地，反映出最初导致其诞生的自由民主价值观。这是因为在伊斯兰或极权政权下，互联网和网络不会被发明并蓬勃发展。

How do we achieve this? We need a practical coalition, led and funded by Silicon Valley, which has been making progress but now needs to accelerate, and by global online advertisers, which have been too slow to look forensically at what their ads are supporting. This coalition should agree a code of what is acceptable, working with democratic governments and civil society. It should apply technology and human beings to the rapid removal of material and the isolation of offending sites. It should not be afraid to exercise judgment and it should not wait for legislation, the courts or proposed fines, which will inevitably be slow and blunt.

我们如何才能做到这些?我们需要一个务实的联盟，由硅谷和全球网络广告主领导并提供资金，前者不断进步，但现在需要加快脚步，后者过于迟缓而无法看真切他们的广告在支持什么内容。该联盟应该就可接受准则达成一致，并与民主政府和公民社会合作。它应该运用技术和人类快速消除恐怖主义内容并孤立违规网站。它不应害怕做出判断，也不应等待法律、法庭或者拟议的罚款，后者将会不可避免地反应迟钝。

Finally, it should do all this in order to preserve the freedom of the internet, as well as our safety.

最后，它应该为了维护互联网自由以及我们的安全而采取所有这些行动。

The writer is a former director of GCHQ, a UK government intelligence and security organisation

本文作者曾经担任英国政府情报和安全机构——英国政府通信总部(GCHQ)的主管