????曾在前紐約市警察局長雷?凱利手下任職的反恐副局長理查德?達(dá)達(dá)里奧曾告訴我，覆蓋紐約市曼哈頓區(qū)從中城到炮臺(tái)公園的視頻監(jiān)控系統(tǒng)跟從前預(yù)防犯罪的創(chuàng)新方式,、也就是路燈,，基本上是一回事。各位高度注重隱私的看官,，你們是否同意達(dá)達(dá)里奧這一說法,？按達(dá)達(dá)里奧的說法，有了路燈,，犯罪分子就無法借著夜幕的掩護(hù)肆意妄為,。而攝像頭是一樣的道理，只不過略有延伸,。

????不過,，哈佛法學(xué)院（Harvard Law School）教授格倫?科恩說：“這個(gè)類比有些虛偽、有些荒唐,。”科恩近期在美國劍橋的拉德克利夫?qū)W院（the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study in Cambridge）談到了隱私和技術(shù),，隨后和我進(jìn)行了郵件往來,。“首先,，路燈不存在‘功能擴(kuò)展’的潛在可能,。‘功能擴(kuò)展’是指某種技術(shù)或系統(tǒng)在引進(jìn)之初是用于某一用途,，但后來被用于完全不同的目的,，類似的例子是美國的社保號(hào)碼。其次,，路燈的效果是暫時(shí)的,，它不會(huì)記錄并長久保存我們干過什么事情。再則,，人們真正想在沒有照明的公共場(chǎng)合進(jìn)行的活動(dòng)非常少,，因此在公共場(chǎng)合提供照明不會(huì)給多少人造成損失,。相比之下，有許多活動(dòng)我們不希望在被人拍攝或監(jiān)控,，比如說同性之間的接吻,，因?yàn)樗鼘?duì)某些人來說就意味著‘出柜’。一個(gè)監(jiān)控?zé)o處不在的世界實(shí)在令人不寒而栗,?！?/p>

????唉，在后斯諾登時(shí)代,，這樣的擔(dān)心似乎有些落伍了,。畢竟，要想避開街道拐角處的監(jiān)控?cái)z像頭,，只要躲進(jìn)室內(nèi)就可以了,。而跟蹤記錄用戶活動(dòng)以備將來未知方檢查用戶電子郵件、博客,、照片和Twitter的智能手機(jī)就沒那么容易對(duì)付了,。

????不管怎樣，我們已經(jīng)進(jìn)入了窺探被默認(rèn)為無處不在的時(shí)代,，而我們還沒有開始分析它的含義,。這是我從科恩的演講——“倫理學(xué)家及律師的新衣：智能服裝的戒律與道德準(zhǔn)則”中學(xué)到的觀點(diǎn)。本月底,，這個(gè)演講將在拉德克利夫?qū)W院的官網(wǎng)上供人們免費(fèi)觀看,。

????為了配合演講的需要，科恩演講當(dāng)天的穿著十分醒目,。他身穿紅鞋和超大紅色眼鏡,，帶領(lǐng)聽眾了解了最新的可穿戴監(jiān)控技術(shù)，其中包括谷歌眼鏡（Google Glass）,、功能齊全的鈕扣攝像機(jī)以及可以織入衣服里的無線射頻識(shí)別（RFID）芯片,。

????科恩拿莎士比亞的作品《威尼斯商人》（The Merchant of Venice）進(jìn)行了類比。這部作品中的情節(jié)發(fā)生在兩個(gè)城市,，威尼斯以及威尼斯附近的貝爾蒙特,。前者是商業(yè)和貪婪的溫床，后者則是主人公們追尋愛情和藝術(shù)的避風(fēng)港,?？贫骶娣Q，就算我們不把手機(jī)帶在身上,，智能服裝也可能“毀掉我們的避風(fēng)港”,。“有時(shí)候,，我們總想瘋狂一把,。很多人都有自己想做或想嘗試的事情,，但如果事事都被記錄在案，他們可能就不會(huì)付諸行動(dòng)了,?！?/p>

????法律能保護(hù)我們嗎？科恩認(rèn)為,，我們不該指望法律,，因?yàn)椤按蟛糠轴槍?duì)私人監(jiān)控的行為永遠(yuǎn)不會(huì)曝光，因此可能永遠(yuǎn)不會(huì)有人提起起訴,?！笨贫鞲Ｍ吹狡髽I(yè)帶頭，將隱私保護(hù)融入技術(shù)中,，依靠所謂的西海岸代碼,，也就是硅谷發(fā)明和實(shí)施的技術(shù)，而不是東海岸代碼,，也就是華盛頓制定的法律,。

????但這樣的話，我們必須信任這些公司,。我們可以對(duì)此心懷樂觀嗎,？科恩承認(rèn)說：“我本人不樂觀?！保ㄘ?cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

????譯者：項(xiàng)航

????

????Here's a question, privacy hounds: Is the video-surveillance system that blankets Manhattan from Midtown to the Battery, river to river, really not so different from an earlier anti-crime innovation, street lights? That's what Richard Daddario, deputy commissioner for counterterrorism under former New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, once told me. Street lights mean criminals can't operate with impunity under cover of darkness. Cameras, same principle, slightly extended.

????"That comparison seems a bit disingenuous and silly," according to Glenn Cohen, a professor at Harvard Law School, who spoke about privacy and technology recently at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study in Cambridge, and corresponded with me afterward by e-mail. "Lights don't have the potential for 'function creep' whereby they are introduced for one purpose but then used for something quite different in the future, like social security numbers. Lights are temporary in their effect and don't record what we do for the indefinite future. Finally, there are few activities that people actually want to do in the dark in public, so losing darkness is not a loss to many people, if anyone. By contrast, there are many activities we want to undertake without being recorded and watched -- a same-sex kiss, for example, for someone stepping out of the closet -- that a world of total surveillance would chill."

????In the post-Snowden era, alas, such concerns can seem almost quaint. A street-corner surveillance camera, easily evaded by ducking indoors, is one kind of intrusion. A smartphone that tracks our movements and hoards for future inspection by parties unknown our emails, blog posts, photos and tweets, is something else altogether.

????Like it or not, we have entered the era of assumed ubiquitous snooping, and we have not begun to parse the implications. That was my takeaway from Cohen's lecture, "The Ethicist's and the Lawyer's New Clothes: The Law and Ethics of Smart Clothes," which will be available for free streaming by month's end on the Institute's website.

????Cohen, himself dressed smartly for the occasion in red shoes and oversized red glasses, led us on a tour of the latest in wearable surveillance technology, including Google Glass, fully functional button cameras, and radio frequency identification (RFID) chips that can be woven into our clothing.

????Cohen drew an analogy with Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, where the action takes place in two locales: Venice itself, a hotbed of commerce and greed; and nearby Belmont, the refuge to which the protagonists escape for love and art. Smart clothes threaten to "disrupt the place of refuge," even when we leave our phones behind. "At some point we squeeze out the space for living a life," he warned. "Lots of people have things they want to do and try but wouldn't if everything was archived."

????Can the law protect us? We shouldn't count on it, Cohen thinks, given that "most acts of private surveillance will never be detected, and therefore will likely never have a legal claim." He'd rather see business take the lead and bake privacy protection right into the technology -- so-called West Coast Code, devised and implemented in Silicon Valley, as opposed to East Coast Code, or laws made in Washington.

????But then we have to trust the companies. Are we optimistic? "I'm not," Cohen admitted.