????而如果施密特說(shuō)那番話是認(rèn)真的（不僅僅為了挑戰(zhàn)輿論）,，那他的這個(gè)觀點(diǎn)就很難跟目前的現(xiàn)實(shí)對(duì)上號(hào),。眼下，數(shù)字溝通渠道大量出現(xiàn),，明顯是在傳遞各種高度私密,、甚至是匿名進(jìn)行的數(shù)字互動(dòng)。我們?cè)谧罱鼮槿蚋鞔罂萍脊舅龅捻?xiàng)目中已經(jīng)發(fā)現(xiàn),，年輕用戶開(kāi)始把Facebook這樣眾所周知的公共平臺(tái)僅僅當(dāng)成“維持網(wǎng)絡(luò)形象”的地方,，也就是只適合放一些關(guān)于個(gè)人的最普通、最俗套的信息,。

????他們?cè)缫艳D(zhuǎn)到Snapchat, Whisper和Between這樣的應(yīng)用上分享更有價(jià)值,、更“真實(shí)”的內(nèi)容了——圈內(nèi)笑話、捕風(fēng)捉影的最新消息,、“我現(xiàn)在想你了”這類小手勢(shì),。這些數(shù)字互動(dòng)中絕大多數(shù)內(nèi)容都不適合公開(kāi)，這也是為什么它對(duì)用戶來(lái)說(shuō)如此重要的部分原因,。但往往正是這種內(nèi)容,，有點(diǎn)越界、實(shí)驗(yàn)性的,、沒(méi)有根據(jù)或比較奇怪,，才構(gòu)成生氣勃勃的美國(guó)文化的基礎(chǔ)。你可以問(wèn)這么一個(gè)問(wèn)題：一個(gè)完全沒(méi)有任何秘密的人還值得認(rèn)識(shí)嗎,？

????美國(guó)文化產(chǎn)品的關(guān)鍵驅(qū)動(dòng)力是生機(jī)勃勃的公民社會(huì)——正是在生意圈和政府之外的那些私人交往才讓各種新點(diǎn)子層出不窮,。從斯塔西（Stasi,，前民主德國(guó)國(guó)家安全局——譯注）到麥卡錫主義，再到塞勒姆審巫案等,，我們無(wú)須回顧歷史就能了解由于公民社會(huì)崩解在文化上造成的災(zāi)難性后果,。在上述例子中，剝奪公民的隱私權(quán)正是當(dāng)局最重要的手段,；知道自己隨時(shí)被監(jiān)控會(huì)產(chǎn)生一種標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化效果,，就是公民慢慢地會(huì)把外在的監(jiān)控內(nèi)在化，使自己的行為越來(lái)越缺少特點(diǎn),。

????可能大家會(huì)想,，只要我們沒(méi)干什么違法的事，沒(méi)密謀推翻政權(quán),，那暴露點(diǎn)自己的隱私又有什么關(guān)系呢,？畢竟陽(yáng)光才是最好的消毒劑嘛?？纯戳硪粋€(gè)例子：據(jù)說(shuō)有40%到76%的婚姻會(huì)在某個(gè)時(shí)候出現(xiàn)一方不忠,。婚外情就是一種被看得很緊卻又十分普遍的秘密?，F(xiàn)在請(qǐng)想象一下，所有婚外情和調(diào)情都變成公開(kāi)信息了,。想想看,，如果谷歌讓你，你的朋友,，政府都能看到這種信息,，還有所有有關(guān)你出軌時(shí)的感受、幽會(huì)的汽車旅館1到5分的評(píng)級(jí)的原始數(shù)據(jù),，你會(huì)作何感想,。難道這種信息也要大白于天下嗎？

????不要讓科技行業(yè)用各種高尚說(shuō)辭給你套上枷鎖,，任憑他們以進(jìn)步的名義犧牲你的隱私,。相反，停下來(lái)想一想,。確實(shí)是時(shí)候好好想想了,，不光要想可能會(huì)發(fā)生什么，更要想想什么才是更可取的,。我們這個(gè)社會(huì)到底想要什么,？（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

????本文作者克里斯蒂安?梅德斯伯格是ReD Associates公司的資深合伙人，這是一家以人文科學(xué)為基礎(chǔ)的戰(zhàn)略及創(chuàng)新咨詢公司,。他著有《清晰時(shí)刻：用人文科學(xué)解決最棘手商業(yè)問(wèn)題》,。

????譯者：清遠(yuǎn)

????And if Schmidt was being serious (rather than merely provocative), it's hard to square his perspective with the explosion of digital communication channels that explicitly deliver highly private, even anonymous, digital interactions. In our recent projects for global technology companies, we've seen firsthand how younger users especially are beginning to treat highly public platforms like Facebook (FB) as mere "online image maintenance," suitable for only the most banal and generic information.

????They've turned instead to apps like Snapchat, Whisper, and Between to share more high-value and "real" content -- the inside jokes, the unscripted updates, the small gestures of "I'm thinking of you now." Much of the actual content of these digital interactions is unsuitable for public consumption, part of what makes it so valuable to users. But it's often this type of content, the slightly transgressive, experimental, unproven or strange, that's been the basis of America's vibrant culture. You could ask the question: Is a person who has nothing to hide worth knowing?

????A key driver of our cultural output is our robust civil society -- the private sphere of human interactions outside of business or government that creates and nurtures new ideas. We don't need to go back far in history -- the Stasi, McCarthyism, the Salem witch trials, etc. -- to observe the disastrous cultural effects wrought by the breakdown of civil society. In all of these cases, the usurping of privacy was a key tool of the regime in control; the perception of being constantly watched created a normalizing effect, where citizens slowly internalized the surveillance and modified their behaviors to be less and less idiosyncratic.

????Maybe you're still thinking, but yes, as long as we're not doing anything illegal, overturning the state, say, what harm is there in a little exposure? Sunlight is the best disinfectant, after all. Consider another example: It is said that 40% to 76% of all marriages will be hit with infidelity at some point. Infidelities are a closely guarded but a fairly common secret. Now imagine if all instances of infidelity and flirting became public data. Imagine if Google (GOOG) made this data available to you, your friends, and the government, together with all the accompanying metadata of how you were feeling at the time and how good the motel was on a 1 to 5 scale. Does that information really want to be free?

????Instead of letting the tech industry lock you into a rhetorical stronghold -- your privacy in the name of their progress -- stop for a moment. It's time to really think -- not just about what's possible, but about what's preferable. What do we really want as a society?

????Christian Madsbjerg is a senior partner at ReD Associates, a strategy and innovation consulting firm based in the human sciences. He is author of The Moment of Clarity: Using the Human Sciences to Solve Your Toughest Business Problems.