你愿意讓谷歌掌握你所有的小秘密嗎？
|
????而如果施密特說那番話是認真的（不僅僅為了挑戰輿論），那他的這個觀點就很難跟目前的現實對上號。眼下，數字溝通渠道大量出現，明顯是在傳遞各種高度私密、甚至是匿名進行的數字互動。我們在最近為全球各大科技公司所做的項目中已經發現，年輕用戶開始把Facebook這樣眾所周知的公共平臺僅僅當成“維持網絡形象”的地方，也就是只適合放一些關于個人的最普通、最俗套的信息。 ????他們早已轉到Snapchat, Whisper和Between這樣的應用上分享更有價值、更“真實”的內容了——圈內笑話、捕風捉影的最新消息、“我現在想你了”這類小手勢。這些數字互動中絕大多數內容都不適合公開，這也是為什么它對用戶來說如此重要的部分原因。但往往正是這種內容，有點越界、實驗性的、沒有根據或比較奇怪，才構成生氣勃勃的美國文化的基礎。你可以問這么一個問題：一個完全沒有任何秘密的人還值得認識嗎？ ????美國文化產品的關鍵驅動力是生機勃勃的公民社會——正是在生意圈和政府之外的那些私人交往才讓各種新點子層出不窮。從斯塔西（Stasi，前民主德國國家安全局——譯注）到麥卡錫主義，再到塞勒姆審巫案等，我們無須回顧歷史就能了解由于公民社會崩解在文化上造成的災難性后果。在上述例子中，剝奪公民的隱私權正是當局最重要的手段；知道自己隨時被監控會產生一種標準化效果，就是公民慢慢地會把外在的監控內在化，使自己的行為越來越缺少特點。 ????可能大家會想，只要我們沒干什么違法的事，沒密謀推翻政權，那暴露點自己的隱私又有什么關系呢？畢竟陽光才是最好的消毒劑嘛?？纯戳硪粋€例子：據說有40%到76%的婚姻會在某個時候出現一方不忠?；橥馇榫褪且环N被看得很緊卻又十分普遍的秘密?，F在請想象一下，所有婚外情和調情都變成公開信息了。想想看，如果谷歌讓你，你的朋友，政府都能看到這種信息，還有所有有關你出軌時的感受、幽會的汽車旅館1到5分的評級的原始數據，你會作何感想。難道這種信息也要大白于天下嗎？ ????不要讓科技行業用各種高尚說辭給你套上枷鎖，任憑他們以進步的名義犧牲你的隱私。相反，停下來想一想。確實是時候好好想想了，不光要想可能會發生什么，更要想想什么才是更可取的。我們這個社會到底想要什么？（財富中文網） ????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為基礎的戰略及創新咨詢公司。他著有《清晰時刻：用人文科學解決最棘手商業問題》。 ????譯者：清遠 |
????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. |
