为什么苹果没错 Apple is right to worry about the FBI's demands

It may come as a surprise to hear that the FBI are trying to force Apple to help them hack an iPhone: one used by one of the killers from December’s mass shooting in San Bernardino, California. Does the FBI not already know everything that people are doing on their phones? In fact, Apple’s devices are among the most secure around — and chief executive Tim Cook’s loud proclamation of his wish to keep them so marks the latest broadside in a battle over just how far the remit of national security reaches.

听闻美国联邦调查局(FBI)正试图迫使苹果(Apple)帮助他们解锁一部去年12月加州圣贝纳迪诺大规模枪击案一名行凶者使用过的iPhone，你或许会感到惊讶。FBI难道不是早已知晓人们在手机上所做的一切吗？事实上，苹果的设备是目前最安全的产品之一，而苹果首席执行官蒂姆錠克(Tim Cook)希望保护iPhone安全性的公开宣言，标志着一场关于国家安全之手应该伸多长的争论中的最新火力点。

For the security services, no technology should be secure beyond penetration in the fight against terrorism. For tech firms, protecting users’ privacy is a cornerstone of both business models and trust. And if you think this is a little rich coming several years after Edward Snowden’s revelations of corporate co-operation with the National Security Agency, Google’s chief executive Sundar Pichai has posted some clarifying messages on Twitter. It would, he argues, be a “troubling precedent” to require companies actively “to enable hacking of customer devices and data” — something quite distinct from giving “law enforcement access to data based on valid legal orders”.

对安全部门而言，在反恐斗争中，任何技术都不应成为无法破解的障碍。但对科技公司来说，保护用户隐私既是商业模式的基石，也是赢得用户信任的基石。如果在爱德华斯诺登(Edward Snowden)将企业与美国国家安全局(NSA)之间的合作曝光几年后，你觉得这有些让人费解，那么谷歌(Google)首席执行官桑德尔皮查伊(Sundar Pichai)在Twitter上的发帖则让人明白问题所在。他指出，这将成为一个“令人不安的先例”——要求企业积极“帮助破解用户的设备和数据”，这与“让执法部门基于有效法律命令访问数据”可远远不是一回事。

The issue has arisen because Apple’s latest mobile operating system prohibits anyone from accessing users’ data without their unique passcode. (The killer, Syed Rizwan Farook, died in a police shootout). If an incorrect passcode is entered too many times, an iPhone can irrecoverably delete all data. Hence the FBI’s request, via a court order served on February 16: that Apple create a specially adapted version of its operating system — dubbed the “FBiOS” by security expert Dan Guido — allowing law enforcement to make an unlimited number of passcode guesses.

问题源于苹果最新的移动操作系统禁止任何人在没有用户唯一密码的情况下访问他们的数据。行凶者赛义德里兹万法鲁克(Syed Rizwan Farook)在与警察的交火中被击毙。如果输入不正确密码的次数过多，iPhone将删除所有数据，且不可恢复。因此，FBI通过2月16日的一项法院命令要求，苹果开发一个专门改编的操作系统——安全专家丹圭多(Dan Guido)称之为“FBiOS”——让执法部门可以无限次地猜测密码。

Opinion has divided along predictable lines. Tech firms, digital rights activists and a good number of iPhone users tend to support the privacy principle. State officials and the more conservatively minded back law enforcement. What is not in dispute is that the precedent at stake is one law enforcement have been seeking to set for some time, and that its outcome will have profound consequences for security, encryption and privacy.

舆论方面针对此事的分歧也在预料之中。科技公司、数字维权人士及很多iPhone用户倾向于支持隐私保护原则。而政府官员及思想更为保守的人士支持执法机构。不存在争论的是：这一利害攸关的先例是执法部门一段时期以来一直试图确立的，而其结果将对安全、数据加密及隐私权产生深远影响。

So far as specifics are concerned, even the most ardent libertarian will have little sympathy for the privacy of a dead killer. What counts, however, is not the morality of one case, but whether this constitutes the thin end of a perilous wedge. Here, the proponents of privacy have a powerful case to make.

就事论事，即便最狂热的自由论者也不会对一名被击毙的行凶者的隐私抱以丝毫同情。然而，重要的不是某一案例中的道德准则，而在于这一先例是否会造成一种愈演愈烈的风险。在这一点上，隐私权的支持者有强大的理由。

Slippery-slope arguments stand or fall on the strength of their evidence for movement from the particular to the general. How convincing is it to suggest that security services may deploy new powers promiscuously once obtained? In the case of technology, the answer seems to be “very”. The past five years show something little short of mania on the part of the NSA and others for hoovering up data and undermining every encryption going. This is hardly surprising. It is what they do.

极具争议的观点是否站得住脚，取决于从特例到一般的过程中支持它的证据有多强。关于安全部门一旦获得新的权力就可能任意行使的论断有多大说服力呢？就技术而言，答案似乎是“非常有说服力”。过去5年，我们看到了美国国家安全局及其他机构在搜集数据、破坏加密方面几近疯狂的一面。这不足为奇。这就是他们的工作。

Yet technology presents special hazards under such an approach. Escalation is the rule rather than the exception when it comes to tech — as are unintended consequences. The most damaging cyber attacks are invisible until they have already begun; the most alarming data losses often go undetected, and may remain so for years. It is an unforgiving arena in which to juggle protection and deception. But it is also one in which the very nature of the terrain makes a certain shared level of security integral to the health of the whole.

然而，在这种做法下，技术意味着特殊的危险。对科技而言，不断升级是必然，而非例外——意想不到的后果同样如此。最具破坏性的网络攻击在实施之前通常无影无踪；最令人担忧的数据泄露常常不会被察觉，并且可能持续数年不被察觉。这是一个残酷的领域，很难在隐私保护和欺骗之间把握平衡，同时，这一领域的本质决定了某种共享安全级别，而后者不可避免地影响整体安全。

Undermining encryption and opening back doors does not just give good guys tools for detecting bad guys. It also creates official data repositories and tools that are themselves vulnerable to assault. It exposes everyone to risks of infection and compromise, and debases vital currencies of trust and co-operation, together with the industries they support.

破坏数据加密、打开后门不仅仅会为好人提供发现坏人的工具，还会创建自身易遭攻击的官方数据库和工具。这样做会使每个人面临遭受病毒感染并做出让步的风险，同时降低重要的信任与合作，以及这种信任与合作所支撑的行业。

Once developed, a technique can be used again and again. This is why staying safe in a digital age is a moving target, and absolute privacy a fantasy. Yet in these fraught circumstances, Mr Cook is right. Our future safety is best served by the best security for all.

一项技术一旦被开发出来，就可以反复使用。这就是为什么在数字时代保证安全是一个不断变动的目标，而绝对隐私权只是一种幻想。然而，在这些令人担忧的情况下，库克是对的。只有在所有人都享有最高安全的情况下，我们未来的安全才能得到最大保障。