width="200" height="30">
当前位置:主页 > 新闻动态 > 公司动态 >


本文摘要:The sophisticated encryption software that now comes as standard with many electronic gadgets is, in many ways, just another instrument of modern life. Like air travel, international banking and mobile telephones, it contributes to all kin


The sophisticated encryption software that now comes as standard with many electronic gadgets is, in many ways, just another instrument of modern life. Like air travel, international banking and mobile telephones, it contributes to all kinds of productive human endeavour — and also presents new security risks. But there is a difference. Its rapid and organic growth left little scope for regulatory control and balance.从许多方面来说,那些如今已沦为许多电子设备标准配置的仪器加密软件,不过是现代生活中的又一个工具而已。和航空旅行、国际银行承销以及移动电话一样,这种软件也在为人类的各种生产活动作出贡献——同时也带给了新的安全隐患。不过有所不同的是,加密软件很快而有机的快速增长,完全没为监管掌控和均衡留给多少余地。

The police are sometimes characterised as despotic agents of digital repression. That is wrong. I have never believed that encryption should be banned; it is a fundamental part of how the internet works. But its utility and effectiveness, like that of the internet as a whole, also creates significant criminal opportunity by masking identity and hiding communication.有的时候,警方不会被叙述为展开数字反抗的专制机构。这种众说纷纭是错误的。我从不指出应当禁令加密技术的用于,它是保证互联网运转的基础之一。

但是,通过屏蔽身份和隐蔽通信内容,对加密技术的运用及其有效性也促成了极大的犯罪机会——这一点和互联网整体的情况类似于。Other innovations that have multiplied the freedoms of modern life were the product of democratic deliberation, and incorporated security by design. When telephones were introduced, a set of balanced legal instruments gave police the power to intercept them. Financial institutions have become more complex, but they are compelled to operate strong anti-money laundering controls.相比之下,其他成倍不断扩大现代生活权利的创意都是民主深思的成果,从设计之初就植入了安全性方面的考虑到。当电话转入人类生活的时候,一系列适当的法律文件彰显了警方截击电话的权力。


某种程度,金融机构也已显得更为简单,但是它们被强迫拒绝实行了森严的反洗钱掌控。When Europe’s Schengen agreement abolished internal border controls in the 1990s, measures designed to increase cross-border police co-operation were adopted at the same time, so the system would not be undermined by enterprising drug traffickers and terrorists. The development of the internet has been different.上世纪90年代,当欧洲《申根协定》(Schengen Agreement)废止欧洲内部的边境管控之时,多种目的强化警方跨境合作的措施也同时引进。

这样,整个系统就会因胆大妄为的毒品贩子和恐怖分子而遭巩固。相比之下,互联网的发展则与上述情况有所不同。This is not really about privacy. People accept the imposition of reasonable controls on the way they drive, take flights, and conduct banking transactions.这个问题实质上与隐私牵涉到。

比如,在如何驾车、搭乘飞机及积极开展银行交易的问题上,人们对实施合理管控是拒绝接受的。Why should the internet, alone in the territories in which we live our lives, be one in which rules do not apply. It should not, of course. We have to craft rules that will operate in a balanced way.那么,某种程度是在我们生活的领域内,为何起码互联网不应沦为法外之地?似乎不应当。我们必需精心设计法律法规,让它们均衡地起起到。

That has proved to be a challenge. The European Court of Justice last year struck down a law that would have required telecommunications companies to store data on the use of their networks. Yet it accepted that police should have access to communications data. It decided that the safeguards, as drafted, were not enough to ensure police did not overstep the mark. This is just a matter of technical design. It will be fixed.事实早已证明,要做这一点是众多挑战。去年,欧洲法院(European Court of Justice)上诉了一条法规,该法规拒绝电信公司将自己网络用于情况的数据存储一起。不过,该法院否认警方不应有权采访通信数据。

该法院裁决,这个法规草案中的保护性条款足以保证警方不过线。这个问题只不过只是个技术层面的问题,它应当不会获得解决问题。There are promising signs that technology companies are willing to work in partnership with the police. Some leading companies are helping us to set up a system for removing terrorist content online. But at the same time, the industry’s most recent innovations on encryption have made the task of the security services harder. They may not be deliberately making police work more difficult, but they are not showing much appetite for accommodation either.许多令人充满信心的证据表明,高科技企业不愿与警方合作。



Some argue that technology companies should be required to give the authorities a backdoor key, to allow encryption to be broken. Clearly, engineering deliberate security vulnerabilities in our digital systems has some serious downsides.有的人声称,应当拒绝高科技企业向当局递交后门秘钥,以便让当局需要密码涉及加密技术。似乎,在数字化系统中蓄意留给安全漏洞,不会带给某些相当严重的有利影响。

And it is a principle implacably opposed by most in the tech sector. The divide on the issue is symptomatic of a serious decline in the level of trust between government and industry partners, fuelled in particular by the revelations of Edward Snowden about National Security Agency surveillance. This does not serve public interest well.不过,高科技产业中的多数人对这一原则抱有的是毫不妥协的赞成态度。环绕这个问题的分歧,反映出有政府与业界合作伙伴间的信任程度相当严重上升。而爱德华斯诺登(Edward Snowden)有关美国国家安全局(NSA)监控活动的爆料,堪称令其双方信任的下降更进一步激化。

这种局面对公众的利益并没过于大益处。The digital age has changed our way of life but police teams are still in the same business of preventing crime, tracking offenders and securing evidence with which to convict them. It is just that, these days, much of the information needed to do that is in the hands of the private companies that run online services. To do our job, we need to earn their trust. Together, we can keep the internet both a free and safe part of our lives.数字化时代转变了我们的生活方式,然而警方团队的职责仍然是制止犯罪、追踪罪犯并提供用来指控罪犯的证据。问题在于,如今在遵守上述职责时所须要的许多信息,掌控在运营网络服务的私有企业手中。