The US looks like a Wild West for personal data. Information gathered by companies — most prominently Google and Facebook — trades at lightning speed on advertising markets that most users do not even know exist. If search engines and social networks can turn customer data into cash, why should broadband sellers such as Verizon be excluded from the gold rush?

　　就個(gè)人數(shù)據(jù)而言，美國(guó)看起來(lái)像荒野西部(Wild West)。企業(yè)——主要是谷歌(Google)和Facebook——收集的信息以閃電般的速度在多數(shù)用戶甚至不知道存在的廣告市場(chǎng)上交易。如果搜索引擎和社交網(wǎng)絡(luò)可以把用戶數(shù)據(jù)轉(zhuǎn)化為現(xiàn)金，Verizon等寬帶提供商憑什么要被排除在這場(chǎng)淘金熱之外?

　　That is the cynical, if understandable, reaction to a vote by Republican lawmakers to do away with data rules faced by cable and telecoms companies. A Federal Communications Commission regulation, adopted days before last November’s election, would force broadband providers to get permission from customers before selling on data about them. Congress has voted to reverse that requirement.

　　這是對(duì)美國(guó)共和黨議員投票廢除有線電視和電信公司面臨的數(shù)據(jù)規(guī)則的憤世嫉俗(如果說(shuō)可以理解的話)的反應(yīng)。去年11月美國(guó)大選幾天前，聯(lián)邦通信委員會(huì)(FCC)出臺(tái)一項(xiàng)規(guī)定，擬強(qiáng)迫寬帶提供商在出售用戶數(shù)據(jù)前必須得到用戶許可。國(guó)會(huì)已投票撤銷這一要求。

　　There are good arguments for placing limits on the owners of the “pipes” that carry the internet that do not apply to the services that travel over those pipes. Consumers already pay for internet access. Many might not be pleased to discover that the networks are making extra money by trading in their personal data. Many US broadband markets are also a duopoly. Customers unhappy with the terms of service have few options.

　　有很好的理由對(duì)承載互聯(lián)網(wǎng)流量的“管道”的所有者進(jìn)行限制，而對(duì)依托管道提供的服務(wù)不要求這些限制。消費(fèi)者已經(jīng)為互聯(lián)網(wǎng)接入支付了費(fèi)用。許多人可能不滿網(wǎng)絡(luò)提供商通過(guò)交易他們的個(gè)人數(shù)據(jù)來(lái)賺取外快。同時(shí)美國(guó)多地的寬帶市場(chǎng)處于雙強(qiáng)壟斷狀態(tài)。不滿意此類服務(wù)條款的用戶很少有其他選擇。

　　Yet a two-tier privacy regime entrenches Google and Facebook in a market where they are already dominant. Advertisers want more choice, and supported the Republican Congress’ position. The big players of search and social networking are themselves becoming unavoidable utilities.

　　然而，這種二級(jí)隱私保護(hù)機(jī)制鞏固了谷歌和Facebook在它們已經(jīng)主宰的市場(chǎng)中的地位。廣告商希望有更多選擇，它們支持共和黨主導(dǎo)的國(guó)會(huì)的立場(chǎng)。搜索和社交網(wǎng)絡(luò)領(lǐng)域的巨頭本身也已變成回避不了的公用事業(yè)。

　　One response would be for Congress to level the privacy standards up, not down. But with the new administration bent on cutting the power of agencies such as the FCC, that is too much to hope for. It is also not clear how much consumers benefit from the “opt-in” rules that the broadband companies have been facing. Brussels adopted a regime like this, forcing websites to warn visitors that they plant tracking “cookies” for advertising purposes, and to seek approval. For most users, clicking their approval became a reflex.

　　一個(gè)回應(yīng)將是由美國(guó)國(guó)會(huì)提升(而非下調(diào))隱私保護(hù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。但鑒于特朗普政府一心想削弱聯(lián)邦通信委員會(huì)等機(jī)構(gòu)的權(quán)力，這似乎要求太高了。同樣還不清楚的是，消費(fèi)者能在多大程度上獲益于寬帶公司迄今面臨的“選擇性加入”規(guī)則。布魯塞爾實(shí)行一種類似的機(jī)制，強(qiáng)制網(wǎng)站提醒訪問者注意，他們?yōu)榱藦V告目的而植入了追蹤“cookie”，為此征求用戶同意。對(duì)大多數(shù)用戶來(lái)說(shuō)，點(diǎn)擊同意已成為本能反應(yīng)。

　　The debate should not be reduced to a simple choice, where companies are either required to seek customers’ approval before selling their personal data (an opt-in regime), or are free to use it unless customers say otherwise (opt out). To be effective, such a binary choice would require much better-informed consumers with more options. It is not clear to most people why — other than a vague sense of dread — they should worry about their data being shown to advertisers. By contrast, the benefits of ad-supported internet services are obvious.

　　這場(chǎng)辯論不應(yīng)被簡(jiǎn)化為一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單的選擇——公司或是被要求在出售用戶個(gè)人數(shù)據(jù)之前征求用戶同意(選擇性加入機(jī)制)，或者隨意使用這些數(shù)據(jù)，除非用戶說(shuō)不(選擇性退出機(jī)制)。為了行之有效，這種二選一的選擇將依靠消息更加靈通、擁有更多選擇的消費(fèi)者。除了模糊的恐懼感，多數(shù)人并不清楚自己為何要擔(dān)心個(gè)人數(shù)據(jù)被提供給廣告商。相比之下，由廣告支撐的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)服務(wù)的好處是顯而易見的。

　　Internet users still do not know enough about the digital dossiers that have been built up about them. Internet companies have gone some way to letting their users see what assumptions about them have been sold to advertisers. But the data are tricky to find, and patchy. Sensible regulation would require that the disclosures are always one click away, and mandate periodic “push” notifications about the information being collected.

　　互聯(lián)網(wǎng)用戶仍不夠了解企業(yè)對(duì)他們建立的數(shù)字檔案�；ヂ�(lián)網(wǎng)公司已付出一定努力讓用戶看到，關(guān)于他們的哪些假設(shè)被賣給了廣告商。但這些數(shù)據(jù)很難找到，且分布零散。合理的監(jiān)管規(guī)則應(yīng)該要求信息披露通過(guò)一次點(diǎn)擊即可完成，并要求對(duì)收集的信息發(fā)布周期性“推送”通知。

　　Another idea would be to give customers the option to pay for Google or Facebook — in return for seeing no advertising and a guarantee that no information is collected. Average ad revenue per US user at Facebook, for example, is $6 a month (and a fraction of that in the rest of the world). If users could pay that sum in return for Facebook’s technology protecting, rather than selling, their personal information, only a few might do so. For that few, though, the option might be very valuable — and its very existence might make all users think more about the trade-offs they are making.

　　另一個(gè)構(gòu)想是給用戶向谷歌或Facebook付費(fèi)的選擇權(quán)——以換取看不到任何廣告，也沒有任何數(shù)據(jù)被收集的保證。例如，F(xiàn)acebook上每個(gè)美國(guó)用戶每月平均帶來(lái)的廣告收入是6美元(其他國(guó)家更少)。如果用戶可以支付這筆費(fèi)用，以換取Facebook對(duì)他們的個(gè)人信息給予技術(shù)保護(hù)(而非出售)，可能只有很少人會(huì)這樣做。不過(guò)，對(duì)這部分人而言，這一選擇可能非常有價(jià)值，而它的存在或許會(huì)讓所有用戶多想一想自己的取舍。

　　點(diǎn)擊查看講義輔導(dǎo)資料及網(wǎng)校課程

　　口譯：翻譯資格考試三級(jí)口譯模擬題

　　筆譯：翻譯資格考試三級(jí)筆譯模擬題

　　資料來(lái)源考試網(wǎng)校老師主講教材精講班課程，完整講義下載進(jìn)入個(gè)人中心>>

　　　　下載焚題庫(kù)APP——翻譯資格考試——題庫(kù)——做題，包括章節(jié)練習(xí)、每日一練、模擬試卷、歷年真題、易錯(cuò)題等，可隨時(shí)隨地刷題�！�在線做題】>>】【下載APP掌上刷題】