精品国产_亚洲人成在线高清,国产精品成人久久久久,国语自产偷拍精品视频偷拍

Facebook很長一段時間以來沒有這類重大好消息了。這次是與隱私保護有關。不妨關注一下這個“專注于隱私保護的Facebook！”

不，還是算了吧。在Facebook最近發布的“專注于社交網絡隱私保護”的愿景中，馬克·扎克伯格的表述從很多方面來看根本不是為了提倡隱私保護。

這并非是說Facebook沒有采取隱私保護限制舉措。通過專注于一對一或小群組的信息發送，公司將更注重確保非大范圍網絡人群對話的隱私保護。通過使用強大的加密技術——已經成為了WhatsApp的默認配置以及Facebook Messenger的可選配置，政府難以獲悉溝通的內容，當然，Facebook自身也無法窺探。

但扎克伯格的貼文實際上是有關WhatsApp、Facebook Messenger和Instagram基礎設施的整合，而此舉對于隱私來說可謂是莫大的侵犯。

第一個問題：很多人都已經注冊了相繼被Facebook收購的WhatsApp和Instagram，但他們并不希望其信息融入Facebook這個大網絡。

確實，如果Facebook收購WhatsApp一事出現在歐洲，Facebook并不會這么做。圍繞收購WhatsApp一事，該公司因誤導反壟斷監管機構被罰1.22億美元。德國的市場競爭主管機構已經就Facebook最新的整合舉措向其發出警告，如果這一舉措未能得到用戶明確的自愿同意，那么在歐盟內開展整合舉措就是違法的。

很明顯，Facebook各類信息發送服務的整合將允許人們進行跨平臺溝通。雖然此舉能夠提升溝通便利度，但也會允許Facebook為其用戶建立更加精準的個人檔案，并將其用于廣告定位。

盡管扎克伯格也提到了強大的加密技術在安全保障方面的優勢，但受惠的對象僅限于人們發送的信息，并非與之相關的元數據，而且Facebook可以從這些數據中獲悉交談雙方的信息以及時間。這些都是異常寶貴的建檔信息，也就是肖珊娜·佐伯芙所謂的“監控資本主義”的動力源。

在文章中描述加密技術時，扎克伯格提出的論據根本經不起推敲。他曾經放出豪言：“在我去年與持反對意見的人進行交流時，他們提到加密技術是自己能夠獲得自由，甚至是活著的原因。”Facebook剛剛被人曝光使用用戶為增強其賬戶安全所提交的電話號碼，并借此提升網絡辨識這些用戶的便利度。

他繼續說道：“加密技術對于隱私保護來說是一個強有力的工具，但它也保護了不法分子的隱私。我們正努力偵測活動模式或其他方式，即便是看不到信息內容，也要在各個應用中提升我們識別和阻止破壞分子的能力，哪怕看不到信息內容也會這樣做。我們也將繼續在這一領域進行投資。”此外，保護信息內容的隱私并不能阻止其他類型的隱私侵犯，這與侵犯的理由是否合理無關。

因此，人們很有可能會誤讀扎克伯格在貼文中的承諾，并不僅僅是因為他在隱私保護承諾方面向來都做得非常糟糕。

然而，我倒是希望以積極的一點來收尾，因為扎克伯格在文中提到了值得人們大贊特贊的一點：也就是安全數據儲存的部分，以及Facebook如何拒絕“在有違反人權記錄的國家”部署這一技術，例如違反隱私保護或個人言論自由。

他寫道：“如果我們打造數據中心，并將敏感數據儲存在于這些國家，而不僅僅是捕獲非敏感數據，那么當地政府就可以更加便利地獲取個人信息。堅持這一原則可能會導致一些國家封鎖我們的服務，或者我們難以在短時間內進入這些國家，但我們愿意為此付出這些代價。”

他并沒有在文中指名道姓，但很明顯，其矛頭對準的是俄羅斯，這個國家設立了強有力的數據本土化法律，表面上看是保護公民的隱私，實際上很有可能是為了讓國家情報機構能夠對公民數據進行嚴密監控。

俄羅斯監管方一直都在威脅封鎖Facebook，因為Facebook拒不遵守俄羅斯的數據本土化法律，這個問題讓俄羅斯當局越發感到惱火。

我們可能會看到，Facebook在不久的將來將退出俄羅斯，而不是背叛其用戶。在這一點上，扎克伯格確實值得表揚，但貼文的其他內容就沒那么值得稱道了。（財富中文網）

譯者：馮豐

審校：夏林

Facebook hasn’t had such good headlines for a while. It’s “pivoting to privacy!” Say hello to a “‘privacy-focused’ Facebook!”

No, and no. What Mark Zuckerberg describes in his “privacy-focused vision for social networking” Facebook post recently is in many ways not pro-privacy at all.

That’s not to say Facebook isn’t moving towards a limited kind of privacy. By focusing more on messaging one-on-one or within small groups, it will be placing greater emphasis on conversations that are private from wider networks of people. The use of strong encryption—already the default in WhatsApp and an option in Facebook Messenger—keeps the contents of communications private from governments and indeed from Facebook itself.

But what Zuckerberg’s post is really about—the integration of WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger and Instagram’s infrastructure—couldn’t be less privacy-friendly.

First problem: many people signed up to WhatsApp and Instagram, which Facebook went on to buy, without wanting their information to be assimilated into the Facebook hive-mind.

Indeed, in Europe a condition of Facebook’s WhatsApp acquisition was that Facebook would refrain from doing that—the company ended up with a $122 million fine for lying to antitrust regulators on that point. The German competition authorities have already warned Facebook about its latest integration moves, which will be illegal in the EU without clear, voluntary consent from users.

The integration of Facebook’s various messaging services will obviously allow people to communicate across those platforms, which may introduce greater convenience, but it will also allow Facebook to build more accurate profiles of their users, for ad-targeting purposes.

Zuckerberg may talk about the safety benefits of strong encryption, but those benefits only extend to the contents of people’s messages, not the associated metadata that tells Facebook who is talking to whom, and when. This is extremely valuable profiling information—the fuel of what Shoshana Zuboff calls “surveillance capitalism.”

In the encryption part of his essay, Zuckerberg treads on some very fragile ground. “In the last year, I’ve spoken with dissidents who’ve told me encryption is the reason they are free, or even alive,” he says with a great deal of chutzpah—Facebook has only just been caught out using phone numbers, which people submitted to lock down their accounts’ security, as data to make those people easier to identify on the network.

“Encryption is a powerful tool for privacy, but that includes the privacy of people doing bad things,” he continues. “We are working to improve our ability to identify and stop bad actors across our apps by detecting patterns of activity or through other means, even when we can’t see the content of the messages, and we will continue to invest in this work.” Again, protecting the privacy of message contents does not stop other types of privacy invasion, whether for good or for bad reasons.

So there’s a real danger of misinterpreting what Zuckerberg is promising in his post—and not just because his track record on privacy promises is thoroughly dismal.

However, I’d like to end on a positive note, as there is one point in Zuckerberg’s essay for which he should be unequivocally congratulated: the part about secure data storage, and how Facebook refuses to deploy it in “countries that have a track record of violating human rights like privacy or freedom of expression.”

“If we build data centers and store sensitive data in these countries, rather than just caching non-sensitive data, it could make it easier for those governments to take people’s information,” he writes. “Upholding this principle may mean that our services will get blocked in some countries, or that we won’t be able to enter others anytime soon. That’s a trade-off we’re willing to make.”

He’s not naming names here, but the obvious reference points here is Russia, which have strong data localization laws that are ostensibly about protecting citizens’ privacy, but most likely aimed at keeping citizens’ data close to state intelligence’s grubby mitts.

Russian regulators have long threatened to block Facebook if it won’t adhere to the country’s data localization law—an issue that is increasingly annoying them.

Perhaps we can expect to see Facebook exit Russia in the near future, rather than betray its users, and for that Mark Zuckerberg really does deserve a pat on the back. For the rest of his post, though, not so much.