您被『監聽』了嗎? (1)

“How to get ‘balance right’ on NSA’s spying” 您被監聽了嗎?

 

 告訴您如何取得對國安局監聽的『制衡權』

Editor’s note:( 編者的話)

最近美國國家安全局一位年青僱員-Edward J. Snowden在香港爆料，該局監聽全世界，不論美國國內、國外，開展代號「PRISM」(稜鏡) 的高度機密計劃，讓情報分析人員直接進入9間科網巨擘的伺服器(server)監控用戶資料。PRISM被公開後引起外界質疑侵犯個人私隱，名單上的科網巨企紛紛強烈否認知情。因為這位『報馬仔』(註1) 是向美國Washington Post與英國Quardian(衛報) 舉發(註2)，而引起英、美人士的不滿。密報者年僅29歲，高中未畢業，是電腦高手，目前行踪不明，但已牽動美、中、俄三國情報界的大條神經，彼此暗中較勁應已展開(under way)。

眾所周知，美國自911事件後NAS(National Security Agency-國安局的地位凌駕FBI(聯邦調查局) 與CIA(中情局) ，其年度經費比以上兩局總和還多。堪稱世界情報界的『巨無霸』，當然冷戰時期的蘇聯KGB根本不够看。

對於這隻怪獸，難道只能讓它為所欲為，賤踏民主的個人隱私權? 以前CIA行徑的惡名昭彰 (notoriety) 曾引起美國大眾不滿，Time(時報雜誌) 曾以封面故事 “Has CIA gone Too Far?” (CIA太過份了?) 為題大肆揭發，如今NSA之胆大作為千萬倍於CIA。如果您是美國公民，能無動于衷?

(註1) informant密報者，美語用whistle blower「吹笛子的人」來封他更是傳神，台語又叫「抓粑仔」。

(註2)1960年代，震驚全球的Watergate Scandal (水門案) 也是向郵報舉發，而密報者竟是FBI第二號人物，匿名叫Deep Throat(深喉嚨) 的人。似乎郵報已建立了一個專業地位-專門收集大密報的大平面媒體。

【以下為郵報記者的專訪報導，為忠於原報導，原文照列，另附加中譯說明】。

Most columnists, editorialists and civil liberties organizations agree at this point that the revelations about the NSA gathering of phone records and internet info are deeply troubling — either in terms of the overreach of the programs, or the secrecy shrouding them, or both.

大多數的專欄作者、社論作者和國內自由組織，此時此刻都同意，有關爆料NSA (國家安全局)收集電話記錄，和網路資訊的洩露機密，無論從這些計劃的過度囂張，及隱藏他們的隱私，或兩者兼具的觀點來看，都深深令人困擾。

But what can be done about it in policy terms? Is there a way to continue giving the government the surveillance tools it says it needs to ensure national security, even as we do a better job safeguarding Americans’ civil liberties?

但就政策觀點而言，該如何處理因應? 甚至我們對保護美國人的民權可以做得更好時，難道還有某一種方法可以繼續供給政府，給它們認為需要的監聽工具來確定國家安全?

As it turns out, the answer may be Yes. What isn’t getting the attention it deserves is that civil libertarians are not calling for a complete end to the surveillance the government says it needs to continue exercising. They are simply calling for a narrowing of it — one that would better balance the need to protect the American people with the need to guard Americans’ right to privacy.

如同結果顯示，答案也許是肯定的。但無法得到它應得的注意的是，國內民權主張者並未要求，完全終止政府認為必要繼續運作的『監聽』。這些民權人士不過要求縮小監聽範圍，這個訴求會更能平衡保護美國人民的需要，也借此需要可以保護美國人民的隱私權。

Here, with the help of Michelle Richardson, legislative counsel for the ACLU, are steps that could be taken to mitigate current government overreach:

在此，藉ACLU(註：American Civil Liberties Union美國民權自由聯盟)立法律師的Michele Richardson女士之助，提出一些步驟，以削弱目前政府過度伸張監聽的程度：

Narrow the scope of the relevant statute. This isn’t likely to happen, because it would require an act of Congress, and many members of Congress have staunchly defended the current NSA programs. But narrowing the statute is probably the only way current NSA overreach can be reined in, Richardson tells me. What would that entail?

縮小相關法律條文的範圍

這是不可能辦得到，因為它需要國會的行動配合，而許多國會議員們忠心地護衛目前國安局的措施。但Richardson女士告訴我，縮小法條範圍可能是，當前可以控制國安局過度伸張的唯一辦法。可是那需要什麽。

The gathering of phone records is the result of the government’s interpretation of section 215 of the Patriot Act, which expanded the government’s ability to collect records while lowering the standard required to allow it, in ways civil libertarians believe violates the 4th Amendment. This statute could be narrowed by moving to what Richardson calls a “suspicion-based” standard. Under this standard, the government could not do a massive open-ended dragnet compilation of phone records. Instead, it could get a court’s permission to gather the phone records, i.e., the meta-data, of someone reasonably suspected of being a terrorist or spy — or someone who has been contacted by one of those people, Richardson argues. Info could be gathered on a group of people suspected of those activities, or even on a suspected entity (such as a building out of which terrorists or spies are suspected of operating).

收集電話記錄是依愛國法案第205條政府解釋的結果。此法案擴大政府收集記錄的能力，同時降低了需要准許它的標準，這些方法民權人士認為是違背憲法第四修正案。藉著將此法條改為Richardson所謂的『涉嫌根據』的標準，那麽此法條便可被縮小。基於此標準，政府就不能做廣大、無限的天羅地網式地囊括電話記錄。相反地，它需要法庭許可才可以收集電話記錄，例如，有關某人被合理懷疑是恐怖份子或間諜，或曾被這些人接觸過的人，Richardson辯稱說。他們可以收集有關從事這些活動一群人的資訊，或被懷疑的組織團體(例如被懷疑窩藏這些恐怖份子或間諜，出來作案的塲所) 。

Under this standard, the government could continue collecting the phone records even of Americans not suspected of anything, since such a search would result in the gathering of records on everyone the suspects were contacted by, including innocents. But that search could only be initiated by a reasonable suspicion about a particular person, group, or entity. This would balance national security with a more reasonable — but not perfect — defense of Americans’ privacy rights.

基於此標準，政府可以繼續收集，甚至未被懷疑的美國人的電話記錄，因為這種搜索會導致去收集，與嫌犯有連繫的任何人的記錄，包括無辜的人。可是那種搜索必須針對某一特定人士、團體或實體有合理的懷疑才能著手去做。用更合理但並非完美的方法來保護美國人的隱私權，而使國家安全得到制衡。

As for true emergency situations, Richardson says, the government’s ability to get emergency orders from the FISA court (註3)could be maintained, even amid a statutory fix.

至於遇到真正的緊急情况，Richardson 說可以維持，政府獲得來自於FISA法庭緊急命令的能力，甚至於在一條固定的法律條文中。

(註3)：FISA court-United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court(聯邦法庭-負責監控在美外國情報/情報員等) (待續)

 

 

Justin Lai, 06/15/2013