您被監聽了嗎? (2)

“How to get ‘balance right’ on NSA’s spying” (2)

您被監聽了嗎?告訴您如何取得對國安局監聽的『制衡權』

Such a statutory fix could also apply to the so-called PRISM program, which allows for collection of foreign intelligence information from internet service providers. By limiting such collection only to those abroad suspected of terrorism or spying, you would not eliminate the collection of data on Americans, since their information might be collected if they had been contacted by those suspects. But you’d again narrow the searches only to “suspicion based” information collection, Richardson says: “By returning to a suspicion based standard, you’d prevent the mass collection of information on innocent people not suspected of any ties to terrorism, but you wouldn’t eliminate surveillance.”

似此固定的法律條文也可以應用到所謂的PRISM(稜鏡)計畫，此計畫允許從網路服務提供者，收集外國情報資訊，此種僅限於去收集那些在國外的涉嫌恐怖份子或間諜行為，你就無法去除收集有關美國人的資料。因為如果那些嫌犯曾接觸過他們，他們的資料也許被收集了。但是你得縮小搜索範圍到，基本嫌疑資訊的收集而已。Richardson說，話又回到基本涉嫌標準，你可以避免對無辜，未涉及與恐怖主義無關的人們，大量資訊的收集。但你除不掉被監聽。

Bring more transparency to the current programs. Ron Fournier writes: “Tell us what our government is doing, and why.” Is this possible? To some degree, yes. Barring the above statutory change, the government could bring more transparency right now to the programs that are currently operating. For instance, Richardson notes, we know phone records are currently being gathered in a data-base. What about, say, emails and financial records? How broad is the program, anyway?

讓目前執行計劃更透明化

Ron Fournier如此寫著：『我們要知道政府在做什麼，為何如此做』。有可能嗎? 就某種程度而言，是可能的。除了上述條文的改變外，政府現在能使這些目前正執行的計劃更透明化。Richardson說，例如我們知道電話記錄正被收集在某一資料庫中。那麼你的e-mail和財政記錄呢? 這個計劃觸及範圍到底有多寬濶?

The Director of National Intelligence has clarified that the government does not have the power to listen in on calls or monitor content of communications. (註) However, Richardson notes, the government could be more forthcoming about the guidelines that determine whether it is able to look at meta-data of Americans not suspected of anything. What is done with all of this information, and what dictates how or whether it is accessed?

國安局局長曾經澄清說，政府沒有權力偷聽電話和監聽通訊內容。儘管如此，Richardson注意到，政府可能立即做到關於指導方針，這些方針決定是否能够看非涉嫌美國人的變更資料。對於所有這個資訊他們做了什麼? 與什麽事命令它如何或是否能被取得。

(註) Surveillance programs have stopped 'dozens' of terror attacks, NSA chief says 國安局主管說，監聽計劃已經阻止了好幾十件的恐怖分子攻擊。

Key questions remain about the scope and inner workings of this program. The administration — and members of Congress — have said more disclosure could imperil their effectiveness by tipping off would-be terrorists. But as Richardson notes, they are likely proceeding from the assumption that they are being subjected to extensive surveillance already, so that excuse rings hollow. “The 9/11 plotters communicated in code,” Richard says.

關於此計劃的範圍，與內部作業的關鍵問題仍然存在。政府部門與國會議員們已說過，更多的揭密可能警告潛在的恐怖分子，而傷害他們的效率。如Richardson所注意到，他們的運作是基於巳被廣泛監聽的假設，所以那個藉口等於空响(無效) 。Richardson說，『911的密謀者是用密碼通訊連絡的』

Also: The FISA court decisions granting government surveillance authority should be disclosed, with appropriate redactions. “The bottom line is there shouldn’t be secret law,” Richardson concludes.

還有：聯邦法庭應適當的修訂，准許政府取得監聽授權，並加以透露，。Richardson的結論是『底線不該是祕密法律』。

What it all means: Obama used to say that the need to decide between national security and civil liberties was a “false choice.” More recently he has taken to suggesting that he views his role as commander in chief as one that requires him to prioritize security, and to compromise civil liberties, if necessary to keep the American people safe.

全部的意義是：歐巴馬過去一向說要決定國家安全與國內自由權的需要是一項『錯誤的選擇』。最近不久，他一直喜歡提到，他把身為全國總司令的角色，看作是需要他把安全列為第一優先，然後有必要時再去為國內自由妥協，以保美國民眾的安全。

But from the point of view of civil libertarians, Obama was right the first time: There are ways to maintain the government’s power to conduct surveillance designed to keep us safe while genuinely safeguarding liberty and privacy rights.

可是從國內自由派人士的觀點看，歐巴馬第一次講這話是對的：『有些方法維持政府的權力來執行監聽，這項監控是設計維護我們的安全，同時真正地保護自由與隱私權』。

To be sure, national security experts might quarrel with the civil libertarian argument that these principles can be safeguarded without compromising security. And far too little is known about how these programs work to be sure about how — or whether — a proper balance can be achieved. But the basic fact that needs to be understood is that civil libertarians are not calling for an end to surveillance. They just want us to at least make a serious effort to get that balance right. Which Obama himself has articulated as a goal, at least in theory.

的確，國家安全專家們也許會與國內自由派人士争辯說，這些原則可以被守護，而不使安全被打折扣。我們知道得太少有關這些計劃如何運作以確定，如何或是否達到一種適當的平衡。我們需要瞭解的基本事情是，國內自由派人士並不要求終止監聽，他們僅想要我們認真努力取得制衡權。這點歐巴馬本人已講得清楚，至少在理論上是如此。

【個人意見】：

1)     回憶多年前台灣國民黨情治單位，包括警總、情報局、調查局等對台灣善良老百性的監聽、監視等白色恐怖的行徑，因其手段粗糙而造成人民極大之不便與反感。當然比美國人高明的技術相差甚遠。例如當年彭明敏教授被軟禁與監視，雖然嚴密但還是被其遁逃，由美國軍艦在台中外海由CIA接運帶走，經瑞典轉赴美國。看來老美似乎並未將surveillance(監控)的絕招傳授當年笨笨的國民黨。

2)     對美國的竊聽行為，亞洲各國迄無反應，但2013年6月11日在法國舉行的歐洲法學會議中，與會各國法界與民權領袖對NSA的Data Collection Program(資料收集計劃)的反應則群相發言，言詞犀利，他們一致認為是非法(illegal) 與違反立法(violation of legislature)。

3)     至於爆料人是美國政府部門口中的defector (變節者)? traitor (叛國賊)? 或是部分百姓中的英雄 (hero)? 目前見人見智。不論他是什麼人，重要的是他爆的內容是否屬實. 【 It counts not so much who he might be as whether his disclosure or unveiling is true or not.】但就兩周以來，有萬人以上網友在Facebook上大聲疾呼，要求NSA公佈有關他們被竊之私人祕密看來，NSA官員如何申辯，得看其智慧。

4)     Obama總統對監聽的辯護：他說，【它是有節制地侵犯(modest encroachment)個人隱私權，但却是合法(lawful)與可證明是合理的。因為這樣才能指認出來，陰謀攻擊美國的恐怖分子】。朋友，Do you see eye to eye with him? (你同意他的看法?) 你認為他的解釋合理嗎(justifiable)?

 

譯自Washington Post華盛頓郵報

Justin Lai, 06/15/2013