美國不再佔據網絡道德制高點

One fear often voiced about Huawei, the Chinese telecoms equipment maker, is that it is a secret agent of the Chinese government. If it were allowed into the US, could it not embed hidden code into its devices that would enable the Chinese intelligence services to monitor everything passing along its networks? Now substitute the word Verizon for Huawei. Thanks to Edward Snowden, the US intelligence contractor gone rogue, we know that Verizon did something quite similar.

關於中國電信設備製造商華爲(Huawei)，有一種擔憂時常被人提及——人們擔心它是中國政府的祕密情報機構。如果華爲被允許進入美國，它難道不會在其設備中嵌入隱藏代碼，從而使得中國情報機構能夠監視該設備所在網絡中通過的所有信息？現在，讓我們把以上語句中的華爲替換成Verizon。叛變的美國情報機構合同工愛德華•斯諾登(Edward Snowden)讓我們得以瞭解到，Verizon曾做過非常類似的事。

According to an order from a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (Fisa) court, leaked by Mr Snowden, Verizon was required to hand over information about all calls made by its 120m customers. If that’s true, should Verizon be banned from operating in China, or any other country for that matter?

根據斯諾登的曝料，《外國情報監視法》(Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act，簡稱Fisa)法庭曾命令Verizon提交其1.2億用戶的所有通話信息。如果這是真的，那麼Verizon是不是應該爲此被禁止在中國或任何其他國家運營？

The question is posed half-facetiously. But only half. If Verizon – and most other US telecoms and internet carriers – routinely pass data to the government, does that not come awfully close to people’s suspicions about Huawei? One could argue that the National Security Agency, which monitors the traffic, is only looking for terrorist threats, not snooping on other countries’ governments Then again, how could we possibly know that?

這個問題一半是玩笑，但還有一半是認真的。如果Verizon（以及美國其他大多數電信和互聯網服務商）定期向政府提供數據，那麼這種行爲與人們懷疑華爲會做的事情豈不是沒多少區別？有人可能會辯稱，監視通訊活動的美國國家安全局(NSA)只是在尋找恐怖主義威脅，並沒有窺探其他國家的政府。那麼再問一句：我們怎麼知道事實是否真的如此？

Mr Snowden’s revelations are hardly that surprising. Yet imagining that such things go on and having them spelt out in black and white are quite different things. The US-Sino debate about cyber espionage will never be quite the same again.

斯諾登披露的消息實際上沒那麼讓人吃驚。但是想象這類事情正在發生，和明明白白地知道這類事情確實在發生完全是兩碼事。美中圍繞網絡間諜爭論的形勢已被改寫，再也不會回到從前。

First, we should be clear about what we have learnt. So far as we know, Verizon did not allow the NSA to listen in on all calls unfiltered. Instead, it handed over so-called “metadata”. To access conversations, the Fisa court had to issue a specific order. The same restrictions appear to hold for the Prism programme, which the NSA uses to monitor the communications of subscribers of nine internet companies, including Google, Facebook and Skype.

首先，我們應該弄清楚我們到底瞭解到什麼。到目前爲止，據我們所知，Verizon不允許NSA毫無過濾地監聽所有通話。相反，它提交的是所謂的“元數據”。要獲取通話內容，Fisa法庭必須發出專門指令。棱鏡(Prism)項目似乎也受到同樣的限制，該項目被美國國家安全局用來監控包括谷歌(Google)、Facebook和Skype在內的9家互聯網公司的用戶通訊。

These fine distinctions may not count for much. After initial silence from Beijing, recent days have been dominated by the sound of Chinese authorities clambering on to their high horse. Hua Chunying, foreign ministry spokeswoman, described China as “one of the major victims of cyber attacks” and urged the international community to draft regulations on cyber security. Wasn’t that precisely what President Barack Obama was supposed to have asked Xi Jinping, his Chinese counterpart, when they met away from prying eyes and ears (yeah, right!) in the Sunnylands estate this month?

這些細微的差別可能沒有什麼意義。中國政府最近幾天打破了最初的沉默，開始高調發表一些官方言論。中國外交部女發言人華春瑩稱，中國是“最主要的黑客攻擊受害國之一”，並催促國際社會就網絡安全制定相關法規。這不正是美國總統巴拉克•奧巴馬(Barack Obama)本月與中國國家主席習近平擺脫了各種監視和監聽（沒錯，真是如此！）、在“陽光之鄉”(Sunnylands)莊園面對面交流時原本打算向後者提出的嗎？

Naturally, we should not take China’s professed outrage too seriously. It was almost comical to read the People’s Liberation Army Daily describe Prism as “frightening” and accuse the US of being an “habitual” eavesdropper. So brazen are China’s intelligence services, they don’t even bother to hide the fact that they monitor citizens’ internet activity. If they don’t like what they see they simply take it down. Still, if China can’t claim the cyber equivalent of the moral high ground, nor very easily can the US.

當然，我們不應把中國公開表達的憤慨太當回事。看到《解放軍報》(People’s Liberation Army Daily)稱棱鏡計劃很“可怕”，並指責美國是竊聽“慣犯”，這讓人感覺近乎可笑。中國的情報機構甚至不會費心去掩飾自己監視民衆互聯網活動的事實。如果他們不喜歡看到的東西，就會乾脆將其刪除。不過，就算中國無法在網絡問題上佔領道德制高點，美國要佔領這一制高點也不太容易。

From now on, in particular, it will be harder for Washington to make the distinction between state and commercial espionage. The US position has been that, while state-on-state spying is inevitable, business and economic espionage crosses a line. Washington will still try to make that case. Indeed, there is no evidence that the NSA has sought to steal Chinese commercial secrets.

特別是從現在開始，美國政府將更難把國家間諜活動和商業間諜活動區別開來。美國一直堅持這樣的立場：國家與國家之間的間諜活動是不可避免的，而商業間諜和經濟間諜活動則是越界行爲。美國政府仍將試圖堅持這一立場。事實上，目前沒有證據表明NSA曾試圖竊取中國的商業機密。

On the other hand, a 60-page report by Mandiant, a US computer security firm, found that Unit 61398 of the PLA was directly responsible for attacks on US corporations.

另一方面，美國計算機安全公司曼蒂恩特(Mandiant)發佈的一份60頁的報告指出，中國解放軍(PLA)的“61398部門”(Unit 61398)對針對美國企業的網絡攻擊負有直接責任。

Even so, the lines look more blurred than they did before. It will be more difficult for Washington to portray China Inc as some unholy alliance between state and a phoney private sector. America’s most powerful technology companies, it turns out, are routinely obliged to act as if they were a branch of the government. Beyond China, governments of countries such as India have long pressed North American technology companies to share data that might impinge on national security, often to be told that this was technically or ethically impossible. Now they know that’s not true. Moreover, foreign governments have learnt that their own citizens’ data are considered fair game when it passes over the networks of US companies.

即便如此，如今兩者的界線也比過去更加模糊了。美國政府以後將更難把中國公司描述爲某種國家與虛僞私有部門的邪惡同盟。事實證明，美國一些最強大的科技公司經常要被迫聽命於政府，彷彿它們是政府的下屬機構。在中國之外，印度等國政府長期以來一直敦促北美科技公司分享有可能損害自己國家安全的數據，而得到的答案往往是：這在技術上、或在倫理道德上是不可能的。如今，他們瞭解到這根本不是實話。另外，外國政府還由此瞭解到，自己本國公民的數據在被傳送至美國公司的網絡上之後，也會被視爲“美味的獵物”。

“Our legitimacy and standing will be seriously compromised,” says Adam Segal, a cyber expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, of US preaching. “It is true that the Chinese are still doing it and we need to stand firm. But the politics is much more complicated now.”

在談到美國的說教時，美國外交關係委員會(Council on Foreign Relations)一位網絡專家表示：“我們的合法性和立場將遭到嚴重傷害。沒錯，中國仍在這麼做，我們也必須保持強硬立場。但現在這其中的利害關係變得複雜多了。”

Huang Chengqing, who heads China’s network emergency response body, said Beijing had “mountains of data” on US cyber attacks. An article in Foreign Policy magazine this month detailed the work of the Office of Tailored Access Operations, a secretive unit of the NSA, in penetrating Chinese systems. When Mr Obama told Mr Xi that Chinese spying had to stop, it would have been interesting to hear how the Chinese president responded. We may never know. Or perhaps the NSA can tell us.

中國國家計算機網絡應急技術處理協調中心主任黃澄清表示，關於美國的網絡攻擊，中國政府擁有“大量數據”。《外交政策》(Foreign Policy)雜誌本月發表的一篇文章，詳細描述了美國國家安全局的一個祕密部門——獲取特定情報行動辦公室(TAO)——刺探中國網絡系統的細節。在奧巴馬告訴習近平中國必須停止間諜活動時，中國國家主席是如何迴應的？如果能聽聽他的回答可能會很有意思。我們或許將永遠不得而知。抑或，美國國家安全局可以告訴我們。