2024年3月25日发(作者：清诗)
避不开的摄像头
由于照相机已变得无处不在，而且能够识别人像，我们需要采取更多措施来保护隐私
2013 年 11 月 18 日
在1890年，一份报纸宣称：”本季，在海边出现了一些比鲨鱼还可怕的东西。那就是业余摄影师。”在19世纪，手
持摄像机的发明引起了整个社会的震惊，正如当时的”柯达狂人”(Kodak fiends)肆虐海滩，朝正在晒阳光浴的人狂拍。
一个多世纪后，业余摄影再次成为一个令人困扰的问题。富裕国家的公民已经习惯了被用于监控道路和城市的闭路
摄像机拍摄。但由于照相机变得更小巧，而且存储数据的成本骤降，它逐渐被用于个人拍摄。
透过谷歌眼镜，眼前一片黑暗
大约有1万人已经对过谷歌眼镜(Google Glass)的原型进行了测试，它是一款可以像眼镜一样佩戴的微型计算机（详
见文章）。它旨在打造一台架在人们鼻子上的拥有智能手机所有功能的设备。它的框架非常灵活，上面配有一个摄
像头和一块小屏幕，这使得用户可方便地进行拍照、发送邮件和在线搜索。
谷歌眼镜也许会失败，但一场更广泛的革命正在展开。俄罗斯的保险欺诈十分盛行，至少有100万辆汽车的仪表盘
上已经安装了摄像头，以摄录前方道路。美国警察局开始向警察发放别在其制服上的摄像机，用以记录他们与公众
的互动。衣领照相机帮助焦急的猫咪爱好者监视其走失的宠物。狗仔队已经开始使用无人驾驶飞机，来拍摄花园里
或游艇上的名人们。相机爱好者们甚至正通过巧妙的方式将相机送入太空进行拍照。
无处不在的拍摄记录带来了很多好处。有些脑损伤患者通过相机回顾过去的照片可帮助他们恢复记忆。汽车碰撞记
录可帮助车主解决保险索赔，从而鼓励人们更安全地驾驶。警方摄像记录可以阻止犯罪分子无端投诉警察，也可防
止警察虐待囚犯。最近，一名英国士兵以谋杀一名受伤的阿富汗人被判刑，因为其行为被其同事的头盔摄像头拍摄
了下来。拍摄资深外科医生和工程师的视频可帮助他们培养后继者，也用来解决责任纠纷。视力部分残疾者可利用
与计算机相连的镜片来识别街道标志和产品标签。
乐观主义者预见到了更广泛的效益。很多人携带着活动跟踪器，或戴在手腕上或放在口袋中，来监测自己的运动或
睡眠模式；摄像机或许能更有效的完成这一工作，或许还可监视配戴者的饮食情况。如果”私人黑盒子”的拥有者发
生事故或成为犯罪的受害者，它或许可以传输照片。能够进行人脸识别的微型摄像机可作为个人数字助理，从而使
得对话可以像文件以及邮件那样被搜索到。现在，有少部分”生活记录器”已将数年内的记录存储到”电子记忆”数据库
中。
对于这些前景，并非每个人都感到高兴。一个完美的数字记忆很可能是一种痛苦，它保存有珍贵的往事，但也有不
幸的事情。多疑的配偶和雇主可能会觉得自己有权回顾这些记录。
身在镜头前的人们更值得担忧，而非镜头后的人们。校园恶霸已经在利用手机进行非法拍摄，用以为难欺凌对象。
网上流传着女性的隐私照片，而这些都是在公共场拍摄的。可穿戴式摄像机将使这种隐秘拍摄变得更容易。日益复
杂的人脸识别技术可能成为一个严重问题，因为这开始使得企业和政府可通过在线搜索数十亿张照片，来提取对方
的个人信息。酒吧、街道、办公室和人们的头部，摄像头无处不在，如果处理储存或公开图像的社交网络等服务供
应商通过这些摄像记录进行运算，后果将十分重大且令人担忧。在不久的将来，我们可能会生活在一个一举一动都
会被记录下来的世界里，即使是在街上遇到的陌生人也可立即识别你的身份。
主宰并直面自己的身体和心灵
本刊坚信，技术进步通常会受到欢迎，而不是引起恐慌，但这与支持自由这一更深深处的冲动相冲突。自由必须包
括一些隐私权：如果你的一举一动都被记载的话，那就意味着你的自由被剥夺了。
一种选择是禁止使用让人讨厌的设备。奥地利禁止在仪表盘上安装摄像机。驾驶者录制道路情况将被罚款1万欧元
（约合1.34万美元）。但是，禁止使用这些设备也损害了人们的利益。社会应该制定出更完善的规则，明确这些
技术应该何时以及如何使用，就像学习对付柯达狂人那样。
就目前而言，企业们都十分谨慎。谷歌已下令禁止在其眼镜的应用程序中添加面部识别技术，情切其摄像头只能用
于短距离拍摄。日本数码相机制造商确保其产品在每次拍摄时，都必须发出快门声音。管制跟踪或骚扰行为的现有
法律可延伸至用来处理偷窥无人机。
尽管如此，由于照相机变得更小巧，功能变得更强大，而且更普遍，可能需要新的法律来维护自由。各国政府应该
确保，只有存在明确公共利益时（比如识别银行抢劫犯），才有权使用面部识别技术。当公司或街头陌生人想要识
别他人身份时，出发点应该是个人拥有不自动透露自己身份的权利。同样，个人数据也应如此。正如Facebook和
谷歌应该被强制建立高级默认隐私设置（可根据用户的要求降低）那样，新型相机和识别技术也应被加以规范，从
而使用户拥有是否匿名的决定权。
硅谷十分重视技术所产生的巨大作用，这往往是正确的。但是一项设备在授予某一个人自由时有可能会剥夺另一个
人的自由。自由派政治人士一直懒于捍卫个人空间这一理念，尤其是个人网络空间。现在应该行动起来了。否则，
转瞬之间，个人隐私可能就荡然无存了。
英文原文：
/news/leaders/21589862-cameras-become-ubiquitous-and-able-identify-people-more-
safeguards-privacy-will-be
The recorded world
Every step you take
As cameras become ubiquitous and able to identify people, more safeguards on privacy will be needed
Nov 16th 2013 |From the print edition
“THIS season there is something at the seaside worse than sharks,” declared a newspaper in 1890.
“It is the amateur photographer.” The invention of the handheld camera appalled 19th-century
society, as did the “Kodak fiends” who patrolled beaches snapping sunbathers.
More than a century later, amateur photography is once more a troubling issue. Citizens of rich
countries have got used to being watched by closed-circuit cameras that guard roads and cities.
But as cameras shrink and the cost of storing data plummets, it is individuals who are taking the
pictures.
Through a Glass, darkly
Some 10,000 people are already testing a prototype of Google Glass, a miniature computer worn like spectacles
(see
article
). It aims to replicate all the functions of a smartphone in a device perched on a person’s nose. Its
flexible frame holds both a camera and a tiny screen, and makes it easy for users to take photos, send messages
and search for things online.
Glass may fail, but a wider revolution is under way. In Russia, where insurance fraud is rife, at least 1m cars
already have cameras on their dashboards that film the road ahead. Police forces in America are starting to issue
officers with video cameras, pinned to their uniforms, which record their interactions with the public. Collar-cams
help anxious cat-lovers keep tabs on their wandering pets. Paparazzi have started to use drones to photograph
celebrities in their gardens or on yachts. Hobbyists are even devising clever ways to get cameras into space.
Ubiquitous recording can already do a lot of good. Some patients with brain injuries have been given cameras:
looking back at images can help them recover their memories. Dash-cams can help resolve insurance claims and
encourage people to drive better. Police-cams can discourage criminals from making groundless complaints
against police officers and officers from abusing detainees. A British soldier has just been convicted of murdering
a wounded Afghan because the act was captured by a colleague’s helmet-camera. Videos showing the line of
sight of experienced surgeons and engineers can help train their successors and be used in liability disputes.
Lenses linked to computers are reading street-signs and product labels to partially sighted people.
Optimists see broader benefits ahead. Plenty of people carry activity trackers, worn on the wrist or placed in a
pocket, to monitor their exercise or sleep patterns; cameras could do the job more effectively, perhaps also
spying on their wearers’ diets. “Personal black boxes” might be able to transmit pictures if their owner falls victim
to an accident or crime. Tiny cameras trained to recognise faces could become personal digital assistants,
making conversations as searchable as documents and e-mails. Already a small band of “life-loggers” squirrel
away years of footage into databases of “e-memories”.
Not everybody will be thrilled by these prospects. A perfect digital memory would probably be a pain, preserving
unhappy events as well as cherished ones. Suspicious spouses and employers might feel entitled to review it.
The bigger worry is for those in front of the cameras, not behind them. School bullies already use illicit snaps from
mobile phones to embarrass their victims. The web throngs with furtive photos of women, snapped in public
places. Wearable cameras will make such surreptitious photography easier. And the huge, looming issue is the
growing sophistication of face-recognition technologies, which are starting to enable businesses and
governments to extract information about individuals by scouring the billions of images online. The combination of
cameras everywhere—in bars, on streets, in offices, on people’s heads—with the algorithms run by social
networks and other service providers that process stored and published images is a powerful and alarming one.
We may not be far from a world in which your movements could be tracked all the time, where a stranger walking
down the street can immediately identify exactly who you are.
Sovereign over your own body and mind—and face
This is where one of this newspaper’s strongly held beliefs—that technological progress should generally be
welcomed, not feared—runs up against an even deeper impulse, in favour of liberty. Freedom has to include
some right to privacy: if every move you make is being chronicled, liberty is curtailed.
One option is to ban devices that seem irksome. The use of dashboard cameras is forbidden in Austria. Drivers
who film the road can face a €10,000 ($13,400) fine. But banning devices deprives people of their benefits.
Society would do better to develop rules about where and how these technologies can be used, just as it learned
to cope with the Kodak fiends.
For the moment, companies are treading carefully. Google has banned the use of face-recognition in apps on
Glass and its camera is designed to film only in short bursts. Japanese digital camera-makers ensure their
products emit a shutter sound every time a picture is taken. Existing laws to control stalking or harassment can be
extended to deal with peeping drones.
Still, as cameras become smaller, more powerful and ubiquitous, new laws may be needed to preserve liberty.
Governments should be granted the right to use face-recognition technology only where there is a clear public
good (identifying a bank robber for instance). When the would-be identifiers are companies or strangers in the
street, the starting-point should be that you have the right not to have your identity automatically revealed. The
principle is the same as for personal data. Just as Facebook and Google should be forced to establish high
default settings for privacy (which can be reduced at the user’s request), the new cameras and recognition
technologies should be regulated so as to let you decide whether you remain anonymous or not.
Silicon Valley emphasises the liberating power of technology—and it is often right. But the freedom that a gadget
gives one person can sometimes take away liberty from another. Liberal politicians have been lazy about
defending the idea of personal space, especially online. The fight should start now. Otherwise, in the blink of an
eye, privacy could be gone.
From the print edition: Leaders
2024年3月25日发(作者：清诗)
避不开的摄像头
由于照相机已变得无处不在，而且能够识别人像，我们需要采取更多措施来保护隐私
2013 年 11 月 18 日
在1890年，一份报纸宣称：”本季，在海边出现了一些比鲨鱼还可怕的东西。那就是业余摄影师。”在19世纪，手
持摄像机的发明引起了整个社会的震惊，正如当时的”柯达狂人”(Kodak fiends)肆虐海滩，朝正在晒阳光浴的人狂拍。
一个多世纪后，业余摄影再次成为一个令人困扰的问题。富裕国家的公民已经习惯了被用于监控道路和城市的闭路
摄像机拍摄。但由于照相机变得更小巧，而且存储数据的成本骤降，它逐渐被用于个人拍摄。
透过谷歌眼镜，眼前一片黑暗
大约有1万人已经对过谷歌眼镜(Google Glass)的原型进行了测试，它是一款可以像眼镜一样佩戴的微型计算机（详
见文章）。它旨在打造一台架在人们鼻子上的拥有智能手机所有功能的设备。它的框架非常灵活，上面配有一个摄
像头和一块小屏幕，这使得用户可方便地进行拍照、发送邮件和在线搜索。
谷歌眼镜也许会失败，但一场更广泛的革命正在展开。俄罗斯的保险欺诈十分盛行，至少有100万辆汽车的仪表盘
上已经安装了摄像头，以摄录前方道路。美国警察局开始向警察发放别在其制服上的摄像机，用以记录他们与公众
的互动。衣领照相机帮助焦急的猫咪爱好者监视其走失的宠物。狗仔队已经开始使用无人驾驶飞机，来拍摄花园里
或游艇上的名人们。相机爱好者们甚至正通过巧妙的方式将相机送入太空进行拍照。
无处不在的拍摄记录带来了很多好处。有些脑损伤患者通过相机回顾过去的照片可帮助他们恢复记忆。汽车碰撞记
录可帮助车主解决保险索赔，从而鼓励人们更安全地驾驶。警方摄像记录可以阻止犯罪分子无端投诉警察，也可防
止警察虐待囚犯。最近，一名英国士兵以谋杀一名受伤的阿富汗人被判刑，因为其行为被其同事的头盔摄像头拍摄
了下来。拍摄资深外科医生和工程师的视频可帮助他们培养后继者，也用来解决责任纠纷。视力部分残疾者可利用
与计算机相连的镜片来识别街道标志和产品标签。
乐观主义者预见到了更广泛的效益。很多人携带着活动跟踪器，或戴在手腕上或放在口袋中，来监测自己的运动或
睡眠模式；摄像机或许能更有效的完成这一工作，或许还可监视配戴者的饮食情况。如果”私人黑盒子”的拥有者发
生事故或成为犯罪的受害者，它或许可以传输照片。能够进行人脸识别的微型摄像机可作为个人数字助理，从而使
得对话可以像文件以及邮件那样被搜索到。现在，有少部分”生活记录器”已将数年内的记录存储到”电子记忆”数据库
中。
对于这些前景，并非每个人都感到高兴。一个完美的数字记忆很可能是一种痛苦，它保存有珍贵的往事，但也有不
幸的事情。多疑的配偶和雇主可能会觉得自己有权回顾这些记录。
身在镜头前的人们更值得担忧，而非镜头后的人们。校园恶霸已经在利用手机进行非法拍摄，用以为难欺凌对象。
网上流传着女性的隐私照片，而这些都是在公共场拍摄的。可穿戴式摄像机将使这种隐秘拍摄变得更容易。日益复
杂的人脸识别技术可能成为一个严重问题，因为这开始使得企业和政府可通过在线搜索数十亿张照片，来提取对方
的个人信息。酒吧、街道、办公室和人们的头部，摄像头无处不在，如果处理储存或公开图像的社交网络等服务供
应商通过这些摄像记录进行运算，后果将十分重大且令人担忧。在不久的将来，我们可能会生活在一个一举一动都
会被记录下来的世界里，即使是在街上遇到的陌生人也可立即识别你的身份。
主宰并直面自己的身体和心灵
本刊坚信，技术进步通常会受到欢迎，而不是引起恐慌，但这与支持自由这一更深深处的冲动相冲突。自由必须包
括一些隐私权：如果你的一举一动都被记载的话，那就意味着你的自由被剥夺了。
一种选择是禁止使用让人讨厌的设备。奥地利禁止在仪表盘上安装摄像机。驾驶者录制道路情况将被罚款1万欧元
（约合1.34万美元）。但是，禁止使用这些设备也损害了人们的利益。社会应该制定出更完善的规则，明确这些
技术应该何时以及如何使用，就像学习对付柯达狂人那样。
就目前而言，企业们都十分谨慎。谷歌已下令禁止在其眼镜的应用程序中添加面部识别技术，情切其摄像头只能用
于短距离拍摄。日本数码相机制造商确保其产品在每次拍摄时，都必须发出快门声音。管制跟踪或骚扰行为的现有
法律可延伸至用来处理偷窥无人机。
尽管如此，由于照相机变得更小巧，功能变得更强大，而且更普遍，可能需要新的法律来维护自由。各国政府应该
确保，只有存在明确公共利益时（比如识别银行抢劫犯），才有权使用面部识别技术。当公司或街头陌生人想要识
别他人身份时，出发点应该是个人拥有不自动透露自己身份的权利。同样，个人数据也应如此。正如Facebook和
谷歌应该被强制建立高级默认隐私设置（可根据用户的要求降低）那样，新型相机和识别技术也应被加以规范，从
而使用户拥有是否匿名的决定权。
硅谷十分重视技术所产生的巨大作用，这往往是正确的。但是一项设备在授予某一个人自由时有可能会剥夺另一个
人的自由。自由派政治人士一直懒于捍卫个人空间这一理念，尤其是个人网络空间。现在应该行动起来了。否则，
转瞬之间，个人隐私可能就荡然无存了。
英文原文：
/news/leaders/21589862-cameras-become-ubiquitous-and-able-identify-people-more-
safeguards-privacy-will-be
The recorded world
Every step you take
As cameras become ubiquitous and able to identify people, more safeguards on privacy will be needed
Nov 16th 2013 |From the print edition
“THIS season there is something at the seaside worse than sharks,” declared a newspaper in 1890.
“It is the amateur photographer.” The invention of the handheld camera appalled 19th-century
society, as did the “Kodak fiends” who patrolled beaches snapping sunbathers.
More than a century later, amateur photography is once more a troubling issue. Citizens of rich
countries have got used to being watched by closed-circuit cameras that guard roads and cities.
But as cameras shrink and the cost of storing data plummets, it is individuals who are taking the
pictures.
Through a Glass, darkly
Some 10,000 people are already testing a prototype of Google Glass, a miniature computer worn like spectacles
(see
article
). It aims to replicate all the functions of a smartphone in a device perched on a person’s nose. Its
flexible frame holds both a camera and a tiny screen, and makes it easy for users to take photos, send messages
and search for things online.
Glass may fail, but a wider revolution is under way. In Russia, where insurance fraud is rife, at least 1m cars
already have cameras on their dashboards that film the road ahead. Police forces in America are starting to issue
officers with video cameras, pinned to their uniforms, which record their interactions with the public. Collar-cams
help anxious cat-lovers keep tabs on their wandering pets. Paparazzi have started to use drones to photograph
celebrities in their gardens or on yachts. Hobbyists are even devising clever ways to get cameras into space.
Ubiquitous recording can already do a lot of good. Some patients with brain injuries have been given cameras:
looking back at images can help them recover their memories. Dash-cams can help resolve insurance claims and
encourage people to drive better. Police-cams can discourage criminals from making groundless complaints
against police officers and officers from abusing detainees. A British soldier has just been convicted of murdering
a wounded Afghan because the act was captured by a colleague’s helmet-camera. Videos showing the line of
sight of experienced surgeons and engineers can help train their successors and be used in liability disputes.
Lenses linked to computers are reading street-signs and product labels to partially sighted people.
Optimists see broader benefits ahead. Plenty of people carry activity trackers, worn on the wrist or placed in a
pocket, to monitor their exercise or sleep patterns; cameras could do the job more effectively, perhaps also
spying on their wearers’ diets. “Personal black boxes” might be able to transmit pictures if their owner falls victim
to an accident or crime. Tiny cameras trained to recognise faces could become personal digital assistants,
making conversations as searchable as documents and e-mails. Already a small band of “life-loggers” squirrel
away years of footage into databases of “e-memories”.
Not everybody will be thrilled by these prospects. A perfect digital memory would probably be a pain, preserving
unhappy events as well as cherished ones. Suspicious spouses and employers might feel entitled to review it.
The bigger worry is for those in front of the cameras, not behind them. School bullies already use illicit snaps from
mobile phones to embarrass their victims. The web throngs with furtive photos of women, snapped in public
places. Wearable cameras will make such surreptitious photography easier. And the huge, looming issue is the
growing sophistication of face-recognition technologies, which are starting to enable businesses and
governments to extract information about individuals by scouring the billions of images online. The combination of
cameras everywhere—in bars, on streets, in offices, on people’s heads—with the algorithms run by social
networks and other service providers that process stored and published images is a powerful and alarming one.
We may not be far from a world in which your movements could be tracked all the time, where a stranger walking
down the street can immediately identify exactly who you are.
Sovereign over your own body and mind—and face
This is where one of this newspaper’s strongly held beliefs—that technological progress should generally be
welcomed, not feared—runs up against an even deeper impulse, in favour of liberty. Freedom has to include
some right to privacy: if every move you make is being chronicled, liberty is curtailed.
One option is to ban devices that seem irksome. The use of dashboard cameras is forbidden in Austria. Drivers
who film the road can face a €10,000 ($13,400) fine. But banning devices deprives people of their benefits.
Society would do better to develop rules about where and how these technologies can be used, just as it learned
to cope with the Kodak fiends.
For the moment, companies are treading carefully. Google has banned the use of face-recognition in apps on
Glass and its camera is designed to film only in short bursts. Japanese digital camera-makers ensure their
products emit a shutter sound every time a picture is taken. Existing laws to control stalking or harassment can be
extended to deal with peeping drones.
Still, as cameras become smaller, more powerful and ubiquitous, new laws may be needed to preserve liberty.
Governments should be granted the right to use face-recognition technology only where there is a clear public
good (identifying a bank robber for instance). When the would-be identifiers are companies or strangers in the
street, the starting-point should be that you have the right not to have your identity automatically revealed. The
principle is the same as for personal data. Just as Facebook and Google should be forced to establish high
default settings for privacy (which can be reduced at the user’s request), the new cameras and recognition
technologies should be regulated so as to let you decide whether you remain anonymous or not.
Silicon Valley emphasises the liberating power of technology—and it is often right. But the freedom that a gadget
gives one person can sometimes take away liberty from another. Liberal politicians have been lazy about
defending the idea of personal space, especially online. The fight should start now. Otherwise, in the blink of an
eye, privacy could be gone.
From the print edition: Leaders