MTI外刊阅读精选硅谷科技巨头与法律的博弈Facebook and Google are arbitraging the data lawsAs scandals over the misuse of personal information proliferate and data protection laws are tightened, technology companies are leaping to a surprising conclusion: they are publishers. Not always, of course, but when it suits them.随着滥用个人信息的丑闻激增及数据保护法被收紧，科技公司突然得出一个令人惊讶的结论：它们是出版者。当然，并不总是，只是在对它们有利时。Facebook emphasised its role as a publisher with editorial discretion in a California court last week in an effort to block a lawsuit from a developer.不久前，Facebook 在加州一家法院强调自己是一家拥有编辑裁量权的出版者，试图以这一策略反击一名开发者的诉讼。Google attempted something even more audacious in a UK case this year involving the “right to be forgotten” in search engine results. It laid claim to an exemption for publishers of journalism, art and literature under European law.今年，谷歌(Google)在英国一桩案件中尝试了更大胆的做法。这桩案件涉及的是搜索引擎结果中的“被遗忘权”。谷歌主张，按照欧盟法律，它享有新闻、艺术及文学出版者的豁免权。Googles legal sally was ridiculous and was squashed by the high court judge. “I do not consider that Googles own activity can be equated with journalism,” he wrote firmly, ruling that the technology giant wanted, as one would, to have its cake and to eat it. It was claiming the data-handling privileges of publishers without trying to meet the same journalistic obligations as they do.谷歌的法律辩解甚为荒谬，随后被高级法院法官驳回。“我不认为谷歌从事的活动能够等同于新闻工作。” 他坚定地陈述，裁定这家科技巨头不可避免地太贪心了，同一块蛋糕，又想留着，又想吃掉。谷歌要求拥有出版者所拥有的处理数据的特权，但却并未尝试履行出版者所承担的新闻工作的义务。Such claims sit awkwardly with the customary insistence of Facebook, Google and other tech platforms that, in Facebooks careful formulation, they are not “the arbiter of the truth”. You could almost hear the legal cogs grinding inside Mark Zuckerbergs head as Facebooks founder testified on the subject to the US Senate in April, “I agree that we are responsible for the content, but we dont produce the content.”这些主张有悖于 Facebook、谷歌及其他技术平台一贯坚持的立场，用 Facebook的谨慎表述来说，就是它们不是“真相的仲裁者”。今年 4月，Facebook 的创始人马克扎克伯格(Mark Zuckerberg)在美国参议院作证时，你几乎能听到他脑中法律齿轮飞转的声音：“我同意我们对这些内容负有责任，但这些内容并不是我们生产的。”Technology giants are dancing around the question of whether, and to what extent, they are publishers because of a shift in public opinion. Taking limited responsibility for what appears on social networks or in search results no longer sounds like making a stand for liberty. They cannot ignore the “fake news, clickbait, spam and data misuse,” cited by Facebook itself in one ad promising to do better.由于舆论的转变，科技巨头们正围着如下这个问题绕圈子：他们是否、以及在多大程度上算得上出版者。对社交网络上或搜索结果中出现的内容承担有限责任，听起来不再像在捍卫自由。他们无法忽视那些“假新闻、点击诱饵、垃圾邮件及数据滥用”，这些是 Facebook自己在一则广告中承诺要做得更好的地方。Traditionally technology companies have argued that they host information neutrally, but that defence is slipping. As laws such as the EUs general data protection regulation (GDPR) start to bite, acting as a publisher with broader freedom than others to handle and to disclose personal information starts to be attractive. Why not, lawyers whisper, combine the advantages of both?科技公司一向称自己是展示信息的中立平台，但这套自我辩护日渐站不住脚。随着欧盟一般数据保护条例(GDPR)等法律开始发威，作为出版者，拥有着比其他人更广泛的处理及披露个人信息的自由，开始变得有吸引力。律师们低语着，为什么不把两者的优点结合起来呢?There are tempting opportunities. Facebooks argument in California that it was allowed to exercise editorial control by cutting off developers access to photos published on its network by users friends is clearly valid. Six4Three, the app developer that has sued Facebook, was using this path to identify women in bikinis and display them on its Pikinis app, which is not the noblest of legal crusades.如今机会诱人。Facebook 在加州称，编辑控制权允许其不让开发者访问用户的朋友们在其平台上发布的照片，这显然是正确的。对 Facebook提起诉讼的应用开发者 Six4Three此前就是通过上述途径发现穿比基尼的女性，并将这些照片展示在其应用 Pikinis上的。这起诉讼一点儿也不崇高。It sounds odd for Facebook to claim the right to behave like a publisher in this manner, while insisting elsewhere that it is not a media company. But the safe harbour laws for “interactive computer services”, as the 1996 Communications Decency Act refers to them, give it exactly this right. Blame that act and its European equivalent for allowing internet giants ambiguous status.Facebook声称自己有权像出版者那样行事，而在其他场合则坚称自己不是一家媒体，这听起来很奇怪。然而，1996 年出台的通信内容端正法(Communications Decency Act)中称这些科技公司为“交互式计算机服务”，针对此类服务的安全港法例让它们完全有权利这么做。正是美国的这一法令及欧洲的类似法令，让互联网巨头处于模棱两可的地位。I even have a little sympathy for Google, although its attempt to assume the guise of publisher was a blatant try-on. The “right to be forgotten” and to have embarrassing search results removed was used by Europeans to remove 2.4m listings between 2014 and 2017. That law weighs heavier on search engines than on publishers of sensitive material, which provoked its gambit.我甚至有点同情谷歌，尽管其试图假扮出版者明显是在试探法律的边界。2014 年至 2017年间，欧洲人利用“被遗忘权”和删除令人尴尬的搜索结果的权利清除了 240万条信息。比起敏感内容的发布者，这项法令给搜索引擎带来的压力更大，这促使谷歌出此奇招。Technology groups are not the only ones parsing the laws on information disclosure and those on data privacy to find which one suits them best. The Bank of England this week rejected a Financial Times request under the Freedom of Information Act to identify people who paid to spend time with Mark Carney, Bank governor. It cited a need to protect personal data under the GDPR.分析有关信息披露及数据隐私的法律，以找出哪一则条款最适合自己，并不是科技集团的专利。英国央行(Bank of England)本周拒绝了英国金融时报根据依据信息自由法(Freedom of Information Act)提出的一项要求：确认哪些人花钱购买了与行长马克卡尼(Mark Carney)小坐的机会。该行的理由是 GDPR关于需要保护个人信息的要求。This sort of thing is inevitable when laws overlap and the same item of information can be defined differently. Is a photo snapped in a public place publishable as journalism or protected as a sensitive piece of personal data that identifies the subjects ethnic origin and physical or mental condition? At a technical level, when everything is broken into bytes, there is no simple distinction.当法律重叠，同一条信息可以有不同的定义时，这种事情是不可避免的。在公众场合拍摄的照片是可以作为新闻发布的，还是应被视为暴露拍摄对象种族及身心状况的敏感个人资料、因而受到保护?在技术层面上，当一切被分解为字节时，就没有简单的方法能够区别了。European law balances the right to freedom of expression with the right to privacy (which is hard to distinguish from data protection). But the law is not supposed to be a pick and mix. Those who want to facilitate the former and override the latter, whether as individuals or companies, must do so carefully and in the public interest.欧洲法律平衡了言论自由权与隐私权(这与数据保护很难区分)。但是，法律不应该是一种选择组合。无论是个人还是企业，那些想方便前者、凌驾后者的人，都必须小心行事，并符合公众利益。If you want to be a publisher, go ahead, but do not kid yourself that it is an easy job. That status limits data privacy restrictions but involves other burdens. Unlike Facebook and Google, publishers bear full responsibility for their output, including the risk of copyright infringement and libel suits.如果你想当一个出版者，请便，但别自欺欺人地认为这很容易。这种身份减少了数据隐私的限制，但带来了其他的负担。与 Facebook和谷歌不同，出版者对其产品负有全责，还要承担版权侵犯及被诉诽谤的风险。Even a publishers legal rights and liabilities vary, depending on which business operation is involved a newsroom or the advertising department, for example. But when asked if you are a technology or a media company, “it depends on the occasion and the court” is not a satisfactory reply.甚至同一个出版者的法律权利与责任也会视所涉业务部门而变化例如，是新闻采编室还是广告部。但当被问及你是一家科技公司还是一家媒体时，“这取决于场合和法庭”并不是一个令人满意的回答。“I dont think we have to be the publisher,” Sheryl Sandberg, Facebooks chief operating officer, said last year. No, but you should make up your mind.“我不认为我们必须成为出版者。”Facebook 的首席运营官谢里尔桑德伯格(Sheryl Sandberg)去年说。是的，但你们该做决定了。