考研 MTI经济学人资料破案的数据Data for detectivesI know what youll do next summerUnparalleled surveillance capacity and vast amounts of data are radically transforming criminal-justice systems, says Jon Fasman破案的数据我知道明年夏天你会干什么本专题作者乔恩·法斯曼(Jon Fasman)说，无与伦比的监控能力和海量的数据正在彻底改变刑事司法系统ON WHAT does the administration of justice depend? Devotees of the Old Testament might say wisdom, as displayed in King Solomons judgment. Others might say a dispassionate objectivity. It also requires the threat of punishmentthe basis of the modern states coercive power to enforce laws. But John Fielding knew that, before administrators of justice could mete out punishment or exercise wisdom, they needed something else: information.司法倚赖什么?旧约的信徒可能会说是智慧所罗门的审判中彰显的品质。另一些人可能会说是不带情感和偏见的客观。另外，它还需要会被惩罚的威胁现代国家强制执法权的基础。但是，约翰·菲尔丁(John Fielding)知道，在司法人员能够做出判罚或动用智慧之前，他们还需要一样东西：信息。Together with his half-brother Henry (a magistrate better remembered as the author of “Tom Jones”), in 1749 Fielding founded the Bow Street Runners, Londonsand the worldsfirst professional police force, paid for largely with public funds. Information was at the centre of everything Fielding did. He retained descriptions of suspected criminals, for instance, as well as a “watch book”, which contained details of expensive timepieces to help prevent their resale if stolen.1749年，菲尔丁和他同父异母的哥哥亨利(一名区治安法官，因著作汤姆·琼斯为世人铭记)一起创建了“弓街捕快”(Bow Street Runners)，这是伦敦乃至世界上第一支专业警察部队，主要由公共资金支持。菲尔丁所做一切的核心就是信息。比如，他保存了对嫌疑犯的描述，以及一本载有昂贵计时器详细资料的“名表录”，让它们在遭窃后难以出手转卖。The worlds most famous detective shared Fieldings view; Sherlock Holmes retained an extensive indexed library of criminals and their crimes. The delight readers took in following hima delight that makes crime fiction one of the great literary genresalso had information at its heart. What is a clue? What is a red herring? How does justice work? We pay homage to that tradition with the graphic story that illustrates these pages.英雄所见略同。世界上最著名的侦探福尔摩斯存有一个有关罪犯及其罪行的庞大检索资料库。读者在跟随福尔摩斯探案的过程中深感愉悦。这种愉悦感是侦探小说成为主要文学体裁之一的原因，而其核心也关乎信息。什么是线索?什么只是转移注意力的把戏?公义公正如何实现?本刊在此用一本漫画来再现这些情节，向这一传统致敬。In fact as in fiction, the trend has continued. The Metropolitan police department, which has patrolled Washington, DC, since 1861, retains annual reports detailing crimes in each precinct. American homicide detectives record details of their cases in “murder books”, which are then filed for future consultation.而在现实中，收集留存大量信息的做法也得以延续。华盛顿特区的大都会警局自 1861年开始在当地执法，它保留了每年有关各个辖区罪案的详细报告。美国的凶杀案侦探在“谋杀档案”中记录下他们经手案件的细节，而后归档供日后办案参考。Historically, gathering information was an arduous process, requiring innumerable conversations, many of which later proved to be irrelevant; hours staking out a subject; researching documents and testimony; and reams of tedious paperwork. In illiberal countries, where governments do not care about their citizens civil rights, police could easily tap phones and open letters. Liberal countries make that harder; police who want to listen to someones phone calls can do so only for limited periods and specific purposes, and then only with judicial approval.收集信息曾经是一个艰苦繁难的过程：要展开无数对话，其中许多到头来发现毫不相关;长时间监视某人;研究文件和证词;大量枯燥乏味的文书工作。在不自由的国家，政府不关心公民权利，警方很容易就能监听电话和查看私人信件。在自由国家这要更难一些。警察若想监听谁打电话，只能是在有限的时间出于特定的目的这么做，而且还必须得到司法部门批准。Its not Cagney and Lacey新时代神探Now the relationship between information and crime has changed in two ways, one absolute, one relative. In absolute terms, people generate more searchable information than they used to. Smartphones passively track and record where people go, who they talk to and for how long; their apps reveal subtler personal information, such as their political views, what they like to read and watch and how they spend their money. As more appliances and accoutrements become networked, so the amount of information people inadvertently create will continue to grow.现在，信息和犯罪的关系在两个层面发生了变化，一个是绝对的，另一个是相对的。从绝对层面看，人们产生的可搜索信息比以前更多。智能手机被动跟踪和记录下人们去哪里、和谁聊天以及聊了多久。人们使用的应用程序揭示出更微妙的个人信息，比如政治观点、喜欢阅读和观看的内容，以及如何花钱。随着越来越多电器和设备连接到网络上，人们在不经意间创造的信息量将持续增长。To track a suspects movements and conversations, police chiefs no longer need to allocate dozens of officers for round-the-clock stakeouts. They just need to seize the suspects phone and bypass its encryption. If he drives, police cars, streetlights and car parks equipped with automatic number-plate readers (ANPRs, known in America as automatic licence-plate readers or ALPRs) can track all his movements.若要跟踪嫌疑人的行踪和谈话，警察局长不再需要调动数十名警员展开 24小时监控。他们只要没收嫌疑人的手机并绕过加密就可以了。如果嫌疑人开车，配备车牌自动识别系统(以下简称 ANPR，在美国叫 ALPR)的警车、路灯和停车场可以追踪他的所有行踪。In relative terms, the gap between information technology and policy gapes ever wider. Most privacy laws were written for the age of postal services and fixed-line telephones. Courts give citizens protection from governments entering their homes or rifling through their personal papers. The law on peoples digital presence is less clear. In most liberal countries, police still must convince a judge to let them eavesdrop on phone calls.而从相对的层面看，信息技术和政策之间的鸿沟在日益扩大。大多数隐私法律是在邮政服务和固定电话的年代制定的。法院给予公民保护，令政府不得随意进入他们的住处或翻看他们的私人文件。而有关人们数字足迹的法律还不那么清晰明确。在大多数自由国家，警方仍须说服法官允许他们窃听电话。But mobile-phone “metadata”not the actual conversations, but data about who was called and whenenjoy less stringent protections. In 2006 the European Union issued a directive requiring telecom firms to retain customer metadata for up to two years for use in potential crime investigations. The European Court of Justice invalidated that law in 2014, after numerous countries challenged it in court, saying that it interfered with “the fundamental rights to respect for private life”. Today data-retention laws vary widely in Europe. Laws, and their interpretation, are changing in America, too. A case before the Supreme Court will determine whether police need a warrant to obtain metadata.但手机的“元数据”所受的保护不是那么严格。它不是实际的对话内容，而是关于电话打给谁、拨打的时间等数据。2006 年，欧盟发布了一项指令，要求电信公司保留客户的元数据长达两年以用于未来的犯罪调查。2014 年，欧洲法院宣布该法无效，因为许多国家在法庭上对它提出质疑，称它干涉了“尊重私人生活的基本权利”。今天，要求留存数据的法律在欧洲各地的差别很大。而在美国，法律以及对法律的解释也在发生变化。目前，一宗提交到最高法院的案件将确定警方是否需要授权令才能查看元数据。Less shoe leather不用到处跑If you drive in a city anywhere in the developed world, ANPRs are almost certainly tracking you. This is not illegal. Police do not generally need a warrant to follow someone in public. However, people not suspected of committing a crime do not usually expect authorities to amass terabytes of data on every person they have met and every business visited. ANPRs offer a lot of that.如果你在发达国家的任何一个城市开车，ANPR 几乎肯定会跟踪你。这并不违法。警察通常不需要许可就可以在公共场合跟踪某人。然而，没有涉嫌犯罪的人通常不会料想当局会收集关于他们见过谁和去过哪些商家的大量数据。而 ANPR提供了很多这类信息。To some people, this may not matter. Toplines, an Israeli ANPR firm, wants to add voice- and facial-recognition to its Bluetooth-enabled cameras, and install them on private vehicles, turning every car on the road into a “mobile broadcast system” that collects and transmits data to a control centre that security forces can access. Its founder posits that insurance-rate discounts could incentivise drivers to become, in effect, freelance roving crime-detection units for the police, subjecting unwitting citizens to constant surveillance. In answer to a question about the implications of such data for privacy, a Toplines employee shrugs: Facebook and WhatsApp are spying on us anyway, he says. If the stream of information keeps people safer, who could object? “Privacy is dead.”对一些人来说，这可能无关紧要。以色列的一家 ANPR公司 Toplines想给自己生产的支持蓝牙的摄像头添加语音和面部识别功能，并把它们安装在私人车辆上，把道路上的每一辆车都变成一个“移动广播系统”，收集数据并将它们传输到一个控制中心，供安全部门访问。公司创始人认为，车险折扣会激励司机们成为警方的特约移动侦查兵，使不知情的公民受到持续的监控。当被问及这类数据对隐私的影响时，Toplines 的一名员工耸耸肩说，Facebook 和 WhatsApp反正都已经在监视大家，如果这样的信息流让人们更安全，谁能反对呢? “隐私已死。”他说。It is not. But this dangerously complacent attitude brings its demise ever closer. One of the effects technology has on law enforcement is to render its actions less visible. You would notice if a policeman took photos of every parked car and pedestrian on your street. But ANPRs and body-worn cameras (“bodycams”) let officers do that as an unnoticed matter of course. That makes speaking up about privacy concerns more important, not less.隐私并没有死，但这种安于现状的危险态度让我们距离隐私之死更近了一步。技术对执法的影响之一是令执法行动变得不那么显而易见。如果一名警察拍摄下你居住的街区上停着的每辆车和行经的每个人，你会注意到他。但 ANPR和佩戴式摄像头(也叫“身体摄像头”)让警察们理所当然又不被注意地做了这件事。这就让提出隐私担忧变得更加重要了。Technology used responsibly and benignly by one country or agency can be used for sinister purposes by another. Activists in, say, Sweden or New Zealand may have few concerns that police will use their technological prowess to arrest them on trumped-up charges, because rule of law is strong and those governments generally respect citizens civil liberties. Activists in China or Russia have far more to fear.在某个国家或机构被负责又善意地使用的一项技术，在另一个国家或机构却可能被用于邪恶的目的。例如，瑞典或新西兰的活动人士可能很少担心警方会利用技术能力以捏造的罪名逮捕他们，因为法治的力量强大，而这些政府总体上尊重公民的自由。中国或俄罗斯的活动人士需要担心的要多得多。Some people argue that those who have done nothing wrong need not worry. But that justifies limitless state surveillance, and risks a chilling effect on citizens fundamental civil liberties. After all, if you are not planning crimes while talking on the phone, why not just let police officers listen to every call? Police need oversight not because they are bad people but because maintaining the appropriate balance between liberty and security requires constant vigilance by engaged citizens. This is doubly true for new technologies that make police better at their jobs when policy, due process and public opinion have not caught up.有些人说，没做错事的人不用担心。但这是在为无限制的国家监控开脱，并且可能对基本的公民自由权造成寒蝉效应。毕竟，如果你在打电话时并没在计划什么犯罪活动，为什么不索性让警察监听你所有的通话呢?警察需要被监督，这并非因为他们是坏人，而是因为，要维持自由和安全之间的恰当平衡需要公民的积极参与和时刻保持警觉。当政策、正当程序以及公众舆论还未能跟上时，新技术让警察的工作更加得心应手，这时就需要加倍的警惕。This report will examine the promise and the dangers of those technologies. It explores several arenas in which technology is radically changing how the justice system operatesin street-level surveillance, the ease with which law enforcement can bypass encryption, the use of electronic monitoring as an alternative to prison, and the introduction of algorithms by police and courts.本专题将审视这些技术将带来的益处和危险。我们将探讨技术正在彻底改变司法系统运作的几大领域：街头监控、执法机构轻松绕过加密、使用电子监控替代坐牢，以及警察和法庭引入算法。It examines technologys effects on crime and criminals, and on innocent people caught up in a tech-dominated approach to policing. The report does not demand the wholesale rejection of these technologies. Instead it calls for rigorous oversight, which has been shown to benefit both citizens and law enforcement, and which is the only way to ensure that, in their quest for security, societies do not inadvertently surrender too much liberty.我们将考察技术对犯罪和罪犯的影响，以及一个以技术为主导的执法体系对无辜的民众意味着什么。我们并不要求大家屏蔽这些技术，而是呼吁强有力的监督这已被证明对公民和执法都有裨益，而且，这也是确保社会在追求安全之时不会在无意中放弃过多自由的唯一途径。