能夠信賴你的電腦嗎?

理查•史托曼

 [image of a Philosophical Gnu] [ 簡體中文 | 繁體中文 | 英文 | 德文 | 西班牙文 ]

【本文是重要的 GNU 哲學頁面, 請不吝於提供對於本文翻譯的意見。 <chliu@gnu.org> 同時為了便於讀者引用查找, 於中譯文本上的每一段都附有參考標號。 我們也歡迎關於本文的各種討論: <chinese-translators@gnu.org> 。】

Who should your computer take its orders from? Most people think their computers should obey them, not obey someone else. With a plan they call "trusted computing", large media corporations (including the movie companies and record companies), together with computer companies such as Microsoft and Intel, are planning to make your computer obey them instead of you. (Microsoft's version of this scheme is called "Palladium".) Proprietary programs have included malicious features before, but this plan would make it universal.

1 您的電腦應該聽取誰的命令? 大部份的人認為他們的電腦應該服從他們而不是某個其他人。 經由一項他們稱之為“可信賴的計算”(trusted computing)的打算, 大型的媒體公司(包括電影和錄製公司) 以及像是 Microsoft 和 Intel 的電腦公司, 正打算要使您的電腦服從他們而不是您。 (這項方案的 Microsoft 版本稱之為“安全裝備”: Palladium 。) 私權的程式在以前就已經有包括了一些惡意的功能特色(features), 但是這項打算將會使其普遍化。

Proprietary software means, fundamentally, that you don't control what it does; you can't study the source code, or change it. It's not surprising that clever businessmen find ways to use their control to put you at a disadvantage. Microsoft has done this several times: one version of Windows was designed to report to Microsoft all the software on your hard disk; a recent "security" upgrade in Windows Media Player required users to agree to new restrictions. But Microsoft is not alone: the KaZaa music-sharing software is designed so that KaZaa's business partner can rent out the use of your computer to their clients. These malicious features are often secret, but even once you know about them it is hard to remove them, since you don't have the source code.

2 私權軟體在本質上即表示: 您無法控制它要做些什麼; 您不能研究源碼或是更動它。 聰明的商人找出一些方法利用他們的控制, 來使您處於劣勢的行為並不讓人感到驚訝。 Microsoft 已經做過許多次了: 有一個版本的 Windows 被設計來將在您的硬碟上的所有軟體回報給 Microsoft ; 一個最近在 Windows Media Player 上的“安全” 昇級要求使用者同意新的限制(restrictions)。 但 Microsoft 並不孤單: KaZaa 這個音樂分享(music-sharing)軟體被設計成, 使 KaZaa 的商業夥伴可以將您的電腦的使用出租給他們的客戶。 這些惡意的功能特色通常是隱密的, 但是就算您發現到, 也很難將它們移除, 因為您並沒有源碼。

In the past, these were isolated incidents. "Trusted computing" would make it pervasive. "Treacherous computing" is a more appropriate name, because the plan is designed to make sure your computer will systematically disobey you. In fact, it is designed to stop your computer from functioning as a general-purpose computer. Every operation may require explicit permission.

3 在過去, 這些都是個別〔發生〕的事件。 “可信賴的計算”(Trusted computing)將可能使它變得普遍。 “背判了的計算”是一個較為合適的名稱, 因為這項打算是設計用來確保您的電腦將會有系統地不服從您。 事實上, 它是設計用來使您的電腦無法作為一台通用的計算機(general-purpose computer)。 每一項操作都將會需要明確的許可〔才得以進行〕。

The technical idea underlying treacherous computing is that the computer includes a digital encryption and signature device, and the keys are kept secret from you. Proprietary programs will use this device to control which other programs you can run, which documents or data you can access, and what programs you can pass them to. These programs will continually download new authorization rules through the Internet, and impose those rules automatically on your work. If you don't allow your computer to obtain the new rules periodically from the Internet, some capabilities will automatically cease to function.

4 在「背判了的計算」底下的技術想法是: 電腦包括了一個數位加密(digital encryption) 以及簽章(signature)裝置, 而其鍵值(keys)對您來說則是〔無法取得的〕祕密。 私權程式將會使用這項裝置來控制「您可以執行的其它程式」、 「您可以儲存的文件或資料」以及「您可以傳遞的程式」。 這些程式將會持續地經由互聯網下載新的認證規則(authorization rules), 並且自動地將那些規則加諸到您的工作上。 如果您不允許您的電腦定期地從互聯網取得新的規則, 〔那麼〕一些功能(capabilities)將會自動地停止作用(function)。

Of course, Hollywood and the record companies plan to use treacherous computing for "DRM" (Digital Restrictions Management), so that downloaded videos and music can be played only on one specified computer. Sharing will be entirely impossible, at least using the authorized files that you would get from those companies. You, the public, ought to have both the freedom and the ability to share these things. (I expect that someone will find a way to produce unencrypted versions, and to upload and share them, so DRM will not entirely succeed, but that is no excuse for the system.)

5 當然, 好萊塢(Hollywood)以及錄製公司打算要將「背判了的計算」用到“DRM” (數位限制管理: Digital Restrictions Management)上, 這樣一來下載的錄像品(videos)和音樂就只能夠在一台指定的電腦上播放。 分享將是完全的不可能, 至少使用您可能從那些公司下載的認證檔案是如此。 您,也就是公眾, 應當同時擁有自由和能力來分享這些事物。 (我期望將有某個人能找出一個製作出沒有加密版本的方法, 並且上載分享它們, 這樣子 DRM 將不會完全地成功, 但那不能作為這個體系〔合理化〕的藉口。)

Making sharing impossible is bad enough, but it gets worse. There are plans to use the same facility for email and documents--resulting in email that disappears in two weeks, or documents that can only be read on the computers in one company.

6 使得分享變得不可能已經是夠糟的了, 但還有更糟的。 他們打算要使用同樣的設施(facility)到電子郵件和文件上 -- 造成電子郵件會在兩個星期內消失, 或是文件只可以在一間公司內的電腦上被閱讀。

Imagine if you get an email from your boss telling you to do something that you think is risky; a month later, when it backfires, you can't use the email to show that the decision was not yours. "Getting it in writing" doesn't protect you when the order is written in disappearing ink.

7 設想如果您從您的老闆那裡收到一封電子郵件, 要求您去做一件您認為太過於冒險的事; 一個月後, 這事情與〔他的〕預期相反時, 您無法使用那封電子郵件來顯示那個決定並不是您所作出的。 當這個命令是以會消失的墨水撰寫時, “白紙黑字地寫下來”並不足以保護您。

Imagine if you get an email from your boss stating a policy that is illegal or morally outrageous, such as to shred your company's audit documents, or to allow a dangerous threat to your country to move forward unchecked. Today you can send this to a reporter and expose the activity. With treacherous computing, the reporter won't be able to read the document; her computer will refuse to obey her. Treacherous computing becomes a paradise for corruption.

8 設想如果您自您的老闆那裡收到一封電子郵件, 陳述了一個違反了法律或道德的政策, 像是將您的公司的帳簿丟進碎紙機, 或是允許一個對您的國家的嚴重威脅繼續進行而不受檢查。 在今天您可以將這類事情送給〔新聞〕記者並揭露這個活動。 但是經由「背判了的計算」, 記者將無法閱讀這份文件, 她的電腦將會拒絕服從她。 「背判了的計算」變成了舞弊的天堂。

Word processors such as Microsoft Word could use treacherous computing when they save your documents, to make sure no competing word processors can read them. Today we must figure out the secrets of Word format by laborious experiments in order to make free word processors read Word documents. If Word encrypts documents using treacherous computing when saving them, the free software community won't have a chance of developing software to read them--and if we could, such programs might even be forbidden by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

9 像是 Microsoft Word 的文書處理器, 可以在當它們儲存您的文件時使用「背判了的計算」, 以確保沒有與之競爭的文書處理器可以閱讀它們。 今天我們必須費力地嚐試來理解 Word 格式〔為何〕, 以製作出可以閱讀 Word 文件的自由文書處理器。 如果 Word 在當它儲存文件時使用「背判了的計算」, 自由軟體社群將不會有機會開發出可以閱讀它們的軟體 -- 即便我們辦得到, 這樣子的程式甚至也會被“數位千禧年版權法案” (Digital Millennium Copyright Act)所禁止。

Programs that use treacherous computing will continually download new authorization rules through the Internet, and impose those rules automatically on your work. If Microsoft, or the US government, does not like what you said in a document you wrote, they could post new instructions telling all computers to refuse to let anyone read that document. Each computer would obey when it downloads the new instructions. Your writing would be subject to 1984-style retroactive erasure. You might be unable to read it yourself.

10 使用「背判了的計算」的程式, 將會持續地自互聯網下載新的認證規則, 並且將這些自動地加諸到您的工作上。 如果 Microsoft 或是美國政府不喜歡在某份您所撰寫的文件中所說的事, 他們可以發出新的指示, 告訴所有的電腦拒絕讓任何人閱讀那份文件。 每一台電腦在它下載了新的指示後都將會遵守。 您的著述將會受到有如小說《一九八四》中所描述的(1984-style) 「追溯既往而有效的刪去」(retroactive erasure)。 【《一九八四》(1984)是英國作家喬治•歐威爾(George Orwell) 於一九四九年發表的科幻小說; 相對應的則是赫胥黎(Aldous Huxley) 於一九三二年所發表的《美麗新世界》(Brave New World) -- 它也是《勇敢 GNU 世界》(Brave GNU World)名稱的由來。】 您有可能連您自己都無法閱讀它。

You might think you can find out what nasty things a treacherous computing application does, study how painful they are, and decide whether to accept them. It would be short-sighted and foolish to accept, but the point is that the deal you think you are making won't stand still. Once you come depend on using the program, you are hooked and they know it; then they can change the deal. Some applications will automatically download upgrades that will do something different--and they won't give you a choice about whether to upgrade.

11 您也許會想: 您可以看穿「“背判了的計算”的程式在做的卑鄙事」, 研究〔使用它們〕將會付出什麼代價, 然後再來決定是否要使用它們。 接受將會是短視而且愚蠢的, 重點在於您認為您所作出的協議並不會保持不變。 一旦您變得依賴於使用〔那些〕程式, 您就被套牢了(hooked), 而且他們清楚得很; 然後他們就可以更動這項協議。 一些應用程式將會自動地下載「將會做出某些不一樣的事情的」昇級 -- 而他們可不會給您一個是否要昇級的選擇。

Today you can avoid being restricted by proprietary software by not using it. If you run GNU/Linux or another free operating system, and if you avoid installing proprietary applications on it, then you are in charge of what your computer does. If a free program has a malicious feature, other developers in the community will take it out, and you can use the corrected version. You can also run free application programs and tools on non-free operating systems; this falls short of fully giving you freedom, but many users do it.

12 今天您可以經由不去使用它來避免被私權軟體所限制。 如果您執行 GNU/Linux 或是其它的自由作業系統, 並且如果您避免在它上面安裝私權應用程式, 那麼您就換得了〔完全地掌握〕您的電腦做些什麼〔的自由〕。 如果一個自由程式有一個惡意的功能特色, 在社群裡的其他程式員將會把它除去, 然後您就可以使用修正過的版本了。 您也可以在不自由的作業系統上執行自由的應用程式和工具; 這並不足以給予您完全的自由, 但是有許多使用者這麼做。

Treacherous computing puts the existence of free operating systems and free applications at risk, because you may not be able to run them at all. Some versions of treacherous computing would require the operating system to be specifically authorized by a particular company. Free operating systems could not be installed. Some versions of treacherous computing would require every program to be specifically authorized by the operating system developer. You could not run free applications on such a system. If you did figure out how, and told someone, that could be a crime.

13 「背判了的計算」 將自由作業系統和自由應用程式的存續置於危險的境地, 因為您將根本無法執行它們。 一些版本的「背判了的計算」, 將會需要作業系統被某個特定的公司明確地給予認證。 自由的作業系統將無法被安裝。 一些版本的「背判了的計算」, 將會需要每一個程式都要被作業系統開發者明確地給予認證。 您無法在這樣的一個作業系統上執行自由的應用程式。 如果您真的瞭解了要如何做, 並且告訴了某人, 那可能是一種犯罪行為。

There are proposals already for US laws that would require all computers to support treacherous computing, and to prohibit connecting old computers to the Internet. The CBDTPA (we call it the Consume But Don't Try Programming Act) is one of them. But even if they don't legally force you to switch to treacherous computing, the pressure to accept it may be enormous. Today people often use Word format for communication, although this causes several sorts of problems (see "We Can Put an End to Word Attachments"). If only a treacherous computing machine can read the latest Word documents, many people will switch to it, if they view the situation only in terms of individual action (take it or leave it). To oppose treacherous computing, we must join together and confront the situation as a collective choice.

14 已經有一些在美國法律上的提議: 要求所有的電腦都支持「背判了的計算」, 並且禁止將舊電腦連結到互聯網上。 CBDTPA (我們稱它為“消費就好,不要試著編寫程式”法案: Consume But Don't Try Programming Act)就是其中之一。 但是即使他們並沒有在法律上強制您切換到「背判了的計算」, 〔被迫〕接受它的壓力還是很大。 今天人們通常使用 Word 格式來通信, 雖然這會造成許多類型的問題。 (請見 “我們可以終結使用 Word 附加檔案”:We Can Put an End to Word Attachments) 〔但是〕如果只有「背判了的計算」的機器可以閱讀最新的 Word 文件, 並且如果他們所看到的形勢只是以個別的動作(接受或離開)來表現時, 許多人將會切換到它。 為了反制「背判了的計算」, 我們必須結合在一起面對這個形勢, 以作為我們集體的選擇。

For further information about treacherous computing, see <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/rja14/tcpa-faq.html>.

15 關於「背判了的計算」的更多資訊, 請見 <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/rja14/tcpa-faq.html>

To block treacherous computing will require large numbers of citizens to organize. We need your help! The Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Knowledge are campaigning against treacherous computing, and so is the FSF-sponsored Digital Speech Project. Please visit these Web sites so you can sign up to support their work.

16 要阻擋「背判了的計算」將會需要很大數目的公民組織起來。 我們需要您的幫助! 電子先鋒基金會(Electronic Frontier Foundation)公眾知識(Public Knowledge) 正在發起對抗「背判了的計算」的活動, 由自由軟體基金會資助的 數位言論計畫(Digital Speech Project) 也有參與。 請拜訪這些網站, 這樣您就可以簽名來支持他們的工作了。

You can also help by writing to the public affairs offices of Intel, IBM, HP/Compaq, or anyone you have bought a computer from, explaining that you don't want to be pressured to buy "trusted" computing systems so you don't want them to produce any. This can bring consumer power to bear. If you do this on your own, please send copies of your letters to the organizations above.

17 您也可以經由撰寫給 Intel 、 IBM 、 HP/Compaq 或任何您從他那裡購買電腦的人, 解釋您不想要被強迫購買“可信賴”的計算系統, 因此您不希望他們製造任何這樣子的系統。 這可以帶給消費者維持〔自由〕的力量。 如果您自行採取行動, 請將您的信件副本送到上述的機構。

後記

  1. The GNU Project distributes the GNU Privacy Guard, a program that implements public-key encryption and digital signatures, which you can use to send secure and private email. It is useful to explore how GPG differs from treacherous computing, and see what makes one helpful and the other so dangerous.

    18 GNU 計畫散佈了 GNU Privacy Guard (GNU 隱私守衛), 那是一個實作了公開鍵加密(public-key encryption) 以及數位簽章的程式, 您可以使用來送出安全且祕密的電子郵件。 瀏覽一下 GPG 是如何與「背判了的計算」不同是有用處的, 並且看看那些對於某人有幫助的事物〔為什麼〕對其他人是如此的危險。

    When someone uses GPG to send you an encrypted document, and you use GPG to decode it, the result is an unencrypted document that you can read, forward, copy, and even re-encrypt to send it securely to someone else. A treacherous computing application would let you read the words on the screen, but would not let you produce an unencrypted document that you could use in other ways. GPG, a free software package, makes security features available to the users; they use it. Treacherous computing is designed to impose restrictions on the users; it uses them.

    19 當某人使用 GPG 送給您一份加密的文件, 並且您使用了 GPG 來將它解碼, 〔所得到的〕結果是一份您可以閱讀、〔進一步〕傳遞、 複製甚至再次加密並安全地送給某個其他人的解密文件。 一個「背判了的計算」應用程式將會讓您在螢幕上閱讀這些文字, 但是不讓您〔能夠〕製作出一份可以讓您以其它方式使用的解密文件。 GPG 這個自由軟體套件, 讓「安全的功能特色」可以為使用者所取得; 他們使用它。 「背判了的計算」則是設計來將限制加諸到使用者身上; 它利用了他們。

  2. Microsoft presents palladium as a security measure, and claims that it will protect against viruses, but this claim is evidently false. A presentation by Microsoft Research in October 2002 stated that one of the specifications of palladium is that existing operating systems and applications will continue to run; therefore, viruses will continue to be able to do all the things that they can do today.

    20 Microsoft 簡報了 palladium 作為一種安全手段, 並且宣稱它將會保護〔電腦〕免受病毒的侵襲, 但是證據顯示這項宣稱完全是站不住腳。 由 Microsoft Research (研究部門)在二○○二年十月所作的一場簡報, 說明了 palladium 的其中一項規格是: 現存的作業系統以及應用程式將會繼續地採用; 因此, 病毒也將能夠繼續地做它們今天能做的所有事情。

    When Microsoft speaks of "security" in connection with palladium, they do not mean what we normally mean by that word: protecting your machine from things you do not want. They mean protecting your copies of data on your machine from access by you in ways others do not want. A slide in the presentation listed several types of secrets palladium could be used to keep, including "third party secrets" and "user secrets"--but it put "user secrets" in quotation marks, recognizing that this somewhat of an absurdity in the context of palladium.

    21 當 Microsoft 在談論到與 palladium 作連接的“安全”時, 他們指的「並不是」我們通常用來表示那個字的意思: 保護您的機器,使其免於受到您不想要〔的事物侵擾〕。 他們指的是保護在您的機器上的您的資料的拷貝, 使其免於被您〔自己〕以其他人不希望的方式進行存取(access)。 簡報中的一個幻燈片列出了數個 palladium 可能用來維護的祕密類型, 包括了“第三團體(third party)的祕密”以及“使用者的祕密” -- 但是它將“使用者的祕密”放到引號中, 「似乎」將它認知為: 就 palladium 的〔開發〕脈絡而言, 這實在有點荒謬。

    The presentation made frequent use of other terms that we frequently associate with the context of security, such as "attack", "malicious code", "spoofing", as well as "trusted". None of them means what it normally means. "Attack" doesn't mean someone trying to hurt you, it means you trying to copy music. "Malicious code" means code installed by you to do what someone else doesn't want your machine to do. "Spoofing" doesn't mean someone fooling you, it means you fooling palladium. And so on.

    22 簡報中頻繁地使用當我們談到安全時, 經常會使用到的其它字眼, 像是“攻擊”(attack)、 “惡意的代碼”(malicious code)、 “欺騙”(spoofing)以及“可信賴的”(trusted)。 〔但是〕它們之中沒有一個指的是我們通常用來表示的意思。 “攻擊”並不是指某人試圖要傷害您, 它是指您試圖要複製音樂; “惡意的代碼”指的是由您〔自己〕所安裝的代碼, 而這代碼可能做得出某個「其他人」不希望您的機器去做的某些事; “欺騙”並不是指某人欺騙了您, 它指的是您玩弄了 palladium 。 諸如此類……。

  3. A previous statement by the palladium developers stated the basic premise that whoever developed or collected information should have total control of how you use it. This would represent a revolutionary overturn of past ideas of ethics and of the legal system, and create an unprecedented system of control. The specific problems of these systems are no accident; they result from the basic goal. It is the goal we must reject.

    23 由一個 palladium 開發者先前所作的聲明, 說明了它的基本根據是: 不論是誰開發或收集了資訊, 應該都對「您如何使用它」具有完全的控制權。 這是對於過去「倫理」和「法律體系」的觀念的一種革命性的推翻, 並且創造了一種前所未見的控制體系。 〔關於〕這些系統的特定問題並不是出於偶然; 它們是來自於〔有意識的〕基本目標。 而這目標正是我們必須拒絕的。

Copyright © 2002 Richard Stallman.

Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted without royalty in any medium provided this notice is preserved.
【本文允許在無須支付版稅, 且不變更文件內容的前提下刊登在任何形式的媒體中, 但需保留此聲明。】


本文被出版 於 《自由軟體,自由社會:理查•馬修•史托曼的選文》

閱讀其它文章


[ 簡體中文 | 繁體中文 | 英文 | 德文 | 西班牙文 ]

返回 GNU 首頁

請將有關 自由軟體基金會 與 GNU 的 查詢 與 問題 送到 gnu@gnu.org。 你也可以使用 其他方法聯繫 自由軟體基金會。

請將有關網頁的意見送到 webmasters@gnu.org, 其他問題則送到 gnu@gnu.org

請將有關中文網頁的意見送到 chinese-coordinators@gnu.org, 其他問題則送到 chliu@gnu.org

Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110, USA

翻譯:劉 昭宏。
驗證:馬 雪萍。
請將有關翻譯的問題送到 GNU/CTT翻譯人員

Updated: $Date: 2021/02/09 16:32:28 $ $Author: ineiev $