扎克伯格号称“聚焦隐私”，其实并非完全是为了保护隐私

Facebook很长一段时间以来没有这类重大好消息了。这次是与隐私保护有关。不妨关注一下这个“专注于隐私保护的Facebook！”

不，还是算了吧。在Facebook最近发布的“专注于社交网络隐私保护”的愿景中，马克·扎克伯格的表述从很多方面来看根本不是为了提倡隐私保护。

这并非是说Facebook没有采取隐私保护限制举措。通过专注于一对一或小群组的信息发送，公司将更注重确保非大范围网络人群对话的隐私保护。通过使用强大的加密技术——已经成为了WhatsApp的默认配置以及Facebook Messenger的可选配置，政府难以获悉沟通的内容，当然，Facebook自身也无法窥探。

但扎克伯格的贴文实际上是有关WhatsApp、Facebook Messenger和Instagram基础设施的整合，而此举对于隐私来说可谓是莫大的侵犯。

第一个问题：很多人都已经注册了相继被Facebook收购的WhatsApp和Instagram，但他们并不希望其信息融入Facebook这个大网络。

确实，如果Facebook收购WhatsApp一事出现在欧洲，Facebook并不会这么做。围绕收购WhatsApp一事，该公司因误导反垄断监管机构被罚1.22亿美元。德国的市场竞争主管机构已经就Facebook最新的整合举措向其发出警告，如果这一举措未能得到用户明确的自愿同意，那么在欧盟内开展整合举措就是违法的。

很明显，Facebook各类信息发送服务的整合将允许人们进行跨平台沟通。虽然此举能够提升沟通便利度，但也会允许Facebook为其用户建立更加精准的个人档案，并将其用于广告定位。

尽管扎克伯格也提到了强大的加密技术在安全保障方面的优势，但受惠的对象仅限于人们发送的信息，并非与之相关的元数据，而且Facebook可以从这些数据中获悉交谈双方的信息以及时间。这些都是异常宝贵的建档信息，也就是肖珊娜·佐伯芙所谓的“监控资本主义”的动力源。

在文章中描述加密技术时，扎克伯格提出的论据根本经不起推敲。他曾经放出豪言：“在我去年与持反对意见的人进行交流时，他们提到加密技术是自己能够获得自由，甚至是活着的原因。”Facebook刚刚被人曝光使用用户为增强其账户安全所提交的电话号码，并借此提升网络辨识这些用户的便利度。

他继续说道：“加密技术对于隐私保护来说是一个强有力的工具，但它也保护了不法分子的隐私。我们正努力侦测活动模式或其他方式，即便是看不到信息内容，也要在各个应用中提升我们识别和阻止破坏分子的能力，哪怕看不到信息内容也会这样做。我们也将继续在这一领域进行投资。”此外，保护信息内容的隐私并不能阻止其他类型的隐私侵犯，这与侵犯的理由是否合理无关。

因此，人们很有可能会误读扎克伯格在贴文中的承诺，并不仅仅是因为他在隐私保护承诺方面向来都做得非常糟糕。

然而，我倒是希望以积极的一点来收尾，因为扎克伯格在文中提到了值得人们大赞特赞的一点：也就是安全数据储存的部分，以及Facebook如何拒绝“在有违反人权记录的国家”部署这一技术，例如违反隐私保护或个人言论自由。

他写道：“如果我们打造数据中心，并将敏感数据储存在于这些国家，而不仅仅是捕获非敏感数据，那么当地政府就可以更加便利地获取个人信息。坚持这一原则可能会导致一些国家封锁我们的服务，或者我们难以在短时间内进入这些国家，但我们愿意为此付出这些代价。”

他并没有在文中指名道姓，但很明显，其矛头对准的是俄罗斯，这个国家设立了强有力的数据本土化法律，表面上看是保护公民的隐私，实际上很有可能是为了让国家情报机构能够对公民数据进行严密监控。

俄罗斯监管方一直都在威胁封锁Facebook，因为Facebook拒不遵守俄罗斯的数据本土化法律，这个问题让俄罗斯当局越发感到恼火。

我们可能会看到，Facebook在不久的将来将退出俄罗斯，而不是背叛其用户。在这一点上，扎克伯格确实值得表扬，但贴文的其他内容就没那么值得称道了。（财富中文网）

译者：冯丰

审校：夏林

Facebook hasn’t had such good headlines for a while. It’s “pivoting to privacy!” Say hello to a “‘privacy-focused’ Facebook!”

No, and no. What Mark Zuckerberg describes in his “privacy-focused vision for social networking” Facebook post recently is in many ways not pro-privacy at all.

That’s not to say Facebook isn’t moving towards a limited kind of privacy. By focusing more on messaging one-on-one or within small groups, it will be placing greater emphasis on conversations that are private from wider networks of people. The use of strong encryption—already the default in WhatsApp and an option in Facebook Messenger—keeps the contents of communications private from governments and indeed from Facebook itself.

But what Zuckerberg’s post is really about—the integration of WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger and Instagram’s infrastructure—couldn’t be less privacy-friendly.

First problem: many people signed up to WhatsApp and Instagram, which Facebook went on to buy, without wanting their information to be assimilated into the Facebook hive-mind.

Indeed, in Europe a condition of Facebook’s WhatsApp acquisition was that Facebook would refrain from doing that—the company ended up with a $122 million fine for lying to antitrust regulators on that point. The German competition authorities have already warned Facebook about its latest integration moves, which will be illegal in the EU without clear, voluntary consent from users.

The integration of Facebook’s various messaging services will obviously allow people to communicate across those platforms, which may introduce greater convenience, but it will also allow Facebook to build more accurate profiles of their users, for ad-targeting purposes.

Zuckerberg may talk about the safety benefits of strong encryption, but those benefits only extend to the contents of people’s messages, not the associated metadata that tells Facebook who is talking to whom, and when. This is extremely valuable profiling information—the fuel of what Shoshana Zuboff calls “surveillance capitalism.”

In the encryption part of his essay, Zuckerberg treads on some very fragile ground. “In the last year, I’ve spoken with dissidents who’ve told me encryption is the reason they are free, or even alive,” he says with a great deal of chutzpah—Facebook has only just been caught out using phone numbers, which people submitted to lock down their accounts’ security, as data to make those people easier to identify on the network.

“Encryption is a powerful tool for privacy, but that includes the privacy of people doing bad things,” he continues. “We are working to improve our ability to identify and stop bad actors across our apps by detecting patterns of activity or through other means, even when we can’t see the content of the messages, and we will continue to invest in this work.” Again, protecting the privacy of message contents does not stop other types of privacy invasion, whether for good or for bad reasons.

So there’s a real danger of misinterpreting what Zuckerberg is promising in his post—and not just because his track record on privacy promises is thoroughly dismal.

However, I’d like to end on a positive note, as there is one point in Zuckerberg’s essay for which he should be unequivocally congratulated: the part about secure data storage, and how Facebook refuses to deploy it in “countries that have a track record of violating human rights like privacy or freedom of expression.”

“If we build data centers and store sensitive data in these countries, rather than just caching non-sensitive data, it could make it easier for those governments to take people’s information,” he writes. “Upholding this principle may mean that our services will get blocked in some countries, or that we won’t be able to enter others anytime soon. That’s a trade-off we’re willing to make.”

He’s not naming names here, but the obvious reference points here is Russia, which have strong data localization laws that are ostensibly about protecting citizens’ privacy, but most likely aimed at keeping citizens’ data close to state intelligence’s grubby mitts.

Russian regulators have long threatened to block Facebook if it won’t adhere to the country’s data localization law—an issue that is increasingly annoying them.

Perhaps we can expect to see Facebook exit Russia in the near future, rather than betray its users, and for that Mark Zuckerberg really does deserve a pat on the back. For the rest of his post, though, not so much.