【世事關心】羅伯特·斯伯汀:拆分谷歌是不夠的

下載視頻
請點擊右鍵,選擇“另存為”下載視頻。如遇到問題,請發郵件至:editor@ntdtv.com

【新唐人北京時間2019年09月18日訊】【世事關心】羅伯特·斯伯汀:拆分谷歌是不夠的

谷歌創辦人謝爾蓋·布林在2017年底的一次全公司大會上,談到了關於谷歌參與國防項目的一些情況。他說,如果世界各國的軍隊能和谷歌等跨國公司緊密合作,而不是僅靠本國的國防承包商,將有助於世界和平。我不明白他的意思。谷歌是一個跨國公司,還是美國的公司?它需要保持對美利堅合眾國的忠誠嗎?在全球化世界的新冷戰時代開始之際,大型科技公司扮演什麼樣的角色?他們自己認同是誰?為了解決這些問題,我採訪了曾擔任白宮國家安全委員會戰略規劃高級主任的、哈德遜研究所高級研究員、退役空軍準將羅伯特·斯伯汀將軍。我是蕭茗,您正在觀看的是《世事關心》。

蕭茗 (Host/Simone Gao ):「谷歌創辦人謝爾蓋·布林在2017年底的一次全公司大會上,談到了關於谷歌參與國防項目的一些情況。他說,如果世界各國的軍隊能和谷歌等跨國公司緊密合作,而不是僅靠本國的國防承包商,將有助於世界和平。我不明白他的意思。谷歌是一個跨國公司,還是美國的公司?」

Simone:“ At the end of 2017 the Co Founder of Google Sergey Brin, Sat in a company wide meeting, regarding Google’s involvement in the Pentagon project that, these are his words, he said he thought that it was better for peace if the world’s militaries are intertwined with international organizations like Google rather than working solely was nationalistic defense contractors. So I’m a little confused here. Is Google an international organization or is Google a US company? ”

羅伯特·斯伯汀將軍( 哈德遜研究所資深研究員): 「谷歌是個跨國公司。」

Robert Spalding: “Well, it’s a, it’s a multinational corporation . ”

蕭茗 (Host/Simone Gao ):「它需要保持對美利堅合眾國的忠誠嗎?」

Simone:“ Does it need to stay loyal to the United States of America?”

羅伯特·斯伯汀將軍( 哈德遜研究所資深研究員):「我認為它需要,如果它想要有良心的話。但不幸的是,在當今全球化的世界,如果你想要待在中國,如果你想要在中國做生意,那你就需要按照中國共產黨的意願行事。」

Robert Spalding:“ Well, if it wants to have a soul, I think it does, but unfortunately then in today’s globalized world, if you align yourself, if you want to be in China, if you want to be doing business in China, then you do it according to how the Chinese Communist Party wants. ”

全球化世界的新冷戰時代開始之際,大型科技公司扮演什麼樣的角色?他們自己認同是誰? 為了解決這些問題,我採訪了曾擔任白宮國家安全委員會戰略規劃高級主任的哈德遜研究所高級研究員,退役空軍準將羅伯特·斯伯汀將軍。

At the beginning of a new Cold War era in a globalized world, what role do big tech companies play and who do they identify themselves with? To address these questions, I interviewed Brigadier General Robert Spalding, who served at the White House as the National Security Council’s Senior Director for Strategic Planning. Who served as Senior Director for Strategic Planning. at the National Security Council’s at the White House.

蕭茗 (Host/Simone Gao ):「我是蕭茗,你正在觀看的是《世事關心》。」

Simone:“ I am Simone Gao, and you are watching Zooming In. ”

蕭茗 (Host/Simone Gao ):「謝謝你今天接受我們采訪。」

Simone:  “Thank you general for being with us today.”

羅伯特·斯伯汀將軍( 哈德遜研究所資深研究員):「很高興來這裏。」

Robert Spalding: “Glad to be here. ”

蕭茗 (Host/Simone Gao ):「首先,祝賀您的新書《隱形戰爭》出版。」

Simone:  “First of all, let me congratulate you on your new book, The Stealth War. ”

羅伯特·斯伯汀將軍( 哈德遜研究所資深研究員):「謝謝。」

Robert Spalding: “Thank you. ”

蕭茗 (Host/Simone Gao ):「我還沒讀過你的書,所以我們可能沒法就此深談。但您可否大概介紹一下《隱形戰爭》這本書是關於什麼呢?」

Simone:“I haven’t read it yet, so we can’t go in depth on this, but why don’t you just give me a little preview of this book and what the Stealth War is about.”

羅伯特·斯伯汀將軍( 哈德遜研究所資深研究員):「這本書可以說是我五年來瞭解到的、有關所有中共所做所爲一切相關訊息的總匯,內容涵蓋了其對開放系統中的金融、商務、投資、媒體、網路、政治、和學界,各類機構的全面滲透,並從內部破壞民主的行為,然後書的結尾部分談到了解決方案。我在書中提到了美國採取什麼方法來應對中共的行為以保護自己,以及美國該如何強化自己的制定、並如何與其它志同道合的國家一起, 民主在那些國家的發展,這個世界上的民主國家越多,且彼此在經濟、金融、資訊方面的聯繫越緊密,包括我們已有的軍事盟友,我們作爲民主國家就將處於更有利的地位,來保護我們自己、保護我們的公民和價值觀。」

Robert Spalding:“ So actually it’s really a compilation of everything I’ve learned over the last, really five years about everything that the Chinese Communist Party does from finance, business, investment, trade,media, the Internet, politics, academia, all of the ways that they work across the institutions of the open system to really undermine democracy from within. And then at the end it really talks about solutions. It really goes into kind of how the United States should approach this behavior by the Chinese Communist Party and what it should do to protect itself, how it should strengthen its institutions, how it should grow the economy and how it should join with other like minded nations to really promote democracy in those countries as well. Because the more democracies we have in the world and the stronger they’re linked together, and the economic, financial and informational way, to include the military alliances that we already have, we’ll be in much better position as democracies to protect ourselves and protect our values and to protect our citizens.”

蕭茗 (Host/Simone Gao ):「這本書的目標讀者是哪些人?」

Simone: “ Tell me, who is the reader of this book?”

羅伯特·斯伯汀將軍( 哈德遜研究所資深研究員):「本書的讀者,我希望,是那些被迫失去了製造業工作的340萬人群。實際上,這本書適合任何一個在美國努力工作謀生的人,或者曾經有過工作的人、有過長期的工作來提供給他們醫保和退休福利,能讓他們有收入購買住房、撫養子女、送他們上學、真正去成就美國夢。本書獻給他們。」

Robert Spalding: “Well, the reader of this book are, hopefully, the men and women, the 3.4 million that were displaced from manufacturing jobs. Really, anybody that works for a living in the United States or used to work for a living, where they had a long-term employment that provided them health care benefits and retirement benefits that allowed them to have the income to own a home, to raise their children, to send them to school, to really take part in the American dream. This book is for them.”

蕭茗 (Host/Simone Gao ):「那這本書不是寫給華盛頓的『精英人士』的。」

Simone: “Okay, so it’s not for Washington elites.”

羅伯特·斯伯汀將軍( 哈德遜研究所資深研究員):「不是給華盛頓的『精英人士』的。」

Robert Spalding: It’s not for Washington elites. 

蕭茗 (Host/Simone Gao ):「會有中文譯本嗎?」

Simone: “Okay. Is there going to be a Chinese version as well? ”

羅伯特·斯伯汀將軍( 哈德遜研究所資深研究員):「一定會有中文譯本。臺灣出版商『遠流』會出版中文譯本,極有可能在除中國大陸以外世界各地所有銷售中文書籍的地方上架。 中共可能不會允許此書進入中國大陸。」

Robert Spalding: “Absolutely. There’s gonna be a Chinese version. A Taiwanese publisher ‘Yuen Liu ’ is going to publish the book, and it’s going to be available probably everywhere that Chinese language books are sold except Mainland China. I doubt they’ll let it in.”

蕭茗 (Host/Simone Gao ):「真的很期待與您進一步討論這本書。我們來談談約翰·波爾頓。我相信總統身旁圍繞著許多鷹派成員。這位仁兄到底發生了什麼事?」

Simone:“ Really looking forward to discussing more about this book with you. Let’s talk about John Bolton. I believe the president is surrounded by many hawks. What went wrong with this one?”

羅伯特·斯伯汀將軍( 哈德遜研究所資深研究員):「 我想你知道的,John Bolton或許不是總統執行對外政策的好人選。總統想要的是更少的政府幹預,並著重在經濟建設、保障美國人民每天的生活、提供他們更多的福利包括在經濟、金融、社會、政治方面。相當坦率地說,這些事情與我們剛談到的書中內容有關。我認為自從冷戰以來,我們對外政策的出發點多源自於單方面觀點。美國顯然是冷戰結束後世界上最強大的國家。並且我們的政策,如我之前所說的,依循的是『開放市場帶來財富,財富帶來民主』。很不幸的,許多國家,以中國為首,開始藉由我們曾經視為力量的開放性系統來摧毀國際秩序,從內部摧毀這個系統。所以實際上那種方式的競爭,有點像是與蘇聯的競爭,真的是在經濟與科技方面的競爭。當時是有軍備競賽,但那本質上是在對峙,雙方用核武器威攝對方。我認為川普的行政團隊,總統想要的是軍隊是在那兒,在那兒是為了保護人民。軍隊存在的目地是為了當敵人想要在軍事上與美國對抗時能使他們望而卻步。軍隊在那兒的目地真的只是威攝作用,並不需要那麼頻繁的被使用。於本屆政府情形最相似的是艾森豪總統的任期。軍隊更多的功能是用在嚇阻,很少是用來介入。艾森豪將軍經歷了二次大戰,他了解戰鬥的代價與戰爭讓他手下的士兵、水手、和飛行員所付出的代價。我認為在使用軍力這件事情上,他確實更謹慎。但是美國在這樣一個受全球化的互聯網加持的世界上有著廣泛的力量,特別是當你考慮到美國有儲備貨幣、有美元、有由消費推動的強勁的國內市場。如你所知,(美國的)外交、經濟、金融和貿易的影響遍及全球。並且,(美國)在全球有數個軍事盟友,這樣美國得以既可以增強實力,又可以影響其盟友和夥伴,來推動國際秩序的共同價值觀,就是我之前談過的那些關於民主的原則、自由貿易、法治和自決。」

Robert Spalding:“ Well, I think you know, it’s probably not a good fit for the president for the kind of foreign policy that he wants to execute, which is much less interventionists and more about building the economy, more about protecting the American people in their day to day lives, providing for them in terms of their wellbeing, both economically, financially, and socially and politically. Things quite frankly, that have to do with the book that we just talked about. And I think the way that we pursued foreign policy since the end of the cold for has been much from a unipolar perspective. The United States was the most, clearly the most powerful country in the world coming out of the Cold War. And our policies really were about as I’ve said before, open markets lead to wealth and wealth leads to democracy. Unfortunately many nations led by China began to undermine the international order by using all the openness that we…that used to be strengths to undermine the system from within. And so to actually compete in that way, it’s much more like the competition with the Soviet Union, which was really an economic and a technological competition. The military was there, but it was essentially a standoff, using nuclear deterrent. I think the Trump administration, terms of where the president wants to be is…The military is there. It’s there to protect the people. It’s there to make adversaries pause when they think about confronting the United States militarily, it’s really there as deterrent, but it doesn’t need to be used quite as often. The clearest parallel in terms of an administration, it has existed in the United States is the Eisenhower administration. It was much more about deterrent. It was less interventionists, certainly, Esenhower had come out of a great war in World War II and understood the cost of combat and the cost of war to the soldiers and sailors and airmen under his command. And so he really, I think was more prudent when it came to exercising military power. But the powers of the state in a globalized Internet powered world are quite expansive, especially when you consider the United States has the reserve currency and the US dollar has, you know, a really robust market driven by domestic consumption. Has you know, a diplomatic and economic and financial and trade footprint that really spans the globe. And in addition, has a number of global military alliances. And so the United States is well positioned to both grow its strength and influence its allies and partners in a way that promotes the collective values of the international order, which as I’ve talked about before, is really about democratic principles, free trade, rule of law and self determination.”

蕭茗 (Host/Simone Gao ):「好的。我覺得約翰·博爾頓和總統的最大分歧在於阿富汗和伊朗。現在博爾頓離職了,你認為美國在阿富汗的政策走向如何?」

Simone:“Okay. I’ll, I think the biggest difference John Bolton has with the president is in Afghanistan and Iran. With John Bolton gone, What do you think the US policy in Afghanistan is heading to?”

羅伯特·斯伯汀將軍( 哈德遜研究所資深研究員):「 我不知道,因為這看起來像我從已有信息以及拋開行政角度觀察到的那樣,總統一貫認為需要用我們已經花費的資源做些別的事情,這既包括人力、也包括物力和財力。每年我們在阿富汗花費400到600億美元。這些錢本應該用在美國國內來推動我們的經濟和技術發展。自從中國加入WTO後,我們有超過七萬家工廠流失海外,我們的工業基礎已經完全被抽走。所以我認為他正在考慮機會成本:那些錢現在花到了哪裡,可以花到其它那些地方來提升我們的經濟安全,確實,經濟安全和經濟能力奠定了美國在國際秩序裡能夠做和應該做的一切的基礎。」

Robert Spalding: “Well, I don’t know because it seems like as I’ve watched this both from within the administration and from without the administration, the president has been consistent in his message in that we need to do something else with the resources that we have expended, both in terms of the people and the material and the money. We spend anywhere from 40 to $60 billion a year in Afghanistan. That’s money that could be better spent in the United States promoting our economic and technological well being. Our industrial base is completely decimated, since China entered the WTO and we offshored over 70,000 factories. So I think he’s looking at the opportunity costs of where that money gets spent currently and where it could be spent in terms of improving our economic security and really, economic security and economic power underpins everything that the United States can and should be in the international order.”

蕭茗 (Host/Simone Gao ):「你認為最大的問題是什麽?我是說,你認為美國的阿富汗政策成功嗎?美國的阿富汗政策的最大問題是什麽? 」

Simone:“ What do you think is the biggest problem, if , I mean, do you consider the us policy in Afghanistan to be a successful one? And what is the biggest problem with the US policy in Afghanistan?”

羅伯特·斯伯汀將軍( 哈德遜研究所資深研究員):「 我認為任何恐怖分子都很難說美國不會非常迅速地、非常自信地、而且非常專業地去抓捕那些對美國公民施暴的人。所以我認為從威懾的角度來看,它確實表明了美國不是紙老虎。美國會保護其公民,並將竭盡全力保護其公民。我想我們以此爲出發點來看,我們已經在阿富汗駐兵19年,我認為現在是我們改變優先事項的時候了。即使在第二次世界大戰期間也是如此。你想一下,(那時)我們有兩個戰爭的主要威脅,是我們要優先處理的。我們優先考慮的是歐洲,日本其次。因此,在某種程度上,美國(其時)沒有優先考慮自己國家安全,真的是在説:『嘿,我們誰都對付得了』。在冷戰結束之後,當時的情況也許是這樣,但今天肯定不是了。 在制定外交或國家安全政策的時候,如果有人認為我們可以應對所有的外在挑戰,那將是不明智的。」

Robert Spalding:“ Well, I would, I think any terrorists would be hard pressed to say the United States is not going to be…not going to respond very swiftly and very confidently and actually very expertly in terms of going after those who would commit violence to American citizens. And so I think from a deterrent aspect, it really shows that the United States is not a paper tiger. It is willing to protect its citizens and will go to great lengths to protect its citizens. I think from the standpoint of where we go from here, we’ve been in Afghanistan for 19 years. I think it’s time for us to shift priorities, even during World War II. If you think about it, we had two major theaters of war and we had priorities there. We prioritized Europe first and Japan was second. And so, in a way, the United States got out of the business of prioritizing its national security and really said, “Hey, we can take all comers". Well, after the end of the Cold War, maybe that was the case, but today it certainly isn’t and it really isn’t prudent foreign policy or national security policy to think that we can take on every challenge that’s out there.”

蕭茗 (Host/Simone Gao ):「我們來談談中國。我知道你幾天前去了波蘭,美國和波蘭簽署了加強5G技術合作的協議。這是否意味著華為在波蘭出局?」

Simone: “Let’s talk about China. I know you went to Poland a few days ago and the U S and Poland signed a deal to strengthen cooperation in 5G technology. So does that mean Huawei is out in Poland?”

羅伯特·斯伯汀將軍( 哈德遜研究所資深研究員):「這確實意味著華為在波蘭已經出局,但這並不是故事的結束,因為坦率地說,沒有。 OEM設備, 網絡基礎設施部分的製造商真正建立了一個安全的網絡。沒有安全保障的5G網絡對民主國家來說真的很危險。不幸的是,大多數安全標準和基礎技術都是由中國開發的。到目前為止,除了華為和中興之外的那些真正主要設備製造商,比如愛立信、諾基亞、和三星,還沒公開站出來表示, 我們將絕對致力於創建一個獨一無二的安全網絡,以歐洲GDPR通用數據保護法規的方式保護人們的數據。或者你知道,就像美國為確保選舉結果或者選民意願不會被外國政府篡改和影響所做的那樣,這就是現在發生的。」

Robert Spalding:“ It does mean Huawei is out in Poland, but it isn’t the end of the story because quite frankly, no. OEM equipment maker in the infrastructure portion of the network is really building a secure network. A 5G network without security is really dangerous for democracies. And unfortunately most of the security standards and the underlying technology has been developed by China. And so to this day, Ericsson, Nokia and Samsung, which would really be the major equipment manufacturers, other than Huawei and ZTE have not come out and said, we are going to absolutely commit to creating a one of a kind secure network that would protect people’s data in a way that is by GDPR in Europe the General Data Protection Regulation. Or you know, in a way that in the United States would ensure that elections can’t be tampered with or the individuals can’t be influenced by state actors, which is what happens today.”

蕭茗 (Host/Simone Gao ):「那華為是否還可以被阻止住?該怎樣做?」

Simone:“So can Huawei still be stopped and how?”

羅伯特·斯伯汀將軍( 哈德遜研究所資深研究員):「我想我們是要問的問題是:是否能阻止中國共產黨建立這個全球網絡,以及在5G基礎設施上的應用服務和商業模式。我們能阻止共產黨在其境外施展影響嗎?我認為答案是肯定的,但正如我在美國各地所講的那樣,政府實際上需要在數字領域發揮領導作用。你知道,所以當政府允許科技公司收集數據,並用這些數據做任何他們想做的事情,並允許像中國這樣的國家,就像俄羅斯,朝鮮或伊朗做同樣的事情,而沒有從根本上承諾保護美國人民、他們的數據,那可以說你已經把戰場讓給了中國共產黨和其他人。」

Robert Spalding:“ I think the question we have to ask is: Can the Communist Party, the Chinese Communist Party be stopped in creating this global network and essentially app services and business models that are built on the 5g infrastructure. Can we prevent that from allowing the communist party to influence outside their borders? I think the answer to that is yes, but as I said all along the United States, the government actually needs to take a leadership role in the digital space. You know, so when it just allows tech companies to essentially harvest data and do whatever they want with that data and allows for nations like China, like the Russians, like the North Koreans or the Iranians to do the same without essentially committing to protecting the American people, their data, then you’re essentially acceding the battlefield to the Chinese Communist Party and others.”

 蕭茗 (Host/Simone Gao ):「您是否認為美國領導層已準備好在這一領域發揮領導作用? 」

Simone: “Do you think the American leadership is ready to take a leadership role in, in this area?”

羅伯特·斯伯汀將軍( 哈德遜研究所資深研究員):「我認為總統已做好準備。記得我提到了艾森豪,他說了什麼?他說,要注意軍事工業綜合體的不當影響。好的。那麼,一個非常強硬的國家軍事安全政策所支持的領域之一就是軍事工業綜合體。他們通過造F-35、航空母艦、坦克、潛艇來賺錢。所有這些都為這些公司帶來了巨額利潤。繼續『幹涉性』的外交政策或軍國主義外交政策背後有著巨大的經濟利益。」

Robert Spalding:“ I think the president’s ready. Remember I referred to Eisenhower. What did Eisenhower say? He said, beware the undue influence of the military industrial complex. Okay. So one of the things that supported by a very hawkish military national security policy is the industrial…the military industrial complex. They make money from that F-35’s, aircraft carriers, tanks, submarines, all of those things ended up being for enormous profits for these companies. And so there’s an enormous profit incentive behind continuing this type in intervention as foreign policy or militaristic foreign policy, if you will.”

 蕭茗  (Host/Simone Gao ):「在2017年底,谷歌看到這個?好的,是這個。在2017年底, 谷歌的聯合創始人謝爾蓋·布林,在一次公司範圍的會議上,提到關於谷歌參與到五角大樓項目。這是他的部分發言,他說他認為如果全世界的軍隊能與谷歌這樣的國際機構緊密合作,而不是只靠各國自己的國防承包商,這樣會更有利於和平。這裡讓我感到有點困惑。這裡所指的,谷歌是國際組織還是一個美國公司?」

Simone:“ At the end of 2017. Google, the Google folk. See this? Okay. Yeah. So at the end of 2017 the Cofounder of Google Sergey Brin, sat in a company wide meeting, regarding Google’s involvement in the Pentagon project that, these are his words, he said he thought that it was better for peace if the world’s militaries are intertwined with international organizations like Google rather than working solely was nationalistic defense contractors. So I’m a little confused here. Is Google an international organization or is Google a US company?”

 羅伯特·斯伯汀將軍( 哈德遜研究所資深研究員):「 它是一家跨國公司,我認為有一點我真的為謝爾·蓋布林鼓掌,那就是當初讓谷歌退出中國,他來自前蘇聯,他清楚,我想這是對極權主義的一個暗示,當然是指中國共產黨要做的事情。但當然,當他離開公司的日常領導角色,並允許谷歌內的跨國公司結構發展時,這公司已經遠離了你所知道的,其核心價值觀,即『不做惡』。但是當你開始與極權主義政權合作時,你知道,創建集中營或強摘器官或任何其他行當,以及中國共產黨所做的殘忍壓迫的罪行,它已經開始腐蝕你的靈魂。在今天這個時代,它的問題是作為全球化跨國公司,並沒有什麼民主原則,人權,公民權利或法治的約束。因為中國共產黨從根本上不打算遵守任何規則,這使得叢林法則成了國際經濟關係中的行為通則。當世界上第二大經濟體無孔不入但並不遵守規則時,很快其他人就會停止遵守這些規則。有序的商業活動已經變成了一場無規則大戰。谷歌已經加入了,他們把寶押在未來的中國經濟會不斷發展這一點上。不幸的是,當他們這樣做時,他們不得不放棄美國的立國原則,而是採用國際上流行的原則。但由於國際秩序真的像狂野的西部,最終除了權力和控制之外沒有任何原則。因此,雖然大型科技公司可以在這種環境中非常有效地爭奪權力和控制權,但它們並不像國家那樣有效。因此,與谷歌相比,中國共產黨在影響國際秩序方面有更多的手段可以利用。然而最終谷歌會成為了一個快速追隨者,但它仍然看到了它的未來所在,而在中國境內的自由開放原則是,它允許政府監控每個人所做的一切。這是一個谷歌可以欣賞的世界,因為它看到它可以賺很多錢。但是問題是,這個模式開始在自由社會中遇到問題,在自由社會中,如何使用這些有關你的隱私以及他人的個人數據,開始與我們的價值觀相衝突。」

Robert Spalding: “Well, it’s a, it’s a multinational corporation and I think one of the things that I can say is that I actually applaud Sergey Brin for originally taking Google out of China, as coming from the former Soviet Union, he understood, I think the implications of totalitarianism and certainly what the Chinese Communist Party was going to do. But of course as he stepped away from a day to day leadership role in the company and allowed more of a multinational corporate structure to evolve in Google, the company has gotten away from its you know, its core values, which is “Don’t do evil". And when you, when you essentially partner with a totalitarian regime that does, you know, creates concentration camps or does organ harvesting or does any of the, the really oppressive things that the Chinese Communist Party does then it begins to corrupt your soul. And the problem with being a multinational corporation in today’s Day and age, globalization, really comes without democratic principles, human rights, civil rights or rule of law. It’s really the law of the jungle in the international order because the Chinese Communist Party is basically determined not to follow any of the rules. When the second biggest economy in the world is intertwined with everybody and is determined not to follow the rules, then pretty soon others stop following the rules. And it really becomes a free for all. And a Google has joined that free for all. And what they’re doing is they’re aligning themselves with where they think the future is, which is a growing Chinese economy. Unfortunately, when they do that, they have to abandon the principles of the United States where they were founded and adopt international principles. But since the international order is really like the wild west, there ended up being no principles other than power and control. And so while large tech companies can fight for power and control very effectively in that environment, they’re not as effective as a nation state. So the Chinese Communist Party has far more levers to pull in the international order than Google does. So Google ends up being, you know, a fast follower, but still it sees where its future lies and that lies in the free and open data rules within China that that allows the government to actually monitor and control everything that everybody does. That’s a world that Google can appreciate because it can see where it can make a lot of money doing that. And of course what happens is that model begins to run into problems in a free society where privacy and rules about what you can do with other people’s data begin to bump up against our own values.”

  蕭茗 (Host/Simone Gao ):「我認為谷歌的自我定位很重要。谷歌是否把它自己視為一個國際組織? 對我來說,國際組織是像紅十字會那種(組織)。谷歌,就像你說的,谷歌是否認為自己是一個跨國公司?它需要保持對美利堅合眾國的忠誠嗎?」

Simone: “ I think Google’s identity does matter. I mean, does Google equate themselves to an international organization? To me, an international organization would be like Red Cross. I mean, does Google, like you said, Google, consider itself as a multinational corporation. Does it need to stay loyal to the United States of America?”

 羅伯特·斯伯汀將軍( 哈德遜研究所資深研究員):「我認為它需要,如果它想要有良心的話。但不幸的是,在當今全球化的世界,如果你想要待在中國,如果你想要在中國做生意,那你就需要按照中國共產黨的意願行事。如果你不按共產黨的意願去做,那你就沒辦法在中國做生意。谷歌作為一個商業集團,想要在中國做生意。作為條件,中國共產黨要求谷歌在進入中國市場時,幾乎放棄除了權力、控制和利潤以外的所有價值觀。」

Robert Spalding: “ Well, if it wants to have a soul, I think it does, but unfortunately then in today’s globalized world, if you align yourself, if you want to be in China, if you want to be doing business in China, then you do it according to how the Chinese Communist Party wants. And if you don’t do it according to how the Chinese Communist Party wants, then you’re not doing business in China. And so Google as a business, wants to do business in China. And in order to do that, the Chinese communist party requires that Google, essentially abandon all of its values other than power, control and profit when it crosses the threshold into China.”

 蕭茗 (Host/Simone Gao ):「最重要的是,你認為谷歌沒有義務對它的國家保持忠誠。」

Simone: “ The bottom line is you think Google doesn’t have an obligation to stay faithful to its country.”

 羅伯特·斯伯汀將軍( 哈德遜研究所資深研究員):「根據我們現行的法律、公約和美國的規則? 沒有。 本質上董事會和谷歌的高管都被要求對股東提供價值。僅僅是這樣。沒有其它法律要求。因此,就他們沒有按法律規定為股東提供價值這方面來說,他們實際上已經違背了自己的受托責任。所以從很多方面來說,我們的系統建立得非常, 企業不僅容易拋棄美國價值觀和原則,有時候它們甚至還必須這麼做。特別是在跟中國共產黨打交道的時候。」

Robert Spalding:“Under our current laws and convention and the rules of the United States? No essentially has a requirement to both directors and the executives of Google have a requirement to deliver value to the shareholder. That’s it. There are no other legal requirements. And so to the extent that they are not by law providing value to the shareholders then their actually violating their fiduciary responsibility. So in a lot of ways, our system is set up so that it’s very…it’s not only easy for companies to abandon US values and principles, it’s also mandatory. When dealing with the Chinese Communist Party in particular”

 蕭茗 (Host/Simone Gao ):「 谷歌拒絕了國防部的幾個項目。這幾個項目價值大約數百億美元。 谷歌在中國建立了人工智能中心。你認為谷歌的人工智能研究能直接給解放軍帶來好處嗎?」

Simone:“You know, Google turned down a few Department of Defense…Google turned down with few Department of Defense. So Google turned down several Department of Defense projects. That’s worth like a tens of billions of dollars and instead, Google builds like AI centers in China. So do you think the AI Research Google does, can directly benefit the PLA?”

 羅伯特·斯伯汀將軍( 哈德遜研究所資深研究員):「嗯,我確定它可能會,但我認為它將更多地支持像統戰部這樣的組織,負責在世界各地制造宣傳和影響的組織。我認為這就是5G架構和商業模式對此的意義所在,那就是人工智能和機器學習算法。而機器學習算法的開發則基於谷歌在北京和中國其它地方建立的人工智能得出的數據。實際上,這有助於理解消費者的意圖,進而影響他們的購物習慣。但你知道,中國共產黨不僅利用這些算法影響你的購物模式,還利用它影響你生活中所做的一切,這樣他們就可以自動打壓異見人士,確保只留下遵守共產黨制定的規則的人。所以這成為了極權主義政權手中一個非常強大的工具。當然,你知道,從谷歌的角度來看,它也是影響你買鞋的有力工具。」

Robert Spalding:“Well, I’m sure it probably can, but I think it’s more going to support organizations like the United Front Work Department that is really responsible for creating propaganda and influence around the world. I think that’s what the 5G architecture and the business models which it means in this case, the artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms that get developed on data with these AI partnerships that, that Google has created in Beijing and elsewhere in China. Actually, that contributes to understanding, you know, the intent of consumers and then influencing their shopping habits. But you know, the Chinese Communist Party takes those algorithms and adapts them to not just influencing your shopping patterns, but also everything else you do in your life so that they can suppress the outliers automatically and ensure that they only have people that are following the rules according to the way that the communist party wants. So it’s an incredibly powerful tool in the arms or in the hands of totalitarian regimes. Of course, you know, from Google’s perspective, it’s also a powerful tool for influencing you to buy shoes.”

 蕭茗 (Host/Simone Gao ):「有意思。說到錢,谷歌拒絕了美國數百億美元的國防合同,轉而承接了中國的項目,比如『蜻蜓計劃』搜索引擎和人工智能中心。我認為,至少就目前而言,谷歌(在這些項目中)的收入連他們能在美國創造的收入的一小部分都沒有。所以我忍不住想,谷歌在中國不是為了賺錢,這個觀點有錯嗎?」

Simone:“Interesting. Talking about money, I mean Google turned down tens of billions of dollars of a defense contract in the US, but the project they took on in China, like the Dragon Fly search engine project or in this AI Project the AI Center. I don’t think it’s at least for now, isn’t generating even a fraction of the revenue they can make in the US so I can’t help but thinking that Google is not after money in China, am I wrong?”

 羅伯特·斯伯汀將軍( 哈德遜研究所資深研究員):「嗯,他們還是為了賺錢。你想想看,如果他們在中國增加了『搜索』的市場份額,他們的廣告點擊率就會上升。你知道,隨著這一數字的增長,他們每年的收入將達到數百億,如果不是數千億美元的話,這是他們目前沒有的。因此,是的,國防部的合同可能價值數十億美元,但最終,如果你能進入中國的搜索市場,它可能價值數千億美元。當然,這意味著你必須與中國共產黨同床共枕、努力阻止中國人民了解他們的歷史或文化。你在審查他們,幫助中國共產黨壓迫他們,但當你作為一家公司的整個價值定位是基於利潤時,因為這是美國法律規定的,這是對股東的受托責任,那麼利潤就將成為驅動你做一切事情的動機。哦,順便說一下,公司數千億美元的收入意味著公司的高管和董事,那些真正決定谷歌開拓哪裏的市場的人得到了豐厚的報酬。」

Robert Spalding:“Well, they are after money because if you think about it, if you, if they increased market share in China with regard to “‘Search"" and their advertising clicks go up. You know, as that goes up, they’re looking at tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue each year that they currently don’t have. And so, yes, the defense contracts might be worth a few billions. But ultimately, if you can get into the search market in China, it could potentially be worth hundreds of billions. And of course now that means that you have to get in bed with the Chinese Communist Party and work to prevent the Chinese people from knowing anything about their history or culture and you’re censoring them and helping the Chinese Communist Party oppress them. But when your entire value proposition as a company is based on revenue, because that’s what the laws of America say, it’s a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholder, then you know, that drives everything you do. And oh, by the way, that hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue for the company means that the executives and the directors of the company, the people that are really responsible for the strategy of where Google is involved get compensated quite handsomely.”

 蕭茗 (Host/Simone Gao ):「來自四十多個州的檢察長宣布他們對谷歌的市場力量和公司行為展開調查。你認為谷歌應該被拆分成更小的公司嗎?」

Simone:“The state attorney general’s from four dozen states have announced they launched investigations into Google about their market power and corporate behaviors. Do you think Google should be broken up into smaller companies?”

 羅伯特·斯伯汀將軍( 哈德遜研究所資深研究員):「我認為在一個自由的國家裏,人們能夠控制自己的數據是很重要的。他們從希望使用這些數據的公司那裏得到補償,而且他們可以選擇不再允許這些公司使用他們的數據。目前,即使人們決定不使用谷歌服務,也沒有這個選項。谷歌仍然在安卓設備上收集關於他們的信息。這個事情已經被一次又一次地證明了。本質上,這些科技公司想收集盡可能多的關於你的數據,這樣他們就能知道你所有的意圖。而且他們可以通過廣告出售數據,或者直接出售數據本身。所以如果你想保護它,如果你想阻止它,拆分谷歌是做不到的。你必須創建一個保護數據的網絡。因此,身份管理、訪問控制和加密成為建設互聯網和自由社會的關鍵特征,因為它們將使人們知道網絡上的人是誰。所以我們沒有像解放軍或俄羅斯那樣的國家行為來制造影響和竊取人們的數據。與此同時,公民自己有能力保護自己不受政府的壓迫,無論是美國政府還是其它政府。實際上,這事關創建與我們的數字或實物文檔相對應的相同類型的數字技術。」

Robert Spalding:“I think it’s important that people in a free country have control over their data. They get compensated for companies that desire to use that data and they have an ability to opt out from allowing those companies to use their data. Currently, they don’t have that option even when they decide not to, essentially use the Google services. Google is still collecting information on them in android devices. And so, and this has been shown time and time again. Essentially these tech companies want to collect as much data about you as possible so they know all your intentions. And they can sell that data via advertising or just sell the data itself. And so they really, if you want to protect that, if you wanna prevent that, breaking up Google’s not going to do that. You actually have to create a network that secures that data.

So identity management, access control and encryption become key features of building an internet and a free society because it allows people to actually know who’s on the network. So we don’t have state actors like the PLA or the Russians creating influence or otherwise stealing people’s data. At the same time, the citizens themselves have the ability to protect themselves from an oppressive government or whether that be the u s government and whether it be any other government. It’s really about creating the same type of digital founding technology that corresponds to our digital or to our physical founding documents.”

 

蕭茗 (Host/Simone Gao ):「非常感謝。」

Simone:  “All right. Thank you so much.”

 

羅伯特·斯伯汀將軍( 哈德遜研究所資深研究員):「謝謝你。」

Robert Spalding:“Thank you. ”

 

End

=====================================

Producer:Simone Gao

Writer:Simone Gao

Editors:Fiona Yang, Bonnie Yu , Julian Kuo  

Narrator: Simone Gao

Translation: Cindy Zhan, John Meng, Linda Du, Tung Tung, Maureen Mou, Greg Yang, Ginger

Transcription: James Battaglini, Jesse Beatty

Special Effects:Harrison Sun

Assistant producer:Bin Tang, Merry Jiang

Feedback: ssgx@ntdtv.ca 

New Tang Dynasty Television

Zooming In

September, 2019

======================================

 

 



相關文章
評論