时代周刊 用户如何追究Facebook的责任(2)（在线收听）

Because Kogan obtained the data through legitimate channels,

由于科根获取那些数据的渠道合法，

preventing such a scenario from happening again isn’t as simple as patching a bug or boosting Facebook’s security infrastructure.

要预防这种情况再次发生就不像修补一个漏洞或改善Facebook基础安全设施那么简单。

A fix would require Facebook to be stricter with its actual customers:

要解决这一问题，Facebook就得在筛选客户时更加严格：

developers and advertisers of all kinds, from retailers to political groups, who pay to know what you have revealed about yourself.

各种开发商和广告商，以及从零售商到政治团体所有付费购买用户透露的关于他们自身的信息的人。

But it will need to keep a closer eye on who can see what, even if that results in repercussions for its other partners.

然而，他们也需要密切关注谁人能看哪些信息，即使这样做会影响到其他合作伙伴。

Facebook invites you to chronicle your life through its platforms, especially your most cherished moments.

Facebook邀请大家通过他们的平台记录我们的生活，尤其是我们生活中最珍贵的那些瞬间。

There is a natural expectation that a space with such precious material will be guarded.

人们自然期望存放如此宝贵的资料的空间能够得到安全保护。

As Zuckerberg said in a statement that in part pledged to restrict developers’ access to data:

扎克伯格在一份申明中承诺会限制开发人员的访问权限，正如他在这份声明中指出的那样：

“We have a responsibility to protect your data, and if we can’t then we don’t deserve to serve you.”

“我们有责任保护大家的数据，如果做不到这一点，那我们就不配为大家服务。”

There’s another group in need of urgent introspection: users.

除了开发人员，还有一个亟需内省的人群：用户。

In an era in which we tell companies like Facebook, Google and Amazon what groceries we eat, whom we’re in touch with and where we’re going (at a minimum),

在这个大家连吃哪家店的东西，和谁保持联系，要去哪里（至少是这些）都会告诉Facebook，谷歌，亚马逊之类的公司的时代，

users themselves need to actually demand to know to whom their information is being sent and how they will use it, in a way that is readable and accessible.

用户自己也应该对平台提出要求，以可读并且可获取的方式了解他们的信息发给了谁，那些人会怎么用他们的信息。

There’s no single obvious answer for preventing future data abuse,

如何防止未来再次出现数据滥用这一问题并没有一个明显的答案，

but one lesson is evident: Facebook needs to be more transparent with its users when their data is being exploited,

但有一个教训是显而易见的：数据被他人利用时，Facebook要对用户更加透明，

and users themselves should be much more vigilant about the personal details they’re willing to share.

用户自己也应该在分享个人信息的时候更加谨慎。

“It’s clear these platforms can’t police themselves,” Senator Amy Klobuchar posted to Twitter.

“很明显，这些平台并不能自我监控，”参议员埃米·克罗布查尔在她的推文中指出。

(Although even she expressed to Vice News Tonight skepticism that lawmakers will change the system ahead of this year’s elections,

（尽管连她都在《今夜恶新闻》中表示了对议员们将在今年的选举之前改变制度的承诺的怀疑，

suspecting some will want one last election cycle with these tools in hand.)

她怀疑有人会想用这些工具赢得最后一轮选举。）

Users may not invest in Facebook with cash.

用户或许没有用现金投资Facebook。

Instead, we offer invisible things: our emotions, our interests, our time and, in the end, our trust.

但我们拿出了无形的东西：我们的情感，我们的兴趣，时间，归根到底就是，我们的信任。

As Facebook asks for more and more of us as it expands, from its messenger apps to virtual reality to Instagram,

随着Facebook越做越大，从通讯应用到虚拟现实到照片分享，它要求我们分享的东西也越来越广，

we must ask, Why do we trust what we know so little about? Especially when what we do know is that the site profits off our interests?

我们就要问了，我们为什么要信任我们所知甚少的东西？尤其是我们知道该网站在牺牲我们的利益为自己牟利，我们为什么还要信任它？

We need to value our minds and lives at least as much as the advertisers and politicians do.

我们至少要像广告商和政客重视我们的想法和生活一样重视我们的想法和生活。