黄皮书《题源外刊》第七期

小老虎不吹笛

【题源外刊】第七期:给数据明码标价，就能保护用户隐私吗？

原文期刊：彭博社

原文标题：

The wrong way to protect privacy

考研英语阅读话题-数据隐私

大数据时代，数据收集和利用成为互联网行业发展的基础。大数据营销在创造价值的同时，也带来一定的侵权风险。很常见的是，无需用户同意和授权，网络平台仍可以通过cookie等技术手段采集用户数据，做出相应的“用户画像”，从而推送精准的定向广告。很多消费者抱怨，作为某网站的“熟客”却受到“价格歧视”，比普通用户承担了更高的费用。“大数据时代，每个人都是数据主体，都可能因为信息泄露而受到侵害。

本文选自《彭博社》2019年7月2日刊出的一篇文章，主题是国会议案要求大型科技公司披露用户数据价值，但这并不能达到其“保护网络隐私”的目的。

脉络:

引入话题：概述美国国会新近网络隐私保护议案的内容并作简要评价(第一段)———通过阐述数字经济运作模式,让步说明该项议案的产生背景和理论效果(第二、三段)———转而展开批驳：指出 该议案毫无意义、不切实际(第四、五段)———提出更佳替代方案：制定“信息信托”标准,并简述好处(人人皆赢)(第六、七段)。

Part 1

原文

Ⅰ   Members of Congress are finally getting serious about protecting privacy online. If only they had some better ideas on how to do so. The latest entrant is a bill that would, among other things, require big tech platforms such as Google to tell users how much money their personal information generates, and to publicly disclose how much their data is worth in aggregate.

Ⅱ At first glance, this seems promising. Much of the digital economy is built on a trade-off: Consumers get free services in return for divulging their data. Yet there's significant evidence that they don't fully understand this exchange. In a phenomenon known as the privacy paradox, they routinely tell pollsters that they care about privacy even while using services that blithely violate it. Last year, as Facebook suffered one data scandal after another, its user base only grew.

Ⅲ Making the bargain more explicit sounds like a reasonable solution. In theory, if consumers knew how much their data was worth, they could make better decisions about what information they give up and what goods or services are worth the risk.

Ⅳ Google has also attempted to claim an exemption to copyright under the “fair use” principle, which allows limited use thatIn reality, though, they'll have no idea what to do with this added transparency. They're already overloaded with information about how online services employ their data. Adding another meaningless statistic will hardly help. Worse, the implication is that users should be compensated beyond the free services they already receive, yet none of the targeted companies are going to be writing checks any time soon. does not replace the original work. However, Google’s interpretation of fair use is grossly out of step with the purpose of the principle. Its verbatim reproduction of Java’s code for an entirely commercial purpose was not transformative. It simply copied material for use in Google’s platform to do the same thing that it does in Oracle’s platform. That is very different from actions that the Copyright Act accepts as fair use, such as criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching and research.

Ⅴ Nor should anyone want them to: One of the great benefits of the data for services exchange is that—unlike with cash—a given user's data is in inexhaustible supply. It can be shared again and again, across different services, in perpetuity. Breaking that model in favor of one preferred by Congress is in no one's interests. More to the point, placing a value on data is hard. In isolation, an individual user's data is worth precisely $0.00. Only when aggregated and analyzed at scale can it generate revenue. Companies often put the same data sets to multiple uses—serving ads, testing new products etc.—and then attempt to derive insights from all of it. That process resists easy quantification.

VI  A far better approach is to shift the burden of managing data from users to companies, and to do so in a way that doesn't destroy the latter's business models. One promising method is to offer an “information fiduciary” standard. Much as a doctor must protect a patient's medical details, such fiduciaries would be prohibited from handling data in ways that harmed their users. Congress could establish a set of best practices for companies to follow, and those that agreed could be offered a federal preemption from state and local privacy laws.

VII  In this way, consumers would know if their data was in good hands without needing an engineering degree. Companies would have an incentive to behave. And Congress could otherwise occupy itself. Everybody wins.

Part 2

词汇短语

1.entrant [ˈentrənt] n.参赛者,新成员

2.disclose [dɪsˈkləʊz] v.揭露,公开

3.paradox [ˈpærədɒks] n. 悖论

4.pollster [ˈpəʊlstə] n.民意调查者

5.divulge [daɪˈvʌldʒ] v. 泄露,透露

6.blithely [ˈblaɪðli] ad.漫不经心地

7.implication [ˌɪmplɪˈkeɪʃən] n.含意,暗指

8.fiduciary [fɪˈdjuːʃəri] n.(尤指财产)受信托人(或公司)

9.preemption [prɪˈempʃən] n.先占权

10.incentive [ɪnˈsentɪv] n.刺激,动力

Part 3

长难句语法点拨

本句主干为主系表结构 The latest entrant is a bill(最近纳入讨论的是一项议案), that would...为定语从句修饰先行词a bill,介绍议案具体内容。在该定语从句中,that为关系代词作主语; require big techplatforms such as Google为谓语及宾语,指出议案对大科技平台的要求;to tell...and to publicly disclose...为宾补,描述两项要求。

Part 4

写作句型借鉴

In a phenomenon known as XX，……在被称作XX的现象中，后接现象

原文例句：In a phenomenon known as the privacy paradox, they routinely tell pollsters that they care about privacy even while using services that blithely violate it. 在被称作“隐私悖论”的现象中,消费者经常告 诉民意调查者他们重视隐私,哪怕同时还在使用恣意侵犯其隐私的服务。

A far better approach is to do sth 更好的方法是……

One promising method is to do sth一种不错的方法是……

原文例句：A far better approach is to shift the burden of managing data from users to companies, and to do so in a way that doesn't destroy the latter's business models. One promising method is to offer an “information fiduciary” standard.更好的方法是将数据管理的重担从用户转移至公司,同时不破坏后者的商业模式。一种不错的方法是提供一个“信息信托”标准。

（黄皮书《题源外刊》）

小老虎不吹笛