Fads are a big part of January. Everyone wants to hashtag their efforts at keeping up their New Year’s Resolution (#NoCheeseMonth, #NoCarbMonth, #NoFunMonth), and our collective refusal to acknowledge that the holidays are over means we’re all still desperate for distractions. But nobody minds, because we all love fads — it’s why we get obsessed with one hit wonders and dance routines (and, occasionally, both at the same time).

时尚是一月份的重要部分。 每个人都想标记他们为保持新年决心而付出的努力(＃NoCheeseMonth，＃NoCarbMonth，＃NoFunMonth)，而我们的集体拒绝承认假期已经结束，这意味着我们所有人仍然拼命分散注意力。 但是没有人介意，因为我们都喜欢时尚-这就是为什么我们沉迷于流行的奇观和舞蹈套路(有时会同时出现)。

Yesterday, we got to see the confluence of a few of our favorite fads: megaconferences, big privacy promises, and clashes between tech giants. At CES, the Consumer Technology Association’s huge annual conference, representatives from Facebook, Apple, and others sat on a panel together. The topic, unsurprisingly, was privacy, and how these companies are adjusting to the changing political and regulatory landscape. There were the usual promises about “taking privacy seriously,” and recognition that governments are becoming increasingly concerned about the disproportionate power that businesses have to collect, and monetize, personal data.

昨天，我们看到了一些我们最喜欢的时尚的融合：大型会议，重大的隐私承诺以及科技巨头之间的冲突。 在CES上，美国消费者技术协会(Consumer Technology Association)的大型年度会议上 ，来自Facebook，Apple和其他组织的代表一起参加了小组讨论 。 毫无疑问，主题是隐私，以及这些公司如何适应不断变化的政治和法规环境。 通常存在“认真对待隐私”的承诺，并认识到政府越来越关注企业必须收集和货币化个人数据的不成比例的权力。

And then, more than once, Facebook’s privacy czar Erin Egan made the claim that Facebook is just as protective of user privacy as Apple is.

然后，不仅仅一次，Facebook的隐私沙皇Erin Egan声称，Facebook与苹果一样，在保护用户隐私方面同样具有保护作用。

Uh…..What?

呃.....什么？

Who knows why Facebook decided to opt for that as a talking point because, even if it is true ( which, you know, it isn’t), absolutely no one believes it to be true. It’s a scenario where saying something repeatedly is just going to make listeners angry, rather than believing that you’re right, like your uncle who keeps trying to tell you that Starland Vocal Band was the greatest group of the 70s. (It was obviously the Bay City Rollers). But given the last few years, it’s hard to imagine why Facebook would make a claim so bold, and so brazen, in a public setting.

谁知道Facebook为什么决定选择这一点作为谈话要点，因为即使这是真的( 您知道，这不是事实 )，也绝对没有人相信它是真的。 在这种情况下，反复说一句话只会使听众生气，而不是相信自己是对的，就像你的叔叔一直试图告诉你，Starland Vocal Band是70年代最伟大的一群。 (显然是Bay City Rollers )。 但是，鉴于过去的几年，很难想象Facebook在公开场合为什么会如此大胆，无礼。

Part of it is that Facebook and Apple are in entirely different businesses. Apple is a merchandise and services company that has an extremely potent data collection practice, while Facebook is essentially an advertising sales company driven by a massive personal data collection effort. It’s natural, if not desirable, for Facebook to have practices designed to pull in as much information about their users as possible, if only to be able to better market itself to companies that want to buy advertising services. But there is simply no question that the wholesale data consumption at Facebook is on a scale comparable really only with Google, and that allegations (and, really, proof) of malfeasance have dogged Facebook for at least a decade. Apple? Not so much.

部分原因是Facebook和Apple的业务完全不同。 苹果公司是一家商品和服务公司，具有非常有效的数据收集实践，而Facebook本质上是一家广告销售公司，受到大量个人数据收集工作的推动。 如果不希望这么做，Facebook采取的做法是自然而然的，旨在尽可能多地获取有关其用户的信息，即使这仅仅是为了更好地向想要购买广告服务的公司推销自己。 但是，毫无疑问，Facebook的大量数据消费量确实可以与Google媲美，并且对不法行为的指控 (甚至是证据 )已经使Facebook困扰了至少十年。 苹果？ 没那么多。

The reality is that Facebook can’t make much of an argument about privacy, no matter how many times they repeat it. Consider their new “ Privacy Checkup,” which claims to provide users with the tools and information they need to create the kind of privacy controls best suited to them. It’s interesting, certainly, and the UI has been made easier and friendlier, but there’s a catch: it changes the privacy setting only as they relate to other people on Facebook, and not Facebook itself. In other words, you can make sure that facial recognition is turned off, or that your creepy next door neighbor doesn’t get to see you posts, but you still have just about the same level of control over what Facebook does with you data as you ever did: effectively bubkes.

现实情况是，无论隐私重复多少次，Facebook都无法对隐私提出太多争议。 考虑他们新的“ 隐私检查 ”，它声称可以为用户提供创建最适合他们的隐私控制所需的工具和信息。 当然，这很有趣，并且UI变得更容易和友好，但是有一个陷阱：它仅在与Facebook上其他人相关而不是与 Facebook本身相关时更改隐私设置。 换句话说，您可以确保面部识别功能已关闭，或者您的令人毛骨悚然的隔壁邻居不会看到您的帖子，但是您对Facebook对数据所做的控制与对Facebook的控制程度大致相同您曾经做过：有效地冒出来。

So why does Facebook say things like this? Why make a claim that’s so close to being just flatly untrue that it risks being called out? It’s a game, really. A language game, and it’s one, in the privacy sphere, that’s been underway for a very long time.

那么，Facebook为什么这么说呢？ 为什么要提出一个几乎完全是虚假的说法以至于有被召唤的风险？ 真的，这是个游戏。 在隐私领域，这种语言游戏已经进行了很长时间了。

Quit Playing Games

退出玩游戏

The concept of language as a game traces back to famously toussle-haired and famously ornery Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, who always looks to me like a cross between a (somehow) crankier Peter Capaldi and a (somehow) moodier Samuel Beckett. Moods aside, Wittgenstein was a brilliant, epoch-defining thinker who changed how we conceive of our use of language. According to his theories, all communication relates to its context, and so a word or phrase had no independent meaning: language is not a standalone entity that reflects reality or truth. Instead, language is a tool that we use, and it only becomes meaningful by the way we use it in a certain circumstance. For instance, if I shout “Traitor!” at you, I might be challenging your loyalty to your country, accusing you of changing your allegiance to a football team once they reach the playoffs, or making a Star Wars reference. You only know based on where we are, what we’re doing, the nature of our relationship etc etc. For Wittgenstein, when we communicate with one another, we’re playing the communication game, constructing its rules, and conveying ideas all at the same time.

语言作为一种游戏的概念可以追溯到著名的四射头发的和著名的讨厌的奥地利哲学家维特根斯坦(Ludwig Wittgenstein)，在我看来，他总是像一个(某种程度上)古怪的彼得·卡帕尔迪(Peter Capaldi)和一个(某种程度上)穆迪·塞缪尔·贝克特(Samuel Beckett)之间的十字架。 除了心情，维特根斯坦是一位杰出的，具有划时代意义的思想家，他改变了我们对语言使用的看法。 根据他的理论，所有交流都与其上下文有关，因此单词或短语没有独立的含义：语言不是反映现实或真理的独立实体。 取而代之的是，语言是我们使用的一种工具，它仅在特定情况下以我们使用它的方式变得有意义。 例如，如果我大喊“叛徒！” 在您身上，我可能会挑战您对自己国家的忠诚度，指责您一旦进入季后赛就改变对足球队的忠诚度，或者成为《星球大战》的参考 。 您仅基于我们的位置，正在做什么，我们的关系性质等而知道。对于维特根斯坦，当我们彼此交流时，我们正在玩交流游戏，构建其规则，并在所有地方传达思想同时。

Super! Except what happens when we’re playing different games? What if I use language in an attempt to induce the listener to believe I will do one thing, when in reality I intend the opposite, or something very different? Obviously, our communication is flawed, and wherever we take our interaction, it will carry the taint of that initial lie. More charitably, what if we’re merely talking past one another because our words carry different meanings based on the contexts from which we came to our meeting with one another? How could we communicate with one another in that situation and expect to reach the desired outcome? At least one of us is going to be disappointed, and maybe both.

超！ 除了当我们玩不同的游戏时会发生什么？ 如果我使用语言试图诱使听众相信我会做一件事，而实际上我却提出了相反的建议，或者是截然不同的事情，该怎么办？ 显然，我们的沟通是有缺陷的，无论我们在哪里进行互动，都会带有最初谎言的污点。 更具有慈善意义的是，如果我们只是彼此交谈而已，因为我们的话语基于我们彼此开会的背景而具有不同的含义，该怎么办？ 在这种情况下，我们如何彼此沟通并期望达到预期的结果？ 至少我们中的一个会失望，也许两者都有。

This is where we find ourselves when it comes to privacy: Facebook isn’t playing the same game that we are, at least when it comes to privacy. When they say privacy checkup, we hear “control over my privacy and what is shared,” but Facebook means “control over other users’ activity.” Facebook’s meaning is unclear because they never come right out and explain what they mean, and because privacy is a very complicated subject that makes contexutalization difficult.

在隐私方面，我们可以在这里找到自己：Facebook至少在玩隐私方面与我们玩的游戏不同。 当他们说隐私检查时，我们听到“控制我的隐私和共享的内容”，但Facebook的意思是“控制其他用户的活动”。 Facebook的含义尚不清楚，因为它们永远不会立即出现并解释其含义， 并且因为隐私是一个非常复杂的主题，因此很难进行加密。

Think about it this way: when we normally deal with a company as individual people, it’s in the context of a purchase and sale. There’s little room for confusion because our context is clear: buyer and seller. Starbucks says “$4.00 for a latte,” I say “$*@$# fine, take my money,” everyone walks away clear about what happened. But Facebook (like other social media or tech companies) operates at the very center of our personhood, our identity. The difference is that Facebook uses our misunderstanding and monetizes personal data at the expense of the very privacy it claims to promote.

这样考虑：当我们通常以个人身份与公司打交道时，这是在买卖中。 混乱的余地很小，因为我们的上下文很明确：买方和卖方。 星巴克说“拿铁$ 4.00”，我说“ $ * @ $＃好，拿走我的钱，”所有人都清楚地知道发生了什么。 但是，Facebook(像其他社交媒体或科技公司一样)在我们人格的中心即身份上运作。 不同之处在于，Facebook利用我们的误解并利用个人数据获利，而牺牲了它声称要推广的隐私权。

“Privacy,” of course, is an extremely loaded term. When Facebook says it, they use it in the context of a commercial enterprise embedded in a complex regulatory scheme; when we say it, we’re talking about who gets the right to peer into our life. Two games, two sets of rules, two sets of meanings. That’s why we’re frustrated with Facebook, but it’s also why Facebook says that it’s just as good as Apple: we’re all talking about different things, in different contexts, for different reasons.

当然，“隐私”是一个极为繁重的术语。 当Facebook所说时，他们在嵌入复杂监管方案的商业企业中使用它。 当我们说这句话时，我们正在谈论的是谁有权窥视我们的生活。 两场比赛，两套规则，两套含义。 这就是为什么我们对Facebook感到沮丧，也是Facebook为什么说它与Apple一样好的原因：出于不同的原因，我们都在谈论不同背景下的不同事物。

Clearing up the Mess

清理混乱

GDPR didn’t clear up this confusion, and the linguistic hot mess that is the CCPA certainly won’t help either. What we need is a new taxonomy of privacy, a set approach to talking about privacy that gives everyone a shared context with mutually intelligible rules and parameters, if not outcomes. It’s a process that begins with changing the way we expect, and require, businesses to communicate about what they’re doing. The incessant legalese, the convoluted terms, and the byzantine clickthrough structures all have to go, for a start. From a consumer-facing perspective, that’s simply a prerequisite.

GDPR并没有消除这种混乱，CCPA 这样的语言热点 肯定也无济于事。 我们需要的是一种新的隐私分类法，这是一种讨论隐私的固定方法，可以为每个人提供一个共享的上下文，这些上下文和规则和参数即使不是结果，也可以相互理解。 这是一个过程，首先要改变我们期望和要求企业交流其工作方式的方式。 首先，必须要有大量的法文，令人费解的术语和拜占庭式的点击结构。 从面向消费者的角度来看，这仅仅是前提条件。

The only way that happens is if we change the way businesses think about privacy more generally. the conversations about privacy have to shift away from “what do we have to do about this privacy business” to “what do we have to do to make privacy our business.” That change is what GDPR was meant to inspire, but it has not materialized, even a little, as of yet. It’s more than just privacy by design, although PbD is absolutely essential. The real change is when businesses and individuals alike recognize that privacy doesn’t destroy the ability to deliver goods and services to individuals: we all bought things before our IoT toaster spied on us, we’ll continue to do so if the surveillance stops.

发生的唯一方法是，如果我们更广泛地改变企业对隐私的看法。 有关隐私的讨论必须从“我们必须对此隐私业务做些什么”转变为“我们必须做什么才能使 我们的业务隐私化。” 这一变化是GDPR所要激发的，但到目前为止尚未实现。 尽管PbD是绝对必要的，但不仅仅是设计上的隐私。 真正的变化是，当企业和个人都意识到隐私并没有破坏向个人交付商品和服务的能力时：我们都在物联网烤面包机受到监视之前就已经购买了东西，如果监控停止，我们将继续这样做。

This year, we’ll spend a fair amount of time talking about strategies for doing that, including promotion of verified answers, identifying sources of truth and trust, and delivering on easily-made privacy promises. For now, though, it starts with speaking the same language when it comes to privacy. When that happens, I’d be very interested in hearing what Facebook has to say.

今年，我们将花费大量时间讨论这样做的策略，包括推广经过验证的答案，确定真相和信任的来源以及兑现容易做出的隐私承诺。 不过，就隐私而言，目前首先讲相同的语言。 发生这种情况时，我会对听到Facebook的发言非常感兴趣。

Originally published at https://wardpllc.com on January 9, 2020.

最初于 2020年1月9日 在 https://wardpllc.com 上 发布 。