歐洲對待間諜技術的道德困境

Europe's politicians are outraged about alleged US monitoring of EU telephone and computer communications. But when it comes to building and exporting spy equipment, few are as capable as Europe.

對於美國涉嫌監控歐盟(EU)電話和電腦通信，歐洲政界感到非常惱火。但要說製造和出口間諜設備的能力，沒有多少地方能趕得上歐洲。

That much was evident last month when the world's leading sellers of electronic surveillance technology gathered in Prague at the ISS World trade show. Police and spy agency officials listened to closed-door presentations by a succession of European companies about their sophisticated internet and telephone interception wares.

這一點在上個月表現得非常明顯。其時，世界頂尖的電子監控技術銷售商雲集布拉格，參加情報支持系統世界(ISS World)貿易展。展會上，來自警界和間諜機構的官員聽取了由一系列歐洲企業所作的不公開報告，介紹它們生產的各種複雜的互聯網和電話竊聽產品。

Hacking Team, a Milan-based maker of eavesdropping software, demonstrated its remotely controlled spyware that can tap encrypted communications, Skype calls and instant messenger chats.

總部位於米蘭的竊聽軟件開發商Hacking Team展示了自己的遠程控制間諜軟件，該軟件可以竊聽加密通訊、Skype通話及即時通信工具上的聊天。

Munich-based Trovicor schooled agents on its “cell-based monitoring solution” to handle mass recordings, while Gamma International, an Anglo-German company, demonstrated its “FinFisher” spyware tool for remotely monitoring mobile phone communications.

總部位於慕尼黑的Trovicor向特工們展示瞭如何使用其“基於蜂窩系統的監控解決方案”來處理海量記錄。而英德合資公司Gamma International則展示了一款可用於遠程監聽手機通信的間諜工具“FinFisher”。

At a time when European countries are loudly condemning the US and UK's spying activities, Europe's spy technology expertise is a potential source of embarrassment.

在歐洲國家高聲譴責美英的間諜活動之際，歐洲在間諜技術方面掌握的專業知識可能會令其陷入尷尬。

Privacy activists and politicians fear that, if left unregulated, sales of European surveillance technology could infringe human rights overseas, as well as damaging the cyber security of Europeans.

主張保護隱私的活動人士及政界人士擔心，如果不加監管，歐洲監控技術的銷售可能不僅會侵犯其他地區的人權，還會破壞歐洲的網絡安全。

Marietje Schaake, a Dutch MEP who has campaigned for better export controls on surveillance technology, says: “We in the EU must ensure we practise what we preach.”

來自荷蘭的歐洲議會議員(MEP)馬利耶特捷•沙克(Marietje Schaake)一直爲加強對監控技術出口的控制展開活動。他表示：“歐盟必須確保言行一致。”

Almost all countries have rules requiring telecommunications companies to build in functionality that enables law enforcement to monitor electronic communications, subject to a warrant. This statutory right is known in the business as “lawful interception”.

幾乎所有國家都設有法規，要求無線通信企業內置功能模塊，令執法部門能依照許可監視電子通信。這種法定權利在商業上被稱爲“合法監聽”。

The US has by far the biggest national budget for surveillance technology but tends to buy large bespoke surveillance systems from US contractors. US tech start-ups often receive NSA/CIA funding and are discouraged from selling overseas, says Jerry Lucas, organiser of the Prague event. This means more than 50 per cent of the almost $6bn a year market for off-the-shelf surveillance equipment is controlled by western European companies, according to Mr Lucas.

美國在監控技術方面投入的國民預算迄今遠遠超過其他國家，但美國通常從本國的合同商那裏採購大型定製監控系統。在布拉格舉行的貿易展組織者傑瑞•盧卡斯(Jerry Lucas)表示，美國的初創技術公司經常從美國國家安全局(NSA)或中央情報局(CIA)那裏得到資助，而且美國不鼓勵這些公司向海外出售產品。根據盧卡斯的說法，這意味着每年近60億美元的非定製監控設備市場超過一半的份額被西歐企業控制。

“It's not helpful to say that all surveillance is bad – think about how it can be used to deal with child porn, organised crime or terrorism,” said a European vendor who declined to be identified.

一名拒絕透露身份的歐洲生產商表示：“說監控一無是處是沒什麼用的——我們應該考慮如何讓這種技術在打擊涉及兒童的色情作品、有組織犯罪或恐怖主義方面發揮作用。”

Lawful interception becomes controversial when governments use it to commit crime rather than fight it. “In countries with no regulation, interception can be used by governments to secure power by spying on its citizens,” Frost & Sullivan, the consultancy, noted in a 2011 study.

當政府用合法監聽來犯罪（而不是打擊犯罪）時，合法監聽就會引發爭議。諮詢公司Frost & Sullivan在2011年發佈的一份研究報告中指出：“在沒有監管的國家，政府可能會利用監聽技術來監視本國公民，以維護自己的權力。”

When protesters stormed security service headquarters during the Arab Spring uprisings, they often found secret police had purchased European surveillance technology to monitor protesters.

在阿拉伯之春(Arab Spring)反政府暴動期間，當抗議者猛攻安全部門總部時，他們經常發現，那些祕密警察購買了歐洲的監控技術來監視抗議者。

Amesys, a French company formerly owned by Bull Group, sold its Eagle internet analysis software to Colonel Muammer Gaddafi's Libya in 2007 and was sued by the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) for alleged complicity in torture. The claim is being contested.

曾屬於布爾集團(Bull Group)的法國公司阿梅希思(Amesys)，在2007年曾將自己的一款名爲Eagle的互聯網分析軟件賣給穆阿邁爾•卡扎菲(Muammer Gaddafi)統治下的利比亞。該公司後因涉嫌“共犯酷刑”(complicity in torture)被國際人權聯盟(FIDH)起訴。訴訟目前正在進行中。

Bull last year divested the unit and explained it signed the Libya contract during a period of Libyan rapprochement with the west. Bull says its business dealings complied with international requirements and firmly denies complicity in torture.

去年布爾集團出售了阿梅希思，並解釋說，該公司是在利比亞與西方恢復友好關係期間與該國簽訂的合同。布爾表示其商業運作符合國際法規定，並堅決否認曾“助紂爲虐”。

In spite of these problems Mr Lucas says business is booming: “The public relations issues have not hurt the industry. It has created more demand.”

儘管出現了上述問題，盧卡斯表示，公司的業務仍在增長：“公關問題並未損害這一行業。需求增加了。”

Mr Lucas does not allow attendees from Iran, North Korea or Syria at his trade shows but otherwise he claims ethical concerns are “not our responsibility”.

盧卡斯不允許來自伊朗、朝鮮或敘利亞的人蔘加他的貿易展，不過除此之外，他聲稱，道德問題“不是我們的責任”。

“We say: here are the tech products. What countries do with the technology they buy, that's up to them to decide.”

“我們不過是說：這裏有技術產品出售。至於各國要用買到的技術幹什麼，那是他們自己說了算的。”

Hacking Team does not sell to countries blacklisted by international organisations such as the EU, Nato and the US. In addition, an independent external board takes potential human rights issues into account before approving a sale.

Hacking Team不會將產品賣給被歐盟(EU)和北約(NATO)等國際組織、以及美國列入黑名單的國家。此外，在批准一筆銷售之前，會有一個獨立的外部委員會負責權衡潛在的人權問題。

Europe and the US block the sale of surveillance technology to Syria and Iran, but activists say export restrictions do not go nearly far enough.

歐美禁止將監控技術出售給敘利亞和伊朗，不過活動人士表示，目前對監控技術出口的限制還遠遠不夠。

Eric King, head of research at Privacy International, says: “Lawful interception can only happen when there is the rule of law. [The export of] arms, weapons, bulletproof vests – even flares – are controlled. But surveillance equipment is not. And in the wrong hands this technology is just as dangerous.”

隱私國際(Privacy International)研究部門主管埃裏克•金(Eric King)表示：“只有在法律法規存在的情況下才會存在合法監聽。軍火、武器、防彈衣甚至信號彈（的出口）都是受控的。但監控設備卻不受控。而這種技術如果被邪惡勢力掌握會造成同樣大的危害。”

The European parliament in October endorsed a proposal by Ms Schaake that would oblige EU companies to ask for export authorisation if they had reason to believe the export might infringe human rights or EU strategic interests. However, it has not yet become law.

歐洲議會(European Parliament)十月批准了沙克提出的一項議案，該議案將強制性要求歐盟企業在有理由相信某項出口可能侵犯人權或歐盟戰略利益的情況下，必須申請該項出口的授權。不過，這一提案還未成爲法律。

But apart from Ms Schaake, few European politicians appear to have recognised that the prolific export of surveillance technology also poses a direct threat to the continent's security. It was James Clapper, US director of national intelligence, who told the US Senate in March foreign governments were using surveillance technologies marketed for “lawful interception” to target US systems.

但除沙克以外，歐洲政界似乎已經意識到監控技術的大量出口會直接歐洲大陸自身安全的人寥寥無幾。提出這個問題的人是美國國家情報總監詹姆斯•克拉珀(James Clapper)：他在3月份向美國參議院(Senate)表示，外國政府正將矛頭對準美國的系統，使用就是那些以“合法監聽”名義銷售的監控技術。

“It seems strange to turn a blind eye to selling hacking technology when European governments are at the same time investing in cyber security defence,” says Christopher Soghoian, a security and privacy researcher at the American Civil Liberties Union.

美國公民自由聯盟(American Civil Liberties Union)研究安全與隱私問題的研究員克里斯托弗•索戈揚(Christopher Soghoian)表示：“奇怪的是，歐洲政府一方面對出售黑客技術睜一隻眼閉一隻眼，另一方面又大力投資於網絡安全防護。

“The government claims to be protecting civilians' data and domestic businesses from foreign attack. But . . . this industry is in direct conflict with that goal.”

“政府聲稱它在保護公民的數據以及本國企業不受外國攻擊。然而……這一行業與該目標直接衝突。”