Original Link

This is a series of articles published by Kai Fu Lee. I did the translation after graduation from university in summer to learn more about the technology trend and practise my translation skill.

---

（又一次确认了，这是二十三篇文章的最后一篇。终于告一段落了。）

Translation of Kaifu Lee’s post on LinkedIn - Chinese Netizens React Strongly to Prism

李开复LinkedIn文章翻译之二十三 – 中国网民强烈反对棱镜计划

If you think Prism has made a mess in the US, you should see the reaction in China.

如果你觉得棱镜计划把美国搞得一团糟，你该看看中国的反应。

China has a very active Twitter-like “microblog” called Sina Weibo, with over 400 million registered. They actively discussed Prism and Snowden, with over two million postings and discussions. The overall tone was very clear - microbloggers were angry about the perceived hypocrisy, they were sympathetic to Snowden, and they were disillusioned about the US as a democratic role model.

中国有个非常活跃的像推特一样的“微博”叫做新浪微博，它有超过四亿的注册用户。他们积极地讨论棱镜计划和斯诺登，有超过两亿的各种发文和讨论。总体的论调是很清晰的 - 微博客们对所感觉到的虚伪很生气，他们对斯诺登表示同情，他们对美国的民主榜样再不抱有幻想。

The first reaction for most Chinese netizens was anger towards the US government. Prism was portrayed as a broad-scale surveillance project targeting “non-US citizens outside the US.” To them, this was a blatant invasion on their privacy committed by a foreign country which has no jurisdiction over them. Many microbloggers showed concern for the Chinese First Lady, who was photographed to be using an iPhone during her visit to the US. The microbloggers asked “Would the US government access her private data through Apple’s iCloud?”

大多数中国网民的第一反应是对美国政府表示愤怒。棱镜计划被描述成一个大范围的、针对“美国之外的非美国公民”的监测项目。对他们来说，这是由对他们无司法权的外国国家进行的一次对其隐私的公然侵犯。很多微博客对中国的第一夫人表示关心，她被拍到在美国访问时使用iPhone。这些微博客们问到，“美国政府会通过苹果公司的iCloud服务访问她的私人数据吗？”

The netizens also felt Prism revealed American hypocrisy. Just prior to the Prism news, the US pointed fingers at China for cyber-espionage. But through Prism, the US appears to be doing exactly what it accuses China of. Another recent report by Foreign Policy about NSA’s ultra secret China hacking group further exacerbated the matter. While media coverage was moderate, the most important state-owned media CCTV and Xinhua both covered the news, and the latter quoted Snowden saying that he “exposed the truth about America being the Hacker Empire.” These reports left little doubt in the microbloggers’ mind that the US was “one thief calling another thief.”

这些网民还觉得棱镜计划揭露了美国的伪善。就在棱镜相关的新闻之前，美国因为网络间谍的行为指责中国。但通过棱镜计划看起来，美国的所作所为正是他谴责中国的那些。外交政策报的另一则的报道，关于美国国家安全局极端秘密的针对中国的黑客组织，则进一步加重了事态。当媒体的报道范围还算适度的时候，最重要的国有媒体中国中央电视台和新华网都报道了这条新闻，后者还引用了斯诺登的话说他“曝光了美国才是黑客帝国的事实”。这些报道肯定了微博客认为美国是在“贼喊捉贼”的想法。

The issues above extended into a credibility crisis for the US government and even its founding principles and values. The US government is considered by the reform-minded Chinese netizens as the role model for protecting human rights and freedom of speech. And the Chinese blogosphere is often enlivened with heated debates between the hardliners vs. the reformers about whether the US government and its founding principles and values were applicable to China. In this case, the hardliners gained an upper hand, and pushed to question: Whatever happened to protecting human rights? How can you trust this hypocrite? Does this demonstrate that the system of democracy, “checks and balances”, “due process” and “rule of law” has failed? The blasting caused further collateral damage, as the hardliners challenged Google, Microsoft, Apple products – might your beloved product be secretly handing your information to the CIA? The US government’s irresponsiveness didn’t help elucidate whether this situation was a terrorist-targeting project, an isolated event, or a systemic breakdown. So the reformers generally remained quiet as the hardliners piled on sarcastic comments and insults.

以上的这些事件延伸到了美国政府的信用，甚至是它创立时的原则和价值观的危机问题。美国政府被有意改革的中国网民认作是保护人权和言论自由的榜样。而且，中国的博客圈经常由于强硬派和改革派之间关于美国的建国原则和价值观是否适用中国的热烈讨论而活跃。在这件事里，强硬派占了上风，并推出了这一疑问：到底对保护人权做了些什么？你们怎么能相信这种伪善？这些证明民主系统，“分权制衡”， “诉讼程序”和“法治”，已经失败了吗？这些打击同时还带来一些伤害，因为强硬派怀疑了谷歌，微软，苹果的产品 - 你挚爱的产品可能在把你的信息偷偷发给美国中情局？美国政府的不回应没有帮助说明这个情况是针对恐怖分子的项目，一个单独的事件，又或是系统的崩溃。所以改革派总体上在强硬派各种讽刺和侮辱的同时保持了沉默。

Naturally, then, the great majority of the netizens were sympathetic to Snowden, feeling that he was a righteous whistleblower who had the courage to expose a conspiracy. Quite a few netizens called Snowden a hero. Netizens eagerly discussed and admired how he gave up a $200,000 salary and a beautiful girlfriend. They even gossiped about his modeling career and his good looks. Ironically, there were almost no mention of how he broke the law and his contractual promise to the US government. 81% of the microbloggers supported China to offer Snowden asylum, and only 3% supported extraditing him back to the US.

自然地，绝大部分网民接下来对斯诺登表示了同情，觉得他是一个正直的、有勇气曝光阴谋的告密者。有不少的网民称他为英雄。网民们热切地讨论和佩服他是如何放弃了二十万美元的薪水和他美丽的女友。他们甚至还八卦他的模特事业和他有多帅。讽刺地是，几乎没有人提到他如何破坏法律以及他和美国政府之间达成的合同。百分之八十一的微博客支持中国给斯诺登提供政治避难，只有百分之三支持将他遣返回美国。

Finally, a small number of netizens pondered global and China implications. Did the digital age and network technologies give all governments a powerful and irresistible tool to violate netizens’ privacy and freedom? How far can “national security and citizenship safety” go to justify invasion of privacy? If a system like the US, with checks and balances, could do something like Prism, how far might other governments go? Is at least the Western free media worthy of praise, as they acted as government watchdogs without fear of retribution? These issued were raised but quickly buried by the furious discussions about espionage, hypocrisy, heroism, and disillusionment.

最后呢，一小部分的网民仔细考虑了该事件对全球和中国的启示。数字时代和网络技术给了所有政府一个强有力的、无法抵抗的侵犯网民隐私和自由的工具吗？国家安全和公民安全到何种程度才算是侵犯隐私？如果一个像美国一样的系统，有着分权制衡体系，都能做出像棱镜项目这样的事，其他的政府又会做到什么程度？西方的自由媒体，因为表现得像不怕报复的政府监督人，就值得赞扬吗？这些问题被提出来，但又迅速被关于间谍，虚伪和不抱幻想的激烈讨论给淹没了。

At this point US government needs to respond with a comprehensive response.

• Was Prism lawful? If so, is something wrong with the law; if not, who broke the law to implement it?
• What was the role of the companies? How can their denial be reconciled with Snowden’s allegations?
• Who were targeted by Prism? Was the program broad or narrow?
• What steps and actions would the US government take to calm people’s fear for invasion of their privacy, and restore people’s faith in the US government?

在这个节骨眼儿上，美国政府需要做出全面的回应。

• 棱镜项目合法吗？如果合法，是法律存在问题吗；如果不是，是谁逾越了法律去实施它？
• 这些公司的角色是什么？他们的否认和斯诺登的指控两者之间该如何解释？
• 棱镜项目针对哪些人？这个项目是广泛的还是狭窄的？
• 美国政府会以什么步骤，用什么行动来使人们对侵犯自身隐私的恐惧镇定下来，并重建人们对其的信任？

A lucid and no-nonsense response by the US government is imperative, not just to address domestic skepticism, but to avoid global distrust; not just to close the allegations toward one project, but to open a process to protect human rights in the digital age.

美国政府透明且实际的回应势在必行，不止是强调国内的质疑，还要避免全球范围的不信任；不止是关闭对一个项目的指控，还要开启数字时代保护人权的进程。