只要没暴露，监听就是好买卖

    这种反差形成的讽刺让我们不得不想起以华为（Huawei）为代表的中国公司。华为是全球第二大电信和网络设备提供商。华为在美国这个全球最大的电信市场上基本没有站住脚，人们担心像华为这样一家中国公司有可能会控制美国信息的动向。上周在成都召开的财富全球论坛（Fortune Global Forum）上，华为副总裁兼轮值CEO郭平对《华尔街日报》（Wall Street Journal ）表示：“我们在美国电信设备市场基本上没有业务，所以如果他们有安全问题，一定不是从我们这里来的。”

    对美国科技巨头来说，更直接的威胁可能来自内部。这些企业有多少员工像斯诺登一样，又有多少员工支持电子自由基金会（Electronic Freedom Foundatio，一个帮助网络信息匿名化的在线平台），支持像Tor这样的翻墙工具，有多少人在社会新闻网站Reddit上花时间，又有多少人像斯诺登这样，“不想生活在一个没有隐私的世界里，导致没有智力爆发和创造力的空间”？我们还得等多久，才能等到下一个有高级权限的低级员工走出来？另外一个不得不重提的问题是，“钥匙”到底有几把。既然这么多人都拥有权限，怎么可能保证它的安全性呢？

    此次NSA泄密事件勾勒出了一个想获取尽可能多的数据的特务机构的嘴脸，同时它也证明，安全并不一定意味着更多的数据。收集这些信息，需要很多公司的很多人共同参与和分析。对于那个装满我们的个人信息的邮箱来说，拿钥匙的人太多了。当秘密还是秘密的时候，这场由政府支持的大规模间谍活动可能是桩好生意（不过也有很多人指出，种种迹象已经存在好几年了）。但是现在秘密已经大白于天下，或许我们应该重新思考一下商界介入美国政府监控事宜的方式。（财富中文网）

    译者：朴成奎

    The irony of such concern is not lost on Chinese companies like Huawei, the world's second-largest supplier of telecom and Internet gear. Huawei has barely made a dent in the U.S. market, the largest telecom market in the world. The reason, of course, is the fear of a company based in China -- a country actively engaged in hacking and sifting through its citizens data -- controlling the movement of American's information. At the Fortune Global Forum in Chengdulast week, Guo Ping, Huawei's deputy chairman (one of three executives who rotate through the CEO post), told the Wall Street Journal that "We are basically not present in the U.S. telecom equipment market ... So if they have security problems they are not coming from us."

    A more immediate threat to the U.S. tech giants may come from within. How many of these companies' employees are like Snowden and support the Electronic Freedom Foundation and Tor -- an online platform that helps anonymize Internet information -- and spend time on Reddit and believe, like Snowden, that they "don't want to live in a world where there's no privacy and therefore no room for intellectual exploration and creativity?" How long before another one of these high-access, low-level employees steps forward? It's a question, again, of the number of keys, and how effective security can possibly be when so many seem to have access.

    The NSA leaks paint a picture of an agency trying to capture as much data as possible. But the leaks have also proven that better security does not necessarily equal bigger data. Gathering all this information requires the participation of so many people in so many companies to analyze it. So many keys to that mailbox filled with our personal information. A massive, government-backed spying effort may have been great for business when it was still secret (though, as many have pointed out, the hints have been there for years). Now that it's public, it may well be time to rethink how we involve U.S. businesses in government surveillance.