隱私將成為科技公司競爭優(yōu)勢

In the 21st century digital economy, personal data has become the most valuable resource for nearly every business. But the technology companies that mine it may soon have to define whether they are data peddlers or data stewards. Are they tracking us and selling our personal information to the highest bidder, as both Google and Facebook do? Or do they have a different business model, one in which data can be monetised in a way that leaves them less open to public criticism and the possibility of increased regulation?

在21世紀(jì)數(shù)字經(jīng)濟中，個人數(shù)據(jù)已成為幾乎所有業(yè)務(wù)最寶貴的資源。不過那些挖掘個人數(shù)據(jù)的科技公司可能很快就需要對自己做出界定：它們到底是兜售數(shù)據(jù)的商販，還是管理數(shù)據(jù)的管理員?它們是像谷歌(Google)和Facebook那樣，追蹤我們并將我們的個人信息販賣給出價最高者?還是它們有不同的商業(yè)模式，在該模式下它們可以利用這些數(shù)據(jù)創(chuàng)造收入，而不那么容易受到公眾批評，也不太可能面臨更嚴(yán)格的監(jiān)管?

Over the last two weeks, both Apple and IBM have launched public relations efforts to position themselves in the latter camp. Apple rolled out a new privacy website to better showcase features that it believes differentiate the company from competitors such as Google, including algorithmic searching that works at the level of individual devices rather than in the “cloud”, giving users more control over what the company can see.

不久前，蘋果(Apple)和IBM都展開了公關(guān)行動，將自己歸入后一陣營。蘋果推出了一個新的隱私網(wǎng)站，以更好地展示一些它認(rèn)為將自己與谷歌等公司區(qū)分開來的特性，包括在單個設(shè)備而不是“云端”層面運行的搜索算法，讓用戶對蘋果能看到什么擁有更大控制權(quán)。

Meanwhile, Ginni Rometty, IBM’s chief executive, met with European commissioners and members of the European Parliament to announce a new set of data principles and practices aimed at increasing trust in Big Tech. These included a pledge never to turn over client data to any government surveillance program in any country, as well as a promise that clients will own not only the rights to their end data, but to any algorithmic “learning” from it.

同一時間，IBM首席執(zhí)行官羅睿蘭(Ginni Rometty)與歐盟委員會(European Commission)和歐洲議會(European Parliament)的成員會面，公布了一套新的旨在提高科技巨擘(Big Tech)受信任度的數(shù)據(jù)原則和實踐，其中還包括一項承諾：永遠不會將客戶數(shù)據(jù)交給任何國家的任何政府監(jiān)控計劃，同時承諾客戶不僅對其終端數(shù)據(jù)享有權(quán)利，還對任何源自其終端數(shù)據(jù)的算法“學(xué)習(xí)成果”也享有權(quán)利。

The clear and very interesting message is that in a world in which companies have more personal information about us than ever before, and hold data that can be used in myriad nefarious ways (à la the Russia-Facebook scandal), privacy has become a competitive advantage.

這些行動傳遞了一條明確且有趣的信息：在這個時代，企業(yè)對我們個人數(shù)據(jù)的掌握超過了以往任何時候，而且其所掌握的數(shù)據(jù)可能有無數(shù)種不法用途(參見俄羅斯-Facebook丑聞)，隱私已成為一大競爭優(yōu)勢。

“We’re entering an era in which data can be used to solve all sorts of the most pressing problems, but only if there’s trust in how that data has been handled,” Ms Rometty told me in a phone interview last week. “We see ourselves as stewards of clients’ data. And we don’t need to be regulated to do the right thing. We’ve been doing the right thing for a hundred years.”

羅睿蘭不久前在電話采訪中向我表示：“我們正進入一個用數(shù)據(jù)能解決一切最緊迫問題的時代，但前提是人們必須信任數(shù)據(jù)得到處理的方式。我們將自己看做客戶數(shù)據(jù)的管家。而且我們無需被監(jiān)管著去做正確的事情，一百年來我們一直在做正確的事。”

The comment was a clear swipe at Google and Facebook, both of which have been fined by national privacy watchdogs for their data collection methods, as well as a reference to new UK and EU regulations, such as the General Data Protection Regulation, that will make it tougher for companies to process, sell, or allow third-party access to personal data without consumers’ explicit consent. But it was also a new kind of marketing pitch: in a world in which most economic value is going to live in intellectual property, we are not only going to protect that value, we are going to offer a greater share of profits from it to clients.

這番話明顯是對谷歌和Facebook的暗諷——兩家公司都曾因其數(shù)據(jù)收集方式被國家隱私監(jiān)管機構(gòu)處以罰款——此外也意指《歐盟一般數(shù)據(jù)保護條例》(EU General Data Protection Regulation)等英國和歐盟的新法規(guī)。這些法規(guī)將令企業(yè)更難在未獲消費者明確同意情況下處理、銷售、以及允許第三方訪問個人數(shù)據(jù)。但這番話也是一種新的營銷手段：在這個知識產(chǎn)權(quán)蘊含最大經(jīng)濟價值的時代，我們不僅要保護這一價值，而且還要將從中獲得的更大一部分利潤提供給客戶。

How would this work in practice? IBM, which serves mainly other businesses and governments, is now pitching the fact that they won’t keep any proprietary data in their servers for more than a specified contract period, and that the informational wealth garnered from using artificial intelligence to analyse that data would be owned by the clients themselves. For example, if a national health service gave IBM health records, the company could not then monetise information about the fact that certain populations in certain parts of the country have higher than average cancer rates.

這將如何實現(xiàn)呢?IBM——主要為企業(yè)和政府服務(wù)——現(xiàn)在正大力宣傳該公司不會超出具體合約期限在其服務(wù)器中保留任何專有數(shù)據(jù)，而且用人工智能分析這些數(shù)據(jù)所獲得的信息財富也將歸客戶自己所有。例如，如果一個國家衛(wèi)生服務(wù)機構(gòu)向IBM提供了健康檔案，那么IBM就不能利用該國某些地區(qū)某些人群癌癥發(fā)病率高于平均水平的信息獲取收益。

That’s a very different model than Google’s or Facebook’s — those companies are basically highly-targeted advertising businesses which make nearly all their money selling as much specific information about individual users as possible.

這與谷歌或Facebook的模式大不相同，這兩家公司基本上是精準(zhǔn)定向的廣告公司，它們的收入幾乎完全來自盡可能多地銷售個人用戶的具體信息。

Likewise, Apple, which is a consumer business, is touting a technique known as “differential privacy”. This allows the company to gain insights into what users are doing, while preserving a certain amount of privacy by mathematically transforming the data before it leaves a user’s device, in such a way that Apple can’t associate the data it receives with any particular user. The data are used to improve the devices and services that are sold within the Apple ecosystem rather than to send customers hyper-targeted ads from other businesses that they had no idea were getting their data to begin with. That is, again, quite a different business model than the Google/Facebook approach.

與之類似，身為消費品公司的蘋果也在推銷一種被稱為“差分隱私”(differential privacy)的技術(shù)。利用該技術(shù)，蘋果可以了解用戶正在做什么，同時在數(shù)據(jù)離開用戶設(shè)備前用算法對數(shù)據(jù)進行轉(zhuǎn)化，從而保留一定的隱私。通過差分隱私算法，蘋果無法將其接收到的數(shù)據(jù)與任何特定用戶相關(guān)聯(lián)。這些數(shù)據(jù)被用于改進蘋果生態(tài)系統(tǒng)內(nèi)銷售的設(shè)備和服務(wù)，而不是用來向消費者發(fā)送他們一開始就不知道會獲得自己數(shù)據(jù)的其他企業(yè)的精準(zhǔn)定向廣告。這是又一種與谷歌或Facebook大不相同的商業(yè)模式。

Does all of this address the questions I’ve raised numerous times in this column about Big Tech’s oversized economic and political power? Yes and no. Apple’s business model doesn’t lend itself to influencing an election like Russia attempted to do in the US via Facebook. It’s also great to hear Tim Cook say that he believes “privacy is a fundamental human right”. But I don’t get the sense that the company has any deep view about how to better share profits within the tech ecosystem (see its battles with Qualcomm and other suppliers). And I don’t expect them to stop offshoring cash anytime soon.

那么，上述這些做法解決了我在專欄中無數(shù)次提出過的關(guān)于科技巨擘經(jīng)濟和政治影響力過大的問題嗎?答案既是肯定的又是否定的。蘋果的商業(yè)模式讓人無法像俄羅斯試圖利用Facebook影響美國大選那樣，利用它去影響一場大選。聽到蒂姆•庫克(Tim Cook)說他認(rèn)為“隱私是一項基本人權(quán)”也是件令人振奮的事。但我不覺得該公司對如何改善科技生態(tài)系統(tǒng)內(nèi)的利潤分享有任何深刻見解(從它跟高通(Qualcomm)及其他供應(yīng)商的斗爭就能看出)。而且我也不覺得它會在不遠的未來停止離岸存放現(xiàn)金。

IBM is in some ways a more interesting case study in whether the digital economy can avoid becoming a zero-sum game. While the power of Watson’s artificial intelligence has been overblown, the idea of simply and explicitly saying to customers “you own the data, and you own the learning” is unique, and, to the extent that clients can really monetise that learning, impactful. Either way, it’s good PR, and that’s certainly something that Big Tech could do with these days.

就數(shù)字經(jīng)濟是否能避免成為一場零和游戲的問題來說，IBM在某種程度上是一個更有趣的案例。雖然“沃森”(Watson)的人工智能的威力被夸大了，但這種直接明確地向客戶說出“你擁有這些數(shù)據(jù)，而且你擁有學(xué)習(xí)成果”的觀念是獨特的，且就客戶可以真正地將這些學(xué)習(xí)成果變現(xiàn)這一點而言，該觀念的影響更是深遠的。不管怎么說，這都是一次優(yōu)秀的公關(guān)，正是眼下科技巨擘所需要的。