The sophisticated encryption software that now comes as standard with many electronic gadgets¹ is, in many ways, just another instrument of modern life. Like air travel, international banking² and mobile telephones, it contributes to all kinds of productive human endeavour³ — and also presents new security risks. But there is a difference. Its rapid and organic growth left little scope for regulatory control and balance.

从许多方面来说，那些如今已成为许多电子设备标准配置的精密加密软件，不过是现代生活中的又一个工具而已。和航空旅行、国际银行结算以及移动电话一样，这种软件也在为人类的各种生产活动作出贡献——同时也带来了新的安全隐患。不过不同的是，加密软件迅速而有机的增长，几乎没有为监管控制和平衡留下多少余地。

The police are sometimes characterised as despotic agents of digital repression⁴. That is wrong. I have never believed that encryption should be banned; it is a fundamental part of how the internet works. But its utility and effectiveness, like that of the internet as a whole, also creates significant criminal opportunity by masking identity and hiding communication.

有的时候，警方会被描述为进行数字镇压的专制机构。这种说法是错误的。我从来不认为应该禁止加密技术的使用，它是确保互联网运转的基础之一。但是，通过屏蔽身份和隐藏通信内容，对加密技术的运用及其有效性也催生了巨大的犯罪机会——这一点和互联网整体的情况类似。

Other innovations that have multiplied the freedoms of modern life were the product of democratic deliberation, and incorporated security by design. When telephones were introduced, a set of balanced legal instruments gave police the power to intercept⁵ them. Financial institutions have become more complex, but they are compelled to operate strong anti-money laundering⁶ controls.

相比之下，其他成倍扩大现代生活自由的创新都是民主深思的成果，从设计之初就植入了安全方面的考虑。当电话进入人类生活的时候，一系列相应的法律文件赋予了警方拦截电话的权力。同样，金融机构也已变得更加复杂，但是它们被强制要求实施了严密的反洗钱控制。

When Europe’s Schengen agreement abolished internal border controls in the 1990s, measures designed to increase cross-border police co-operation were adopted at the same time, so the system would not be undermined by enterprising drug traffickers and terrorists. The development of the internet has been different.

上世纪90年代，当欧洲《申根协定》(Schengen Agreement)废除欧洲内部的边境管控之时，多种旨在加强警方跨境合作的举措也同时引入。这样，整个系统就不会因胆大妄为的毒品贩子和恐怖分子而遭到削弱。相比之下，互联网的发展则与上述情况不同。

This is not really about privacy. People accept the imposition of reasonable controls on the way they drive, take flights, and conduct banking transactions.

这个问题实际上与隐私无关。比如，在如何开车、乘坐飞机及开展银行交易的问题上，人们对实行合理管控是接受的。

Why should the internet, alone in the territories in which we live our lives, be one in which rules do not apply. It should not, of course. We have to craft rules that will operate in a balanced way.

那么，同样是在我们生活的领域内，为何单单互联网应成为法外之地？显然不应该。我们必须精心设计法律法规，让它们平衡地起作用。

That has proved to be a challenge. The European Court of Justice last year struck down a law that would have required telecommunications companies to store data on the use of their networks. Yet it accepted that police should have access to communications data. It decided⁷ that the safeguards, as drafted, were not enough to ensure police did not overstep the mark. This is just a matter of technical design. It will be fixed⁸.

事实已经证明，要做到这一点是一大挑战。去年，欧洲法院(European Court of Justice)驳回了一条法规，该法规要求电信公司将自己网络使用情况的数据存储起来。不过，该法院承认警方应有权访问通信数据。该法院裁定，这个法规草案中的保护性条款不足以确保警方不过线。这个问题其实只是个技术层面的问题，它应该会得到解决。

There are promising⁹ signs that technology companies are willing to work in partnership¹⁰ with the police. Some leading companies are helping¹¹ us to set up a system for removing terrorist content online. But at the same time, the industry’s most recent innovations on encryption have made the task of the security services harder. They may not be deliberately¹² making police work more difficult, but they are not showing much appetite for accommodation¹³ either.

许多令人充满信心的证据显示，高科技企业愿意与警方合作。部分主要企业正在帮助我们建立在线删除恐怖主义内容的系统。然而，与此同时，信息产业内加密技术上的最新创新已经令安保任务变得更加困难。这些技术创新的用意也许不是要故意加大警方的工作难度，但它们也没有显示出太多配合警方的意愿。

Some argue that technology companies should be required to give the authorities a backdoor key, to allow encryption to be broken. Clearly, engineering deliberate security vulnerabilities in our digital systems has some serious downsides.

有的人声称，应该要求高科技企业向当局提交后门秘钥，以便让当局能够破解相关加密技术。显然，在数字化系统中故意留下安全漏洞，会带来某些严重的不利影响。

And it is a principle implacably opposed by most in the tech sector¹⁴. The divide on the issue is symptomatic of a serious decline in the level of trust between government and industry partners, fuelled in particular by the revelations of Edward Snowden about National Security Agency surveillance. This does not serve public interest well.

不过，高科技产业中的多数人对这一原则抱持的是毫不妥协的反对态度。围绕这个问题的分歧，体现出政府与业界合作伙伴间的信任程度严重下降。而爱德华•斯诺登(Edward Snowden)有关美国国家安全局(NSA)监控活动的爆料，更是令双方信任的下滑进一步加剧。这种局面对公众的利益并没有太大好处。

The digital age has changed our way of life but police teams are still in the same business of preventing crime, tracking offenders¹⁵ and securing evidence with which to convict them. It is just that, these days, much of the information needed to do that is in the hands of the private companies that run online services. To do our job, we need to earn their trust. Together, we can keep the internet both a free and safe part of our lives.

数字化时代改变了我们的生活方式，然而警方团队的职责依然是阻止犯罪、跟踪罪犯并获取用来指控罪犯的证据。问题在于，如今在履行上述职责时所需的许多信息，掌握在运营网络服务的私有企业手中。为履行职责，我们必须赢得他们的信任。通过双方通力合作，我们将能确保互联网成为人们生活中自由而又安全的一部分。