Rules for the Digital Pano英文翻譯

Of late, the U. S. government gets most of the attention in this arena, and for good reason. The National Security Agency, through its vast capacity to track virtually every phone call, e-mail, and text message, promises new forms of preemption through a system security experts call persistent surveillance.

Some activists complain about the potential of such a system to violate basic freedoms, including the right to privacy. But others will be seduced by the lure of techno fixes. For example, how could anyone object to a digital net that protects a school from abusive predators?
Ad hoc surveillance will inevitably proliferate. Dropcam and other cheap surveillance programs, already popular among the tech-savvy, will spread widely. DIY and vigilante panopticons will complicate matters. Imagine someone like George ­Zimmerman, the Florida neighborhood watchman, equipped not with a gun but with a digital surveillance net, allowing him to track pretty much anything—on his smartphone.
With data multiplying exponentially and technology inexorably advancing, the question is not whether an all-encompassing surveillance systems will be deployed. The question is how, when, and how many.

In the absence of settled laws and norms, the role of engineers looms large. They will shoulder much of the burden of designing systems in ways that limit the damage to innocents while maximizing the pressures brought to bear on bad guys.
But where do the responsibilities of ­engineers begin and end?
It is too early to answer conclusively, but engineers would do well to keep a few fundamental principles in mind:
Keep humans in the loop, but insist they follow the “rules of the road.” Compiling and analyzing data can be done by machines. But it would be best to design these surveillance systems so that a human reviews and ponders the data before any irreversible actions are taken. If citizens want to spy on one another, as they inevitably will, impose binding rules on how they do so.