評論
打印
Any fair-minded assessment of the dangers of the deal between Britain's National Health Service (NHS) and DeepMind must start by acknowledging that both sides mean well.
任何對英國國家醫療服務體系（NHS）和深度思考公司之間交易的危險性的公正評估必須首先要承認，雙方的初衷都是好的。
DeepMind is one of the leading artificial intelligence (AI) companies in the world.
深度思考公司是全球領先的人工智能公司之一。
The potential of this work applied to healthcare is very great, but it could also lead to further concentration of power in the tech giants.
人工智能應用于衛生保健領域的前景可觀，但這也可能致使科技巨頭的權力進一步集中。
It is against that background that the information commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, has issued her damning verdict against the Royal Free hospital trust under the NHS,
而在這一背景下，信息專員伊麗莎白·德納姆卻發表了她對NHS皇家自由醫院信托的裁決，
which handed over to DeepMind the records of 1.6 million patients in 2015 on the basis of a vague agreement which took far too little account of the patients' rights and their expectations of privacy.
譴責NHS基于一份措辭含糊的協議，在2015年把160萬名患者的記錄交給了深度思考公司，這份協議幾乎沒有考慮到患者的權利和他們所期待的隱私權。
DeepMind has almost apologized. The NHS trust has mended its ways.
深度思考公司已基本致歉，NHS信托也做出了更正。
Further arrangements - and there may be many - between the NHS and DeepMind will be carefully scrutinised to ensure that all necessary permissions have been asked of patients and all unnecessary data has been cleaned.
NHS和深度思考公司進一步的安排（也許會有很多）都將接受詳細審查，確保向患者征求必要的許可，還要清除掉所有不必要的數據。
There are lessons about informed patient consent to learn.
我們應該從給過往的患者同意事件中吸取教訓。
But privacy is not the only angle in this case and not even the most important.
但隱私并不是該案例涉及的唯一問題，甚至都不是最重要的一個問題。
Ms Denham chose to concentrate the blame on the NHS trust, since under existing law it "controlled" the data and DeepMind merely "processed" it.
德納姆女士認為，根據現有法律，“掌控”數據的是NHS，而深度思考公司只是“處理”數據，因此NHS信托應該負主要責任。
But this distinction misses the point that it is processing and aggregation, not the mere possession of bits, that gives the data value.
但這一差別忽略了一個事實：給予數據價值的是處理與整合，而不是對數據的簡單占有。
The great question is who should benefit from the analysis of all the data that our lives now generate.
最重要的問題是，誰應該從分析我們生活中獲取的所有數據之中獲益。
Privacy law builds on the concept of damage to an individual from identifiable knowledge about them.
隱私法建立在損害個人的概念之上，正是他們的身份信息遭到損害。
That misses the way the surveillance economy works.
這忽略了經濟監督的運行方式。
The data of an individual there gains its value only when it is compared with the data of countless millions more.
只有與大量數據進行對比時，個人數據才有價值。
The use of privacy law to curb the tech giants in this instance feels slightly maladapted.
本案中用隱私法限制科技巨頭似乎稍顯牽強。
This practice does not address the real worry.
這種做法并不能真正地消除憂慮。
It is not enough to say that the algorithms DeepMind develops will benefit patients and save lives.
至今還沒有證據能夠充分證明，深度思考公司開發的算法能夠起到救死扶傷的作用。
What matters is that they will belong to a private monopoly which developed them using public resources.
重要的是，這些算法屬于利用公共資源進行開發的私人壟斷企業。
If software promises to save lives on the scale that dugs now can, big data may be expected to behave as a big pharm has done.
如果軟件技術承諾其拯救生命的數量可以與當下的藥物相匹敵，那么大數據也許有望像大型制藥公司那樣發揮作用。
We are still at the beginning of this revolution and small choices now may turn out to have gigantic consequences later.
我們仍處于這種變革的開端，如今的一個小小選擇或許在將來會有巨大的影響。
A long struggle will be needed to avoid a future of digital feudalism. Ms Denham's report is a welcome start.
因此，我們仍需長期的努力，避免一個數字專制的未來。德納姆女士的報告是一個不錯的開始。
