（写在前面：这是whonix官网上的文章，太多中国反贼毫无隐私意识，所以总是主动给共匪送了人头，呵呵）
Introduction
介绍
On 16 December 1966, the UN General Assembly ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 17 states: [1]
1966年12月16日，联合国大会批准了《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》。 第17条规定：
1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.
1.不得对任何人的隐私，家庭，住宅或通信进行任意或非法的干涉，也不得对其荣誉和名誉进行非法攻击。
2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
2.人人有权受到法律保护，免受此类干扰或攻击。
As the reader is probably aware, modern nation states are eroding our freedoms at an accelerated rate. The privacy of all global citizens is being grossly invaded with an extensive, mass surveillance network which has contributed to repressive activities (see this report from Privacy International). Untold billions are under the constant scrutiny of domestic authoritative regimes and law enforcement; the hallmark features of a police state.
正如读者可能意识到的那样，现代国族国家正在以更快的速度侵蚀我们的自由。 所有全球公民的隐私受到严重的侵犯，其广泛的大规模监视网络促成了压制性活动（见隐私国际的这份报告）。 数十亿人遭受国内威权政府和执法部门的不断审查; 这是警察国家的标志性特征。
Unless precautions are taken, the Internet Service Provider and global surveillance systems like ECHELON and PRISM can record everything done online: what the user reads, writes, and with whom they communicate. Only the ill-informed continue to believe this is a conspiracy theory, see this report from the European Parliament.
除非采取防范措施，否则互联网服务提供商（ISP）和全球监控系统（如ECHELON和PRISM）可以记录在线完成的所有操作：用户读取，写入的内容以及与谁通信。 只有不明智的人继续相信这是一个阴谋论，请参阅欧洲议会的这份报告。
The Clearnet Risk
明网上的风险
Intimate tracking and profiling of the majority of Internet users is possible, because all messages and data that are sent contain the IP addresses of both the sender and receiver. Only a small minority consistently use Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), the Tor network, I2P and other tools in an attempt to disguise their network traffic.
对大多数互联网用户进行密切跟踪和分析是可能的，因为发送的所有消息和数据都包含发送方和接收方的IP地址。只有少数人一直使用虚拟专用网（VPN），Tor网络，I2P和其他工具来试图掩盖他们的网络流量。
A suitable analogy for the “clearnet” risk is ordinary mail sent through the postal system which contains addresses of both the sender and receiver for two-way communication. IP addresses can be easily traced back to the physical location of the computers and their owners, ultimately identifying specific users. Moreover, just like with a postcard, any information traveling on the Internet can be read by the many computers that relay them.
对于“明网”风险的合适类比是通过邮政系统发送的普通邮件，其包含用于双向通信的发送方和接收方的地址。 IP地址可以很容易地追溯到计算机及其所有者的物理位置，最终识别特定用户。 此外，就像明信片一样，任何在互联网上传播的信息都可以被许多传递它们的计算机读取。
Privacy as an Inherent Right
隐私是固有权利
Human beings have a fundamental need for private spaces to communicate their innermost thoughts, feelings, fears and desires. When their private sanctums are threatened by the prospect of unceasing and omnipresent surveillance by government and private entities, the effects are malign. Free speech and expression is chilled, distrust in authorities is heightened, and independent thought counter to the prevailing wisdom is suppressed via self-censorship.
人类有对私人空间的基本需求用以传达他们内心的想法，感受，恐惧和欲望。 当他们的私人圣殿受到政府和私人组织不断的和无所不在的监视的威胁时，其影响是恶劣的。 言论自由和表达被抑制了，对权威的不信任被加强了，以及通过自我审查来压制反对主流主张的独立思想。
It is not hyperbole to suggest that surveillance has molded the behavior of entire populations. Without the consent or foreknowledge of the public, an electronic form of Jeremy Bentham’s panopticon has been rapidly constructed over the past few decades. Today’s Internet user is like an inmate in a prison, where unseen guards could be watching at any time. Over time, subtle changes occur in behavior as a consequence of the “observer effect”; a new method of social control: [2]
认为监视塑造了整个人群的行为并不夸张。在未经公众同意或事先知情的情况下，过去几十年来，Jeremy Bentham的圆形监狱的电子形式被迅速建成。 今天的互联网用户就像一个监狱里的囚犯，看不见的看守随时都可以进行监视。随着时间的推移，由于“观察者效应”，用户的行为会发生微妙的变化; 一种新的社会控制方法：[2]
The most insidious threat that expansive surveillance poses reaches even earlier into the lifecycle of dissent. For a thought to be birthed in a Miltonian sense, it must first be conceived, and here pervasive surveillance has a contraceptive effect. Those watched change not only their behavior; they change their thinking, too, so that they do not even conceive the thoughts that would become their “intellectual offspring.” This is what Neil Richards calls the “normalizing gaze of surveillance,” and it is perhaps analogous to the “observer effect” in physics. Unobserved, a citizen’s thoughts – like particles – follow their own path. But the more closely watched they become, the more their possible paths are determined by the very act of observation.
扩张性的监视所带来的最阴险的威胁甚至可以更早地进入异议的生命周期。 要想在米尔顿意义上产生一种思想，首先必须设想它，这里普遍的监视具有避孕效果。 那些被监视的人们不仅改变了行为; 也改变了自己的想法，而这些想法会成为人们的“知识后裔”。这就是Neil Richards所说的“将监视正常化的凝视”，它或许类似于物理学上的“观察者效应”。没被观察时，一个公民的思想—就像粒子一样—遵循自己的道路。但是，这些人越是被密切监视，这些人的可能路径就越多地被观察行为所决定。
Many readers would challenge this assertion with the retort, “Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.” Unfortunately, with almost everyone having a skeleton in their closet, this argument seems glib. Security and encryption expert Bruce Schneier may give the unconcerned reader some further cause for doubt: [3]
很多读者会反驳这种说法：“没有什么可隐藏的，没有什么可害怕的。” 不幸的是，几乎每个人的衣柜里都有一个骷髅（欧洲谚语，意思是想要保密的事），这个论点看起来很滑稽。安全和加密专家Bruce Schneier可能会让那些不关心的读者更加怀疑：[3]
The most common retort against privacy advocates — by those in favor of ID checks, cameras, databases, data mining and other wholesale surveillance measures — is this line: “If you aren’t doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?”
最常见的反对隐私倡导者的反驳—那些赞成身份证检查，监控探头，数据库，数据挖掘和其他批发监控措施的人—就是这样：“如果你没有做错什么，你有什么必须隐藏的？”
Some clever answers: “If I’m not doing anything wrong, then you have no cause to watch me.” “Because the government gets to define what’s wrong, and they keep changing the definition.” “Because you might do something wrong with my information.” My problem with quips like these — as right as they are — is that they accept the premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong. It’s not. Privacy is an inherent human right, and a requirement for maintaining the human condition with dignity and respect.
一些聪明的答案：“如果我没有做错任何事，那么你没有理由监视我。” “因为政府决定了什么是错的，而且它们不断改变定义。” “因为你的信息可能有问题。” 像这样的讽刺我的问题 —就像他们一样—是他们接受隐私是关于隐藏错误的前提。 不是这样的。隐私是一种固有的人权，是维护人类尊严和尊重的必要条件。
Two proverbs say it best: Quis custodiet custodes ipsos? (“Who watches the watchers?”) and “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
两句谚语说得最好：Quis custodiet custodes ipsos？ （“谁监视监视者？”）和“绝对权力导致绝对腐败”。
Edward Snowden shares a very similar view to Schneier: [4]
Edward Snowden和Schneier的看法非常相似：
“Arguing that you don’t care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say.”
“争辩说你不在乎隐私权是因为你没有什么可隐藏的，这与说你不在乎言论自由因为你无话可说没什么不同。”
Other rebuttals to this argument are possible: [5] [6] [7] [8]
对此论点的其他反驳是可能的：
- Most people have something personal they wish to conceal, irrespective of its legality.
- 无论其合法性如何，大多数人都有他们希望隐藏的个人事务。
- There is no compelling argument that all laws should be built around the efficiency of law enforcement as the over-riding factor.
- 没有令人信服的论据证明所有法律都应围绕将执法效率作为最重要的因素这一点来制定。
- It is strongly contested that any and all civil rights should be sacrificed upon the altar of “national security”, particularly without the consent of the governed.
- 关于任何和所有公民权利都应该在“国家安全”的祭坛上被牺牲，特别是未经被统治者的同意这一观点是非常有争议的。
- Privacy is not synonymous with secrecy, that is, hiding “bad things”.
- 隐私不是保密的同义词，即隐藏“坏事”。
- There are many things to fear from a nation state that willingly collects, processes, and disseminates information on the entire populace. Information is power, and a deadly weapon in the hands of tyrants.
- 一个想要收集，处理和传播整个民众信息的国族国家有许多事情是需要被担心的。 信息就是权力，是暴君手中的致命武器。
- The social value of privacy is the right to not participate in the collective life; the freedom to shut out the community. That is destroyed by mass surveillance.
- 隐私的社会价值是不参与集体生活的权利; 关闭社区的自由。 这被大规模监视破坏了。
- Vote unseen, the construction of Orwellian systems that profile complete populations is anti-democratic. The information gathered has unknown uses, is secret and never revealed, prone to abuse, impervious to access, and unable to be corrected.
- 看不见的投票，为完整人口建档的奥威尔式系统是反民主的。 所收集的信息具有未知用途，是秘密的，从未被揭露，容易被滥用，无法访问，无法被纠正。
- It is not evident that sacrificing privacy has led to increased safety; the root cause of modern asymmetrical warfare is a reaction to government policies, not the result of an inadequate state security apparatus.
- 牺牲隐私导致安全性的增加这一断言并没有证据支撑; 现代不对称战争的根本原因是对政府政策的反应，而不是国家安全机制不足的结果。
- Over time, the rules change, but once ephemeral conversations and idle thoughts have now become permanent records.
- 随着时间的推移，规则会发生变化，但曾经是短暂的谈话和空闲的想法现在成为了永久性的记录。
- What is used today in the “War on Terrorism” ™ could be a tool tomorrow to repress any groups who arouse the ire of government.
- 今天在“反恐战争”中使用的东西可以成为明天压迫任何引起政府愤怒的团体的工具。
- Individuals do not personally determine if they have something to fear; today’s automated, passive surveillance systems do that for them. The rule book is yet to be published.
- 个人不会亲自确定是否有恐惧的东西; 今天的自动化被动监控系统为人们做到了这一点。 规则手册尚未被公布。
- It is the duty of every citizen to defy unjust laws. Throughout history, the mass defiance of unfair, prejudiced or illegitimate laws was a critical factor for society to progress. Mass surveillance threatens to snuff out movements before they are even born.
- 每个公民都有责任反抗不公正的法律。 纵观历史，对不公平，偏见或非法的法律的大规模蔑视是社会进步的关键因素。 大规模监视则威胁在它们发生之前扼杀运动。
- It is not necessary for me to justify the right to privacy, but rather it is incumbent on the government to justify its intrusion into my personal domain.
- 我没有必要为隐私权辩护，而是政府有责任证明其入侵我的个人领域的行径是正当的。
- Rights are not something to be traded away as part of some twisted cost-benefit analysis or consequentialist argument.
- 权利不是像扭曲的成本效益分析或结果论证的一部分那样认为是可以被交易的东西。
- The fact that a person has something to hide is still insufficient to justify full-take surveillance of the entire populace. [9]
- 一个人有东西需要隐藏的事实仍然不足以合理化对所有人的全面监控。
Conclusion
总结
Ubiquitous surveillance has not only been proven to be ineffective, but it is extremely expensive. It also comes with a range of societal costs: broken political systems; unaccountable and secret government actions; surveillance outside of legally sanctioned limits; erosion of trust in commercial computer products, services and systems; the loss of liberty; self-censorship, and the embedding of systems which are prone to abuse. [10]
无处不在的监控不仅被证明是无效的，而且非常昂贵。 它还带来了一系列社会成本：破碎的政治系统; 不负责任的和秘密的政府行为; 在法律许可的限制之外进行监督; 对商业计算机产品，服务和系统的信任受到侵蚀; 失去自由; 自我审查，以及容易滥用的系统的嵌入。
http://www.dds6qkxpwdeubwucdiaord2xgbbeyds25rbsgr73tbfpqpt4a6vjwsyd.onion/wiki/Anonymity