金融時(shí)報(bào):竊聽(tīng)風(fēng)暴襲擊全球？

竊聽(tīng)風(fēng)暴襲擊全球？

NGO“自由之家”的研究顯示，全球范圍內(nèi)的言論表達(dá)自由正處于10年來(lái)的低點(diǎn)。緬甸、科特迪瓦和塞內(nèi)加爾等國(guó)言論自由的擴(kuò)展讓人欣慰，而希臘、印度和巴西等民主程度不同的國(guó)家都出現(xiàn)了讓人擔(dān)憂(yōu)的現(xiàn)象。谷歌顧問(wèn)Kampfner指出，未來(lái)5年可能有多達(dá)50億人進(jìn)入網(wǎng)絡(luò)時(shí)代，美國(guó)和歐盟應(yīng)更好地以身作則捍衛(wèi)網(wǎng)絡(luò)自由。

測(cè)試中可能遇到的詞匯和知識(shí)：

ebb [eb] v.衰退，退潮

out-and-out 里里外外的，徹底的

grim [gr?m] adj.冷酷的，糟糕的

thuggery ['θ?ɡ?ri] n.謀財(cái)害命；暗殺

Myanmar 緬甸，原名為Burma

galvanise ['ɡælv?naiz] v.激勵(lì)；通電；鍍鋅

dissent [d?'sent] n./v.異議

takedowns ['te?kda?ns] n.拆卸，這里指刪帖

disparaging [d?'spær?d???] v.adj.蔑視，蔑視的

impunity [?m'pju?n?t?] 免除處罰

come to a head 達(dá)到緊急關(guān)頭

toy with 玩弄

shelved [felvd] v./adj.擱置

It is down to democracies to protect the most precious of freedoms (666 words)

By John Kampfner

Last Friday was World Press Freedom Day, the 20th annual celebration of this most essential of human rights. But you would be forgiven for wondering what there is to cheer about.

The previous day, Freedom House, an American non-governmental organisation, produced research suggesting global freedom of expression is at its lowest ebb for a decade. It charts the many countries whose record had deteriorated during 2012, from out-and-out dictatorships and more “modern” authoritarian regimes to self-proclaimed democracies.

Some of the worst performances, in countries such as Mali, were the result of political turmoil and civil war. Russia and China continued on their grim ways, armed with a combination of legislation, thuggery and increasing technical nous. State-dominated media hampered free elections from Venezuela to Ukraine. New laws prevent effective investigative journalism in South Africa. Ecuador is going downhill; Thailand, too. The list goes on.

There are several rays of hope. As it emerges from decades of military rule, Myanmar is relaxing curbs. In Africa, improvements were noted in Ivory Coast, Senegal, Liberia and Mauritania.

Economic crisis, instead of leading to more transparency, has galvanised the rich and powerful to censor. In Greece, a journalist was arrested for publishing information about senior public officials who had evaded tax by shipping their money into secret Swiss bank accounts. Kostas Vaxevanis was charged with violating privacy laws, acquitted, but on appeal by the state faces retrial next month.

Legitimate concerns over privacy, child protection and copyright are prompting governments to introduce laws for a different aim – to silence dissent and stop corruption investigations.

Perhaps the most crucial countries to monitor in coming years are India and Brazil, which are seen as examples for others to follow. A series of laws in India has led to pretty much anything considered “disparaging” or “hurting religious sentiments”, or damaging the reputation of the country or its allies, being deemed an offence. Internet service providers are being required to respond to all “takedown” requests within 36 hours.

Brazil, too, has clamped down, particularly on internet freedom. According to Google’s latest twice-yearly Transparency Report, the authorities made more demands for online “takedowns” than any other country. Reporters are routinely harassed, sometimes killed. The Committee to Protect Journalists, which is looking at the issue of impunity, says the murders of nine Brazilian journalists are unsolved.

Worldwide, according to the CPJ, 70 journalists were killed in 2012 – among the highest totals in 20 years.

With citizens better connected than ever, such reports might seem surprising. More than 1bn people have access to the internet. At current growth rates, 5bn – 70 per cent of the world’s population – will be connected in five years’ time, mainly through their phones.

The more technology allows us to communicate the more governments are frightened. Indeed, many are appropriating it to track down dissenters.

If the worst abusers get their way, the more prescriptive approach to the internet could be enshrined in international governance. Last December, at the International Telecommunication Union – a previously obscure branch of the UN – 89 countries supported plans to give the body oversight of the web. Some 55 nations, including the US and most European countries, opposed the proposal. Matters are likely to come to a head at a further meeting in Geneva next week.

Democracies play a vital role in preventing the global takeover of the internet by governments – they must lead by example, which they often fail to do. The Obama administration’s record – notably with respect to its security legislation – has been poor.

In Britain, the government has toyed with plans to introduce a bill allowing public bodies access to all citizens’ electronic communications for a year. This has been shelved. But the damage such moves make is incalculable, giving the green light for authoritarian states to follow, smiling and shrugging their shoulders as they do.

The writer is external adviser to Google on free expression and advises the Global Network Initiative

請(qǐng)根據(jù)你所讀到的文章內(nèi)容，完成以下自測(cè)題目：

1.What does the writer imply by "But you would be forgiven for wondering what there is to cheer about"?

A. It's understandable that you do not know or forget about World Press Freedom Day.

B. We all know that worldwide press freedom is not satisfying.

C. The role of World Press Freedom Day has been overestimated.

D. All of above.

答案(1)

2.Which of the following is incorrect?

A. Mali's performance is poor because of political turmoil and civil war.

B. Venezuela and Ukraine's state-media hampered free elections.

C. Russia and China are banning anything considered “hurting religious sentiments”.

D. A Greek reporter was arrested for disclosing tax evasion of senior officials.

答案(2)

3.The writer opposed "government takeover of the internet" because he believes some governments are actually intended to...

A. ...better protect privacy, children and copyright.

B. ...silence dissent and stop corruption investigations.

C. ...crack dowm rumors and purify the Internet environment.

D. ...gain control over this "lifeblood industry".

答案(3)

4.Why US and UK governments' legislation bills incur "incalculable" damage?

A. Because they give the green light for authoritarian states to follow.

B. Because they harm their own public images at home.

C. Because citizens' privacy could be violated.

D. Because they are against "global takeover of the internet by governments".

答案(4)

* * *

(1) 答案：B.We all know that worldwide press freedom is not satisfying.

解釋?zhuān)何恼碌谝痪湔f(shuō)，今年5月3日的新聞自由日是這個(gè)基本人權(quán)的第20次慶典。 但是你顯然不知道有啥好慶祝的。接下來(lái)第二段就是介紹Freedom House的研究報(bào)告。

(2) 答案：C.Russia and China are banning anything considered “hurting religious sentiments”.

解釋?zhuān)鹤鲞@事的是印度。ABD的說(shuō)法都正確。

(3) 答案：B....silence dissent and stop corruption investigations.

解釋?zhuān)鹤髡哒J(rèn)為A不過(guò)是有些政府控制言論的表面理由罷了。

(4) 答案：A.Because they give the green light for authoritarian states to follow.

解釋?zhuān)哼@是本文最后一句說(shuō)的。英國(guó)政府不負(fù)責(zé)任地toyed with言論自由可能帶來(lái)難以估計(jì)的負(fù)面影響，那就是給威權(quán)國(guó)家開(kāi)綠燈，讓它們可以明目張膽干涉言論自由，聳聳肩說(shuō)“英美也這么搞啊為什么我不行”。