????這種反差形成的諷刺讓我們不得不想起以華為（Huawei）為代表的中國公司。華為是全球第二大電信和網(wǎng)絡(luò)設(shè)備提供商。華為在美國這個全球最大的電信市場上基本沒有站住腳，人們擔(dān)心像華為這樣一家中國公司有可能會控制美國信息的動向。上周在成都召開的財富全球論壇（Fortune Global Forum）上，華為副總裁兼輪值CEO郭平對《華爾街日報》（Wall Street Journal ）表示：“我們在美國電信設(shè)備市場基本上沒有業(yè)務(wù)，所以如果他們有安全問題，一定不是從我們這里來的。”

????對美國科技巨頭來說，更直接的威脅可能來自內(nèi)部。這些企業(yè)有多少員工像斯諾登一樣，又有多少員工支持電子自由基金會（Electronic Freedom Foundatio，一個幫助網(wǎng)絡(luò)信息匿名化的在線平臺），支持像Tor這樣的翻墻工具，有多少人在社會新聞網(wǎng)站Reddit上花時間，又有多少人像斯諾登這樣，“不想生活在一個沒有隱私的世界里，導(dǎo)致沒有智力爆發(fā)和創(chuàng)造力的空間”？我們還得等多久，才能等到下一個有高級權(quán)限的低級員工走出來？另外一個不得不重提的問題是，“鑰匙”到底有幾把。既然這么多人都擁有權(quán)限，怎么可能保證它的安全性呢？

????此次NSA泄密事件勾勒出了一個想獲取盡可能多的數(shù)據(jù)的特務(wù)機(jī)構(gòu)的嘴臉，同時它也證明，安全并不一定意味著更多的數(shù)據(jù)。收集這些信息，需要很多公司的很多人共同參與和分析。對于那個裝滿我們的個人信息的郵箱來說，拿鑰匙的人太多了。當(dāng)秘密還是秘密的時候，這場由政府支持的大規(guī)模間諜活動可能是樁好生意（不過也有很多人指出，種種跡象已經(jīng)存在好幾年了）。但是現(xiàn)在秘密已經(jīng)大白于天下，或許我們應(yīng)該重新思考一下商界介入美國政府監(jiān)控事宜的方式。（財富中文網(wǎng)）

????譯者：樸成奎

????The irony of such concern is not lost on Chinese companies like Huawei, the world's second-largest supplier of telecom and Internet gear. Huawei has barely made a dent in the U.S. market, the largest telecom market in the world. The reason, of course, is the fear of a company based in China -- a country actively engaged in hacking and sifting through its citizens data -- controlling the movement of American's information. At the Fortune Global Forum in Chengdulast week, Guo Ping, Huawei's deputy chairman (one of three executives who rotate through the CEO post), told the Wall Street Journal that "We are basically not present in the U.S. telecom equipment market ... So if they have security problems they are not coming from us."

????A more immediate threat to the U.S. tech giants may come from within. How many of these companies' employees are like Snowden and support the Electronic Freedom Foundation and Tor -- an online platform that helps anonymize Internet information -- and spend time on Reddit and believe, like Snowden, that they "don't want to live in a world where there's no privacy and therefore no room for intellectual exploration and creativity?" How long before another one of these high-access, low-level employees steps forward? It's a question, again, of the number of keys, and how effective security can possibly be when so many seem to have access.

????The NSA leaks paint a picture of an agency trying to capture as much data as possible. But the leaks have also proven that better security does not necessarily equal bigger data. Gathering all this information requires the participation of so many people in so many companies to analyze it. So many keys to that mailbox filled with our personal information. A massive, government-backed spying effort may have been great for business when it was still secret (though, as many have pointed out, the hints have been there for years). Now that it's public, it may well be time to rethink how we involve U.S. businesses in government surveillance.