D>=A: Expanding our rights in the digital realm (Article 2 of 6)

D> = A：扩大我们在数字领域的权利(第2条，共6条)

Every historical crisis terminates in institutions. If we have no control over the crisis itself, which is pure hazard, we do have control over the institutions, since we can define them, choose the ones for which we will fight, and thus bend our efforts toward their establishment. Albert Camus, The Rebel (1956).

每一次历史性危机都在制度中终结。 如果我们无法控制纯粹是危险的危机本身，那么我们确实可以控制这些机构，因为我们可以定义这些机构，选择我们将为之奋斗的机构，从而将努力转向其建立 。 阿尔伯特·加缪(Albert Camus)，《反叛者》(The Rebel，1956年)。

In the opening article of this series, we explored the necessity of creating enduring change in our failing social systems, in particular the exploitative ethos of the Web. Against the relentless online paradigm of “SEAMs” (Surveil, Extract, Analyze, and Manipulate) was posited a counter-paradigm of enhancing human autonomy and agency via computational systems, or “HAACS.” The article suggested that effective leverage points include creating human-centric infrastructures of trust and empowerment. Below, we will see how fiduciary law principles provide one promising pathway to expanding our rights in the digital realm.

在本系列的开篇文章中，我们探讨了在失败的社会系统中创造持久变化的必要性，尤其是Web的剥削精神。 针对“ SEAM”的无情在线范例(监视，提取，分析和操纵)，提出了通过计算系统或“ HAACS”增强人类自主权和代理权的反范式。 该文章建议有效的杠杆作用点包括建立以人为本的信任和授权基础设施。 下面，我们将看到信托法原则如何为扩展我们在数字领域的权利提供一种有希望的途径。

The scenario: IRL

场景：IRL

It’s early March 2020, someplace in the United States, and Carla wakes up early with a high fever and tenacious cough. She doesn’t typically come down with the flu bug this time of year, but this one already feels pretty bad. After a quick browse online with her symptoms, she decides to make an appointment with her primary care physician.

到2020年3月上旬，在美国的某个地方，卡拉因高烧和顽强的咳嗽而早起。 她通常在每年的这个时候都不会感染流感，但是这个感觉已经很糟糕了。 在快速浏览网上症状后，她决定与她的初级保健医生预约。

Next morning, Carla takes her two young children to daycare, and then drives to the health clinic. The medical assistant takes her vital signs, and jots down her symptoms. Doctor Jones comes by, reviews the file, asks some questions. The verdict? Likely the seasonal flu. Medication is prescribed.

第二天早上，卡拉带她的两个孩子去日托，然后开车去保健诊所。 医务助理抓住她的生命体征，记下自己的症状。 琼斯医生来了，审查了文件，问了一些问题。 判决？ 可能是季节性流感。 处方药。

On her way home, Carla stops at the pharmacy to pick up an antiviral prescription and some cough syrup. She then retrieves clothing from the dry cleaner, cashes a check at the credit union, and drops off to the library three borrowed books on the history of institutional racism. Once home, Carla looks over her mail, including a monthly statement from her employer’s pension plan, and a legal document extending a guardianship to care for her ailing father. Later she returns to daycare to gather up her kids.

在回家的路上，卡拉(Carla)在药房停下来拿了抗病毒药方和一些止咳糖浆。 然后，她从干洗店取回衣服，在信用合作社兑现了一张支票，然后将三本借用的有关制度种族主义历史的书借给图书馆。 到家后，卡拉(Carla)仔细查看了她的邮件，其中包括雇主退休金计划的月结单，以及一份扩展监护权的法律文件，以照顾生病的父亲。 后来，她回到托儿所来收集孩子。

The fiduciary world around us

我们周围的信托世界

While Carla may not be fully aware of it, typical moments in her everyday “analog world” include interactions with various types of fiduciaries. These are individuals or entities with whom Carla has an ongoing relationship of some sort, as an existing customer, client, or patron. In each case, Carla is placing her trust in their care, for the well-being of herself, her family members, and their interests and possessions. In return, these entities owe Carla various obligations to protect and promote her personal interests. She operates in a social fabric made up of interwoven trust relationships.

尽管卡拉可能还没有完全意识到这一点，但在她的日常“模拟世界”中，典型的时刻包括与各种类型的受托人的互动。 这些是卡拉与现有客户，客户或赞助人保持某种持续关系的个人或实体。 在每种情况下，卡拉都将自己的信任托付给他们，照顾自己，家人以及他们的利益和财产。 作为回报，这些实体欠卡拉以保护和促进她的个人利益的各种义务。 她以交织的信任关系组成的社交网络运作。

The law of human relationships: from power, to trust

人际关系法则：从权力到信任

Over hundreds of years, fiduciary law has formed essentially the ethos of uneven person-to-person relationships.[1] This legal doctrine is entwined with centuries of equity, torts, and other common law disciplines. Noted legal expert Tamar Frankel has observed that “throughout the centuries the problems that these laws were designed to solve are eternal, etched in human nature, derived from human needs, and built into human activities.”[2] Not surprisingly, then, fiduciary law principles are near-universal, having been applied across a vast array of human endeavors,[3] and encompassing most major global cultures and societies.[4]

几百年来，信托法基本上形成了人与人之间关系不平衡的精神。 [1]这个法律学说与世纪的平等，侵权和其他普通法学科交织在一起。 著名的法律专家塔玛·弗兰克尔(Tamar Frankel)指出，“整个世纪以来，这些法律旨在解决的问题都是永恒的，刻在人性中，源于人的需求，并根植于人的活动中。” [2]因此，毫无疑问，信托法原则几乎是普遍适用的，已被广泛应用于人类的各种努力中[3]，并且涵盖了大多数主要的全球文化和社会。 [4]

The basis for a fiduciary relationship is straightforward: assigning certain legal and moral obligations to people engaged in exchanges of value with each other. The linchpin is what Frankel calls “entrusted power,”[5] where one person holds a significant advantage over another. What are some examples from Carla’s day? Doctor and Patient. Attorney and Client. Financial Advisor and Client. Pharmacist and Customer. Bank and Customer. Librarian and Patron.

信托关系的基础很简单：将某些法律和道德义务分配给彼此进行价值交换的人们。 关键是弗兰克尔所说的“内在力量”， [5]一个人比另一个人拥有明显的优势。 卡拉时代的例子有哪些？ 医生和病人。 律师和客户。 财务顾问和客户。 药剂师和客户。 银行和客户。 图书管理员和赞助人。

In each instance, Carla is entrusting a third party (the fiduciary) with something of value to her (the entrustor or beneficiary), based on a certain recognized duty of care or loyalty that they owe to her in return. Parents too have a long-recognized fiduciary duty to care for their minor children; grown children in turn have similar duties to provide care to infirm parents. Even dry cleaners owe a related “bailment” common law obligation for the clothing entrusted to their temporary care.

在每种情况下，卡拉都会根据对第三方(受托人或受益人)的某种公认的谨慎或忠诚义务，向第三方(受托人)提供有价值的东西。 父母也有长期公认的受托责任来照顾未成年子女。 反过来，成年子女也有类似的职责为体弱的父母提供照料。 即使是干洗店，也要负起与之相关的“保释”普通法义务，即委托他们进行临时护理的衣物。

These fiduciary-based norms and practices have become so ingrained in our daily lives, often we forget that they exist, or how much we rely upon them. In each instance, the duty is rooted in asymmetric power relationships between people.[6]

这些基于信托的规范和实践在我们的日常生活中已根深蒂固，常常使我们忘记它们的存在或我们对它们的依赖程度。 在每种情况下，责任都源于人与人之间不对称的权力关系。 [6]

Typically there are three indicators that parties are engaged in a fiduciary relationship: expertise, benefit, and confidences.

通常，有三个指标表明当事方参与了信托关系： 专业知识，利益和信心。

· Expertise. In each instance, Carla is dealing with someone possessing considerable specialized expertise, knowledge, or experience in their chosen field — her doctor, her lawyer, her pharmacist, her financial advisor, her librarian. With this expertise comes the expectation that the fiduciary will exercise good judgment in the ways it makes decisions on the entrustor’s behalf, and otherwise meets its obligations to her.

· 专长。 在每种情况下，Carla都在与某个在其所选领域中拥有相当专业知识，知识或经验的人打交道-她的医生，律师，药剂师，财务顾问，图书馆员。 有了这种专业知识，期望受托人将以代表委托人的决定的方式行使良好的判断力，否则将履行对委托人的义务。

· Benefit. Each of these relationships concerns Carla receiving a benefit of significant value to her — for example, medical assessment and treatment, or financial management, or legal advice and representation.

· 收益。 这些关系中的每一个都关系到Carla为其获得了重大价值，例如，医疗评估和治疗，财务管理，法律咨询和代理。

· Confidences. In most instances, some sensitive information is created, or changes hands, or otherwise becomes subject to protection. Consider doctor-patient confidentiality, or attorney-client privilege. By voluntarily sharing private aspects of herself, Carla seeks the fiduciary’s services to better her personal situation — even down to protecting her library lending records.

· 信心。 在大多数情况下，一些敏感信息会被创建，易手或受到保护。 考虑医患的保密性，或律师-委托人的特权。 通过自愿分享自己的私人方面，卡拉寻求受托人的服务以改善她的个人状况-甚至保护她的图书馆借阅记录。

For example, Carla’s doctor may be the first to learn that she has tested positive for COVID-19. The doctor’s expertise allows him and his staff to interpret the results, and prescribe treatment. This diagnosis, and subsequent treatment and care, also bring significant benefits, in terms of ramifications for Carla’s family and friends, her employer, her community. The nature of confidentiality gives the doctor some discretionary power to disclose, or not disclose, the results to other people.

例如，卡拉的医生可能是第一个得知她的COVID-19测试呈阳性的人。 医生的专业知识使他和他的员工可以解释结果并开处方。 从对卡拉的家人和朋友，雇主，社区的影响来看，这种诊断以及随后的治疗和护理也带来了巨大的好处 。 保密的性质赋予医生一定的酌处权，可以将结果透露给他人，也可以不透露给他人。

Recognizing duties of care and loyalty

承认谨慎和忠诚的职责

In many cases, fiduciaries are considered professionals, bound by enforceable rules of conduct governing their actions, which creates some accountability and recourse for the entrustors. The entrusted power is acknowledged, channeled, and otherwise put in check. For this reason, fiduciaries live by codes of trust.

在许多情况下，受托人被视为专业人士，受制于其行为的可执行行为规则约束，这为委托人带来了一定的责任感和追索权。 委托的权力得到确认，传递和其他检查。 出于这个原因，受信者以信任守则生活。

Normally a fiduciary abides by two basic sets of obligations: a duty of care, and a duty of loyalty.[7]

通常，受信人遵守两套基本义务：谨慎义务和忠诚义务。 [7]

· Duty of Care: This obligates the fiduciary to, at minimum, carry out its practices in a prudent and reasonable manner, and may also prohibit causing harm to the entrustor.

·谨慎义务：这使受托人至少有义务以审慎和合理的方式执行其惯例，并且还可能禁止对委托人造成伤害。

· Duty of Loyalty: This obligation goes further than care. Under the so-called thin version, the fiduciary must have no conflicts of interest or duty. The thick version requires that the fiduciary promote the entrustor’s best interests. Other related fiduciary duties include good faith and confidentiality.

·忠诚义务：这一义务远不止是谨慎。 在所谓的App.svelte版下，受托人不得有利益或责任冲突。 厚厚的版本要求受托人促进委托人的最大利益。 其他相关的信托义务包括诚信和保密。

Carla’s voluntary acts of entrustment convey considerable power to the doctor, the lawyer, the pharmacist, and others. In return, she rightly expects to directly benefit from the arrangement, and be protected from the control they gain over her. But what about in a digital setting? When Carla goes online, to check her email, or visit social media sites, or search for medical information about her symptoms? Where are the duties of care and of loyalty that follow the entrustment of power to others? Where are the digital versions of fiduciaries?

卡拉的自愿委托行为向医生，律师，药剂师和其他人员传达了相当大的权力。 作为回报，她理所当然地希望直接从这种安排中受益，并受到保护，免受他们对她的控制。 但是在数字环境中呢？ 当Carla上网时，要查看她的电子邮件，访问社交媒体网站或搜索有关其症状的医学信息？ 将权力委托给他人之后，谨慎和忠诚的职责在哪里？ 受托人的数字版本在哪里？

In short: there aren’t any.

简而言之：没有任何东西。

Welcome to Userhood

欢迎使用

At the root of our online challenges is our consignment to the role of a user. Our “userhood” plays out in increasingly unfavorable aspects, via our interactions with (1) the World Wide Web, (2) online platform companies, and (3) data brokers.

在线挑战的根源在于我们对用户角色的重视。 通过与(1)万维网，(2)在线平台公司和(3)数据经纪人的互动，我们的“用户性”在越来越不利的方面发挥了作用。

Aspect One: The Web

方面一：网络

Carla has grown accustomed to dealing in offline relationships with entities and individuals that treat her, at minimum, as a valued customer, but perhaps also as a bona fide client, or a well-guarded patron. Unfortunately, those same concepts typically hold little meaning with other types of entities online. There, as far as the Web is concerned, she is a “user.” With no mutual relationship, no protection, and no recourse.

卡拉已经习惯了与实体和个人建立离线关系，这些实体和个人至少将她视为重要客户，但也可能将其视为善意的客户或受到良好保护的顾客。 不幸的是，这些相同的概念对于在线其他类型的实体通常没有多大意义。 就网络而言，她在那里是“用户”。 没有相互关系，没有保护，也没有追索权。

On the Web, the default rule is your user status. Which means, in essence, that you visit websites, click on applications, utilize offerings, for which you pay with your personal data. And in return, you become subject to the one-sided terms of service that their lawyers write to apply to these interactions. These websites and app providers and social media companies endeavor to owe you nothing beyond the basic transaction. No duties of care, or loyalty, or simple good faith. No promises to treat you like a bona fide client, or patron, or even a “mere” customer. Just a user.

在Web上，默认规则是您的用户状态。 从本质上讲，这意味着您访问网站，单击应用程序，使用提供的产品，并为此支付了您的个人数据。 作为回报，您必须遵守其律师写的适用于这些互动的单方面服务条款。 这些网站和应用程序提供商以及社交媒体公司竭尽所能，不欠您基本交易。 没有谨慎，忠诚或简单的真诚义务。 没有承诺将您视为善意的客户，赞助人，甚至是“纯粹的”客户。 只是一个用户。

Noted designer Don Norman decries how “we degrade people by the passive, inert term of ‘user’” (he’s no fan either of the “consumer” and “customer” labels).[8] Similarly, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey has called for reconsidering the term. Although tech designers speak of concepts like “user-centric design,” “user benefit,” and “user experience,” Dorsey observes that “the result is a massive abstraction away from real problems people feel on a daily basis.”[9]

著名的设计师唐·诺曼(Don Norman)谴责“我们如何通过消极，惰性的'用户'一词来贬低人们”(他对“消费者”和“客户”标签都不感兴趣)。 [8]同样，Twitter CEO杰克·多尔西(Jack Dorsey)呼吁重新考虑这一用语。 尽管技术设计师谈到诸如“以用户为中心的设计”，“用户利益”和“用户体验”之类的概念，但Dorsey观察到“结果是对人们每天实际遇到的问题的大量抽象。” [9]

The basic problem, of course, is that the abstraction is very real; the nomenclature of userhood matches well to the actual ways we are treated online. Userhood is, Norman observes, a way of labeling humans “as objects instead of personifying them as real living, breathing people.”[10]

当然，基本问题是抽象非常真实。 用户名称的命名方式与我们在网上实际对待的方式非常吻合。 诺曼(Norman)指出，用户使用性是一种将人类贴上标签的方式，“将其作为对象而不是将它们拟人为真实的，呼吸中的人们”。 [10]

Aspect Two: The Platforms

第二方面：平台

As mentioned in the previous article, Web companies today are keen to employ the SEAM control paradigm. This involves continual data-centric feedback cycles of surveillance, extraction, analysis, and manipulation. Being a user means being especially open and vulnerable to all these simultaneous activities.

如前一篇文章所述 ，当今的Web公司都渴望采用SEAM控制范例。 这涉及监视，提取，分析和操作的以数据为中心的连续反馈周期。 成为用户意味着对所有这些同时进行的活动特别开放和脆弱。

In complex systems terms, the SEAM cycle is a “reinforcing feedback loop.” This means the more it works, the more power it gains to work some more. As with other similar societal systems, this particular dynamic can lock us into a “success to the successful” trap. [11]

用复杂的系统术语来说，SEAM周期是“加强反馈回路”。 这意味着它工作得越多，获得的功率就越大。 与其他类似的社会系统一样，这种特定的动力可以将我们锁定在“成功的成功”陷阱中。 [11]

The SEAM cycle only exacerbates the abstraction, objectification, even denigration, of the humans in front of the screens. Much of what we may choose to grant to trusted agents in the analog space, increasingly and automatically is being extracted from us in the digital space. We may recognize that entrusted power is evident with an online entity — for example, Carla benefits from having a digital existence, there are significant gaps in expertise, and the entity has unique access to Carla’s sensitive personal data and confidences. But in these digital systems, there is nothing akin to a fiduciary role. No real duties, no meaningful consent, and no recourse.

SEAM循环只会加剧屏幕前人类的抽象，客观化甚至贬损。 在数字空间中，我们可能会选择越来越多地自动授予我们在模拟空间中授予我们信任的代理的大部分东西。 我们可能会认识到在线实体的权力是显而易见的-例如，卡拉拥有数字化存在，受益于专业知识的巨大差距，并且实体拥有对卡拉的敏感个人数据和信心的唯一访问权。 但是在这些数字系统中，没有什么像信托角色一样。 没有实际职责，没有有意义的同意，也没有追索权。

Another way to envision the situation is that, as Doc Searls puts it, the Web “has boundary issues.”[12] Even Carla’s two small children over time have come to learn about setting personal boundaries — both protecting their own, and respecting those of others. By contrast, the SEAMs-driven Web is like an untutored child, seeing anything and everything in the world as fair game for its own aggrandizement.

设想这种情况的另一种方法是，正如Doc Searls所说的那样，Web“存在边界问题”。 [12]甚至随着时间的推移，卡拉的两个小孩也开始学习如何设置个人界限，既要保护自己，又要尊重他人。 相比之下，SEAM驱动的Web就像是一个未受教育的孩子，将世界上的任何事物都视为自身壮大的公平游戏。

Aspect Three: The Data Brokers

第三方面：数据经纪人

Crucially, the SEAM cycle also opens the door wide to mysterious third parties — brokers, aggregators, advertisers, marketers, and the like. These entities may be lurking in the shadows, laying claim to aspects of our online interactions — usually including one’s personal data. These data brokers and aggregators and advertisers and marketers may have never even legitimately interacted with you.[13]

至关重要的是，SEAM周期还为神秘的第三方(经纪人，聚合者，广告商，营销商等)敞开了大门。 这些实体可能藏在阴影中，声称我们在线互动的各个方面(通常包括一个人的个人数据)。 这些数据经纪人，聚合者以及广告商和市场商甚至可能从未与您进行合法的互动。 [13]

(Source: https://crackedlabs.org/dl/CrackedLabs_Christl_CorporateSurveillance.pdf)

(来源： https : //crackedlabs.org/dl/CrackedLabs_Christl_CorporateSurveillance.pdf )

Being a Web user by default means inviting these anonymous third parties to access your personal data, getting nothing in return except concerted attempts to influence you to buy something. Doc Searls puts it well: we are “running naked through the digital world … as we were in the natural one before we invented clothing and shelter.”[14]

默认情况下，成为Web用户意味着邀请这些匿名第三方访问您的个人数据，除了共同努力影响您购买商品外，其他任何回报都没有。 Doc Searls说得很对：我们“在数字世界中赤裸裸地奔跑……就像我们在发明衣服和庇护所之前一样，自然而然。” [14]

In the online context, as expert Rachel Botsman acknowledges, a leading cause of distrust is the mismatch in motivations between users and platforms.[15] As we have seen, too many online entities typically treat those using their services as mere users, rather than bona fide customers. This objectification carries over to their commercial practices, which rely heavily on the SEAM cycle. All of which inevitably leads to a more trust-deficient Web.

正如专家Rachel Botsman所承认的那样，在网络环境中，不信任的主要原因是用户和平台之间的动机不匹配。 [15]如我们所见，太多的在线实体通常将使用其服务的实体视为纯用户，而不是善意的客户。 这种客观化延续了他们的商业实践，而商业实践在很大程度上取决于SEAM周期。 所有这些不可避免地导致Web的信任度降低。

Further, as the Web has become ever more complex, threats may come with the next mouse click, or voice command. And yet, protecting oneself has become ever more challenging. Again, the mismatch in motivations between platforms and users creates an erosion in fundamental responsibility — a lack of “skin in the game.”[16] As one example, when Web companies even provide customer support, the result is almost entirely reactive, and for most of us a subpar experience. As Botsman puts it, “the online landscape is vastly populated and yet, all too often, empty of anyone to take charge or turn to when it counts.”[17] The buck stops elsewhere.

此外，随着Web变得越来越复杂，下一次单击鼠标或发出语音命令可能会带来威胁。 然而，保护自己变得越来越具有挑战性。 同样，平台和用户之间动机的不匹配造成了基本责任的侵蚀-缺乏“游戏中的皮肤”。 [16]例如，当Web公司甚至提供客户支持时，结果几乎完全是被动的，并且对我们大多数人来说都是一种低于标准的体验。 正如Botsman所说，“在线景观人口众多，但很多时候却无人问津或在重要的时候去求助。” [17]责任在别处停止。

Bringing fiduciary concepts to the Web

将信托概念引入网络

The digital world holds vast potential to improve our lives. And yet, at the same time the SEAMs feedback cycles expose us to countless threats to our well-being. As our personal data and actions and behaviors are relentlessly tracked and monetized on the Web, there is a compelling need to bring online old school virtues of care and loyalty and confidences-keeping. But how exactly?

数字世界具有改善我们生活的巨大潜力。 然而，与此同时，SEAM的反馈周期使我们面临着无数威胁我们的福祉的事情。 随着我们的个人数据以及行为和行为在网络上被不断跟踪和货币化，迫切需要将在线老派的美德，关怀，忠诚和信心保持在网上。 但是到底如何呢？

For starters, we need to begin demanding adherence to a simple practice — our digital technologies should promote our interests, not harm them. This means that people like Carla should be treated online at least as well, if not better, than offline. We deserve to have access to at least the same basic rights in the digital world, as we expect in the analog world. Certainly not fewer, and optimally more. In short, we need a fiduciary-style formula, something like: D>=A

首先，我们需要开始要求遵循一种简单的做法-我们的数字技术应该促进我们的利益，而不是损害他们的利益。 这意味着像Carla这样的人应该至少在网上得到比在网上更好的待遇，即使不是更好。 正如我们在模拟世界中所期望的那样，我们应该在数字世界中至少享有相同的基本权利。 当然不会少，最好是更多。 简而言之，我们需要一个基准式的公式，例如： D> = A

This formula proposes to elevate our rights in the digital world (D), so that they meet or exceed our rights in the analog world (A).

该公式建议提高我们在数字世界(D)中的权利，以便它们达到或超过我们在模拟世界(A)中的权利。

The unifying principle is to put humans in control. In terms of power asymmetries, we need to build something like the HAACS ethos, of human autonomy and agency, via computational systems. In terms of systems dynamics, we must create new feedback loops, to challenge and eventually replace the SEAM cycles of surveillance, extraction, analysis, and manipulation.[18] In terms of basic human psychology, we should be empowered to set our own boundaries, signaling to the rest of the digital world what is acceptable to us, and what is not.[19]

统一的原则是控制人类。 在功率不对称方面，我们需要通过计算系统来构建类似于HAACS精神，具有人类自主权和代理权的东西。 在系统动力学方面，我们必须创建新的反馈循环，以挑战并最终取代SEAM的监视，提取，分析和操作周期。 [18]就基本的人类心理学而言，我们应该有权设定自己的界限，向数字世界的其余部分传达我们可以接受的和不可以接受的信号。 [19]

Fiduciary duties of care and loyalty could be one way to get us there online. Among other benefits, these duties:

忠实和忠实的信托义务可能是使我们在线上的一种方式。 这些好处包括：

· reflect shifting from the transactional mode of SEAM cycles (surveillance, extraction, analysis, manipulation), to the relational mode of HAACS (human agency/autonomy via computational systems);

·反映从SEAM周期的交易模式(监视，提取，分析，操纵)到HAACS的关系模式(通过计算系统的人为代理/自治)的转变；

· provide legitimate “skin in the game” on both sides of entrustment-based relationships with companies;

·在与公司之间基于委托的关系的两侧提供合法的“游戏中的皮肤”；

· require degrees of trust and support, that over time can feed back onto each other in positive ways; and

·需要一定程度的信任和支持，以便随着时间的流逝能够以积极的方式相互反馈； 和

· “run with the person,” and all her contextual and relational ways of being in the world.

·“与人共处”，以及她在世界上的所有上下文和关系方式。

Fiduciary law certainly is not a panacea for all that ails us as a society. Some forms of social power and control likely require deeper institutional change.[20] But fiduciary-like principles do provide us with a tool — even a weapon — to counter some of the power imbalances that have become so prevalent online. The challenge is to find ways to embed it in the digital fabric of the Web.

对于所有使我们这个社会感到不适的人来说，信托法当然不是万灵药。 某些形式的社会权力和控制可能需要更深刻的制度变革。 [20]但是，类似信托的原则确实为我们提供了一种工具，甚至是一种武器，来应对一些在网上如此普遍的权力失衡问题。 挑战在于找到将其嵌入到Web的数字结构中的方法。

We can start, perhaps, by seeking out and partnering with those who wish to abide, openly and voluntarily, by duties of care and loyalty to us. We can also consider imposing similar obligations where those with entrusted power resist using it accountably.

也许我们可以开始于寻找并与那些愿意公开和自愿遵守对我们的关怀和忠诚的义务的人合作。 我们也可以考虑施加类似的义务，以使那些拥有受委托权力的人拒绝负责任地使用它。

Conclusion: Countering the SEAMs

结论：应对SEAM

“Energy for change is created by the tension between a desired and the actual condition.” David Peter Stroh, Systems Thinking for Social Change (2015)

“改变的能量是由期望和实际条件之间的张力产生的。” David Peter Stroh，《社会变革的系统思考》(2015年)

Carla deserves far better when she glances at her smartphone, or clicks on a website link. For the pervasive lack of trust and support she experiences online, the root cause is the same: entities who may claim outwardly to act on her behalf, but are financially conflicted from fully doing so. When one is the user, the object, the product, of an unbalanced online “relationship,” the company’s motivations are to do only as much as necessary to keep your eyes glued to screens, with no questions asked.

卡拉看一眼她的智能手机或单击网站链接时，应该得到更好的服务。 由于她在网上普遍缺乏信任和支持，其根本原因是相同的：实体可能会声称自己代表她行事，但由于这样做而在财务上存在冲突。 当不平衡的在线“关系”的用户，对象，产品成为用户时，该公司的动机是尽一切必要使您的眼睛粘在屏幕上，而不会提出任何问题。

Perhaps the key is to delegate one’s aspirations for the Web to trustworthy and supportive third-party relationships. As we will see over the next three articles, the ethos of fiduciaries can be harnessed to play a particularly crucial role on behalf of Web users. A mix of personal, collective, and community-based agents can help us essentially to “countermediate” against the uninvited intermediaries that continue to dominate our digital worlds.

也许关键是将人们对Web的期望委托给可信赖的和支持性的第三方关系。 正如我们将在接下来的三篇文章中看到的那样，可以利用受托人的精神来代表Web用户发挥特别重要的作用。 个人，集体和社区代理人的混合可以从根本上帮助我们“抵制”反对继续主导我们数字世界的不受欢迎的中介机构。

Next month: Digital fiduciaries in action.

下个月：行动中的数字基准。

Supported by Omidyar Network

由Omidyar Network支持

[1] For a deeper exploration of fiduciary law in the context of the digital world, see generally Richard Whitt, Old School Goes Online: Exploring Fiduciary Obligations of Loyalty and Care in the Digital Platforms Era, Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal, Vol. 36:75 (2020). https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1648&context=chtlj.

[1]有关数字世界背景下的信托法的更深入探索，请参见Richard Whitt，《 守旧派在线：探索数字平台时代的忠实义务》，《圣克拉拉高等技术法律杂志》，第1卷。 36:75(2020)。 https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1648&context=chtlj 。

[2] Tamar Frankel, Fiduciary Law (2010), at 79.

[2] Tamar Frankel，《信托法》(2010年)，第79页。

[3] The Oxford Handbook of Fiduciary Law (Evan J. Criddle, Paul B. Miller, & Robert H. Sitkoff eds., 2019), at 23–363.

[3] 《牛津信托法手册》(Evan J. Criddle，Paul B. Miller和Robert H. Sitkoff编辑，2019年)，第23-363页。

[4] Id. at 471–663.

[4] ID。 在471–663。

[5] Frankel, Fiduciary Law, at 7.

[5] Frankel，《信托法》，第7页。

[6] Whitt, Old School Goes Online, at 87–88.

[6]惠特(Whitt)， 《守旧派》上线 ，电话：87–88。

[7] Whitt, Old School Goes Online, at 90–94.

[7]惠特(Whitt)，《 老学校上线》 ( Old School Goes Online) ，电话90-94。

[8] https://jnd.org/words_matter_talk_about_people_not_customers_not_consumers_not_users/.

[8] https://jnd.org/words_matter_talk_about_people_not_customers_not_consumers_not_users/。

[9] https://jacks.tumblr.com/post/33785796042/lets-reconsider-our-users.

[9] https://jacks.tumblr.com/post/33785796042/lets-reconsider-our-users 。

[10] https://jnd.org/words_matter_talk_about_people_not_customers_not_consumers_not_users/.

[10] https://jnd.org/words_matter_talk_about_people_not_customers_not_consumers_not_users/。

[11] Donella H. Meadows, Thinking in Systems: A Primer (2008), at 155.

[11] Donella H. Meadows，《系统中的思考：入门》(2008年)，第155页。

[12] https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/dealing-boundary-issues.

[12] https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/dealing-boundary-issues。

[13] https://www.fastcompany.com/90310803/here-are-the-data-brokers-quietly-buying-and-selling-your-personal-information.

[13] https://www.fastcompany.com/90310803/here-are-the-data-brokers-quietly-buying-and-selling-your-personal-information。

[14] https://blogs.harvard.edu/doc/2018/10/12/naked/.

[14] https://blogs.harvard.edu/doc/2018/10/12/naked/。

[15] Rachel Botsman, Who Can You Trust? How Technology Brought US Together, and Why It Might Drive Us Apart (2017), at 8–9, 259–260.

[15] Rachel Botsman，您可以信任谁？ 技术如何将美国团结在一起，以及它为何使我们与众不同(2017)，第8-9页，第259-260页。

[16] Taleb, Skin in the Game (2018).

[16] Taleb，游戏中的皮肤(2018)。

[17] Botsman, Who Can You Trust?, at 108.

[17]博茨曼，《你能信任谁？》，第108页。

[18] Meadows, Thinking in Systems, at 157.

[18] Meadows，《系统思考》，第157页。

[19] https://blogs.harvard.edu/vrm/2018/07/10/privacy/.

[19] https://blogs.harvard.edu/vrm/2018/07/10/privacy/。

[20] See Catherine D’Ignazio and Lauren F. Klein, Data Feminism, (2020), at 8–26 (describing the structural privilege and oppression inherent in power, and different domains of domination).

[20] 见凯瑟琳·迪格纳齐奥和劳伦·克莱因，《数据女性主义》(2020年)，第8至26页(描述了权力固有的结构特权和压迫，以及统治的不同领域)。