Well, it happened. Several weeks ago in the wake of the most consequential public health crisis most of us have seen in our lifetimes, Apple and Google teamed up to help fight the coronavirus using their most valuable platforms: the little devices in our pockets.

w ^ ELL，它发生了。 几周前，在最严重的公共卫生危机过后，我们大多数人一生中都看到了这种情况， 苹果和谷歌联手使用其最有价值的平台：口袋里的小设备，帮助抗击冠状病毒。

The tech giants have already deployed global coronavirus contact tracing APIs for use by public health officials, and a future update to Android and iOS operating systems will allow mobile phone users to voluntarily register their infection statuses. If an individual has received a positive diagnosis, other opted-in users whose devices have been in proximity to that of the diagnosed patient within the incubation period will receive a notification indicating they may have been exposed. Google and Apple plan to deploy the contact tracing tool in a privacy-safe manner, claiming, “the tool would not collect devices’ locations…and would keep people anonymous in the central servers.”

这些技术巨头已经部署了全球冠状病毒接触者追踪API，供公共卫生官员使用，并且未来对Android和iOS操作系统的更新将使手机用户能够自愿注册其感染状态。 如果某人已收到肯定的诊断，则其潜伏期内设备与被诊断患者的设备接近的其他选择使用的用户将收到一条通知，指出他们可能已被暴露。 谷歌和苹果计划以一种隐私安全的方式部署联系人跟踪工具，声称“ 该工具不会收集设备的位置……并将使人们在中央服务器中保持匿名 。”

Between these two companies, a high opt-in rate would mean remarkably global coverage of the population. Based on data aggregated from eMarketer’s smartphone users forecasts for 2020, 40% of the world’s population, or 3.06 billion people, are smart phone users. Apple’s iOS and Google’s Android operating systems are deployed on the vast majority of smartphones, especially in Western markets such as the United States where Apple and Google have 45.6% and 53.8% market share, respectively.

在这两家公司之间，较高的选择率将意味着对人口的全球覆盖。 根据eMarketer智能手机用户对2020年的预测汇总的数据，全球40％的人口(即30.6 亿人)是智能手机用户。 苹果的iOS和谷歌的Android操作系统已部署在绝大多数智能手机上，尤其是在美国等西方市场，苹果和谷歌分别拥有45.6％和53.8％的市场份额。

Given these figures, Apple and Google jointly have greater authenticated global reach and user engagement than any one government or international organization could achieve on its own. This is why, even though it’s not their true function, public officials and consumers are looking to these companies to provide aid — Apple and Google are the only ones who have the embedded network to connect consumers to the public sphere, quickly and at scale, and this ability could extend far beyond public health. What about privacy?

有了这些数字，苹果和谷歌联合验证的全球影响力和用户参与度就比任何一个政府或国际组织都可以独自实现。 因此，即使这不是真正的功能，公共官员和消费者也希望这些公司提供帮助-苹果和谷歌是唯一拥有将消费者快速，大规模地连接到公共领域的嵌入式网络的公司，这种能力可能远远超出公共卫生范围。 那么隐私呢？

The “Privacy” OS

“隐私”操作系统

The notion of a data privacy operating system is a utopian ideal bandied about by public interest technologists and privacy geeks alike, myself included. The basic idea of a privacy operating system is that consumers could manage their data privacy settings across all services with which they interact from one centralized application associated with each of their online devices. An operating system such as this would then enable privacy ‘hooks’ or ‘plug-ins’ whereby any service wishing to access user data digitally would need to integrate with the OS, publish its own nuanced privacy options with accompanying policies, and respect the user’s privacy preferences to qualify for access.

数据隐私操作系统的概念是乌托邦式的理想，它受到公众利益技术人员和隐私极客( 包括我本人)的拥护 。 隐私操作系统的基本思想是，消费者可以跨与与每个在线设备相关联的一个集中式应用程序进行交互的所有服务来管理其数据隐私设置。 这样的操作系统将启用隐私“挂钩”或“插件”，从而希望以数字方式访问用户数据的任何服务都需要与OS集成，发布其自己细微的隐私选项以及相应的策略，并尊重用户的隐私首选项才能获得访问权限。

Today, both Apple and Google include versions of privacy operating systems on all of their devices. Each time you download a new mobile app, you are prompted to set your privacy preferences, which typically revolve around whether and how often you wish to allow access to data. Both companies allow you to revisit and adjust these preferences at any time.

如今，Apple和Google都在其所有设备上都包含了隐私操作系统版本。 每次下载新的移动应用程序时，系统都会提示您设置隐私首选项，该首选项通常围绕是否希望以及多长时间允许一次数据访问而进行。 两家公司都允许您随时重新访问并调整这些首选项。

As you browse the different privacy settings, it’s not a far-fetched mental leap to consider whether Apple and Google could govern access and usage of our data by other services. To an extent, they already do — each platform has its own requirements for participation in their respective app stores, and app developers must abide by these policies in order to have a listing in the app store from which to be downloaded by customers.

当您浏览不同的隐私设置时，考虑苹果和谷歌是否可以管理其他服务对我们数据的访问和使用并不是一个遥不可及的想法。 在某种程度上，他们已经这样做了-每个平台对参与其各自的应用程序商店都有其自己的要求，并且应用程序开发人员必须遵守这些政策，以便在应用程序商店中拥有可供客户下载的列表。

Apps can already leverage data privacy hooks enabling access to data such as location data, contact information, data from other applications, and photos. These hooks could be augmented to include more granular controls and more robust security mechanisms for the sharing and retroactive revocation of personal data. You as the device (and data) owner would then set your privacy preferences from a central interface.

应用程序已经可以利用数据隐私挂钩来访问数据，例如位置数据，联系信息，来自其他应用程序的数据和照片。 可以增加这些挂钩，以包括更精细的控件和更强大的安全机制，以共享和追溯撤消个人数据。 然后，您作为设备(和数据)的所有者将通过中央界面设置您的隐私首选项。

At this juncture, without the intervention of widespread data privacy legislation, Apple and Google (with the exception of Tencent and Alibaba in China) are arguably the only entities public or private who could realistically launch privacy operating systems at scale. Most other service providers who would wish to access consumer data have some kind of relationship with at least one of the two tech giants, and no one else is in almost every online citizen’s pocket. Both companies, even with their spotty track records on privacy and antitrust concerns, seem eager to ride the privacy wave. Yet, is it wise to rely on them to responsibly collect and govern the use of our digital data?

目前，在没有广泛的数据隐私立法干预的情况下，苹果和谷歌(中国的腾讯和阿里巴巴除外)可以说是唯一可以实际大规模启动隐私操作系统的公共或私人实体。 希望访问消费者数据的大多数其他服务提供商与这两家技术巨头中的至少一家有着某种关系，几乎每个在线公民的口袋里都没有其他人。 两家公司，即使他们在隐私和反托拉斯方面的 跟踪记录也很差 ，似乎都渴望驾驭隐私潮 。 但是，依靠它们负责任地收集和管理我们的数字数据的使用是否明智？

Can we trust them?

我们可以信任他们吗？

It is my belief that most of the people working for Apple and Google are well-intentioned and want to make a positive impact on the world. That’s why they come to work every day to spin up awe-inspiring products. However, as tech journalist Kara Swisher often reminds us, we must consider the Black Mirror version of how this deployment plays out. Forbes columnist John Koetsier argues that while consented participation in enabling the contact tracing tools will go a long way in alleviating the crisis’s toll, “you could imagine a scenario in which local governments devastated by COVID-19 infections force [Apple and Google] to enable it by law.”

我相信，大多数为Apple和Google工作的人都是好心人，希望对世界产生积极影响。 这就是为什么他们每天都上班来制作令人敬畏的产品的原因。 但是，正如科技记者Kara Swisher经常提醒我们的那样 ，我们必须考虑Black Mirror版本的部署方式。 福布斯专栏作家约翰·科茨耶尔(John Koetsier)认为，虽然同意参与启用联系跟踪工具在减轻危机造成的损失方面将大有帮助，但“您可以想象一个场景，在这种情况下，被COVID-19感染破坏的地方政府迫使[Apple和Google]实现依法。”

This is where the well-intentioned privacy-safe implementation of any public health (or privacy) operating system becomes a slippery slope. What if, as we’ve seen with China’s Alipay Health Code, social and legal pressures force Apple and Google to reveal patient identities or use this data for purposes beyond controlling the spread of coronavirus? What if those requirements were applied to any data collected on these platforms?

在这里，任何公共卫生(或隐私)操作系统的精心设计的隐私安全实现方式都将变得一尘不染。 就像我们在《中国支付宝卫生法典》中所看到的那样，如果社会和法律压力迫使苹果和谷歌泄露患者身份或出于控制冠状病毒传播的目的而使用这些数据怎么办？ 如果这些要求适用于在这些平台上收集的任何数据怎么办？

Apple, which has made it technically impossible by default for the company to unlock a user’s locked device without user input, already has had a few scuffles with U.S. law enforcement around citizens’ rights to privacy. Google receives so many civil requests for user data that they’ve built a detailed process around fulfilling them, which is outlined in a public Help Center article.

苹果公司在技术上默认情况下使公司在没有用户输入的情况下就无法解锁用户的锁定设备，因此，它已经与美国执法部门就公民的隐私权发生了一些冲突 。 Google收到了许多针对用户数据的民事请求，以至于他们围绕实现这些数据建立了详细的流程，公开的帮助中心文章对此进行了概述。

Thus far, cultural and institutional respect for the division between the public and private sectors in the U.S. have allowed Apple and Google to avoid granting the government carte blanche access to consumer data generated via their services. However, not all countries maintain a line between public and private, and where they do exist, these lines often become more blurry in a crisis. If Apple and Google were to act as universal privacy operating systems, without an international legal framework acknowledging citizens’ sovereignty over their own data, there is some probability that privacy would be rendered moot in the face of demands for data access from governments controlling the ability for Apple and Google to operate within their countries.

迄今为止，由于文化和制度上对美国公共部门和私营部门之间的区分的尊重，苹果和谷歌避免了让政府专权访问通过其服务生成的消费者数据。 但是，并非所有国家都在公共和私人之间保持界限，而一旦存在，这些界限在危机中往往变得更加模糊。 如果苹果和谷歌充当通用隐私操作系统，而没有一个国际法律框架承认公民对其数据拥有主权，那么面对控制该功能的政府对数据访问的要求，有可能使隐私变得毫无意义。苹果和谷歌在其国家/地区运营。

Aside from the risk posed by external bad actors who might exploit consumer personal data to maintain power or exercise discriminatory practices, there is an open question around whether Apple and Google are well-placed to protect privacy. Their business models are structured such that the companies are only incentivized to protect data privacy as long as 1) they do so well enough to avoid a boycott of their services by consumers, and 2) the data is not kept private from them.

除了外部不良行为者可能利用消费者的个人数据来维持权力或实施歧视性做法带来的风险外，围绕苹果和谷歌是否处于保护隐私权的适当位置还有一个悬而未决的问题。 他们的业务模型结构合理，只有在以下情况下才激励公司保护数据隐私：1)他们做得足够好，可以避免消费者抵制其服务； 2)数据不会对他们保密。

Google’s valuation continues to skyrocket precisely as a result of its singular ability to build products around the capture of vast amounts of consumer profile data online. Expansion of its services is increasingly reliant on the collection of the “behavioral surplus” data we generate while using Google’s consumer-facing products. As a result, allowing Google to set the framework for data privacy would feel a bit like handing your keys to a car thief who promises to still drive you wherever you need to go.

正是由于其独特的能力来围绕在线捕获大量消费者资料数据来构建产品，Google的估值才持续飙升。 其服务的扩展越来越依赖于我们在使用Google面向消费者的产品时生成的“行为剩余”数据的收集。 结果，允许Google设置数据隐私框架的感觉有点像将钥匙交给偷车贼，偷车贼承诺仍会把您带到您需要去的任何地方。

In an attempt to draw a stark contrast to Google, Apple praises itself publicly for its approach to privacy as a human right. While Apple’s claims to privacy preservation may have some merit, they are dependent on the notion that Apple doesn’t need consumer data to run its business because its business model is based on direct-to-consumer sales of hardware and software. In reality, Apple’s iOS and its own applications are still fairly privacy-porous, allowing for nearly as much data collection at scale by Apple and other third parties as Android enables. There is also no guarantee that Apple will not branch into data-dependent business models in the future as it reaches market saturation for its hardware products. In fact, Apple’s privacy policy makes plain that Apple already uses data collected via its Health, News, Podcast, and Apple TV+ apps to inform product improvements and advertising.

为了与Google形成鲜明对比，Apple公开称赞其将隐私作为人权的做法 。 尽管苹果公司声称保护隐私可能有其优点，但它们取决于苹果公司不需要消费者数据来经营其业务的观点，因为苹果公司的业务模式基于直接面向消费者的硬件和软件销售。 实际上，Apple的iOS及其自己的应用程序仍然具有很大的隐私漏洞 ，因此与Android相比，Apple和其他第三方在规模化数据收集方面的能力几乎相同。 此外，也无法保证苹果将来在其硬件产品达到市场饱和时不会进入依赖数据的商业模式。 实际上，苹果公司的隐私政策明确表明，苹果公司已经在使用通过其健康，新闻，播客和Apple TV +应用程序收集的数据来告知产品改进和广告。

Although I’m grateful these companies have stepped up in the absence of an elegantly coordinated international response to the current pandemic, is it wrong to question whether they will never have ulterior motives in collecting potentially sensitive data? In a world where access to data at scale is increasingly synonymous with power, it would be naive to trust that Apple and Google, two public companies beholden to shareholders, will always act in our best interest.

尽管我很感激这些公司在国际上对当前的流行病缺乏协调一致的应对措施的情况下加紧了，但质疑他们在收集潜在敏感数据方面是否永远不会有别有用心？ 在当今世界，大规模访问数据已日益成为力量的代名词，天真地相信苹果和谷歌这两家对股东大有裨益的公司将始终为我们的最大利益而行动。

Regardless of the fair skepticism about Apple and Google’s roles in pandemic response, these companies are most certainly not as nefarious as they are made out to be — they are made up of people, doing their best. These people, like any others, sometimes make mistakes. Yet, I still hold out hope that in partnership with regulators and public interest technologists, they will deploy operating systems that safeguard not only the public interest, but also, our privacy. In the absence of legislation, they may be the only ones who can.

尽管人们对苹果和谷歌在大流行应对中的作用持怀疑态度，但这些公司无疑并没有像他们想象的那样邪恶-它们是由人们组成，竭尽所能。 这些人和其他人一样，有时也会犯错。 但是，我仍然希望与监管机构和公共利益技术人员合作，部署能够不仅维护公共利益而且保护我们的隐私的操作系统。 在没有立法的情况下，他们可能是唯一可以这样做的人。