智能手机可不只是一部手机这么简单。它比最好的朋友还要了解你的秘密。多年来的个人信息全都存在一部小小的手机上，里面存储的内容连大脑都无法与之匹敌。那也许，手机不应再被简单地视作财产的一部分，而应算作人的一部分。今后偷手机就不是破坏私有财产，而是人身伤害；处理遗体就不只有人体，还应包括电子设备。隐私的范围需要扩大了，电子设备应该得到和身体一样的保护。
作者：
Karina Vold
译者：邹世昌&邵海灵
校对：王津雨
编辑：赵萌萌
Are 'you' just inside your skin or is your smartphone part of you?
“人”是指肌肤里面的存在，还是包括手机在内？
本文选自Aeon | 取经号原创翻译
关注 取经号，
回复关键词“外刊”
获取《经济学人》等原版外刊获得方法
In November 2017, a gunman entered a church in Sutherland Springs in Texas, where he killed 26 people and wounded 20 others. He escaped in his car, with police and residents in hot pursuit, before losing control of the vehicle and flipping it into a ditch. When the police got to the car, he was dead. The episode is horrifying enough without its unsettling epilogue. In the course of their investigations, the FBI reportedly pressed the gunman's finger to the fingerprint-recognition feature on his iPhone in an attempt to unlock it. Regardless of who's affected, it's disquieting to think of the police using a corpse to break into someone's digital afterlife.
2017年11月，一名持枪者闯入德克萨斯州萨瑟兰普林斯市的一所教堂，枪杀了26人，打伤了20人。行凶后枪手驾车逃离现场，而警察和当地居民穷追不舍，结果凶手的车失控翻倒在水沟里，警察赶到时已经身亡。仅此一幕已足够恐怖，但其后续事件却又令人不安：据报道，在案件调查过程中，美国联邦调查局把凶犯的手指按在他的iPhone上，用指纹解锁了他的手机。不管是谁受到影响，警方竟然利用尸体闯入他人在数码世界的“来世”，想想就令人担忧。
Most democratic constitutions shield us from unwanted
intrusions
into our brains and bodies. They also enshrine our entitlement to freedom of thought and mental privacy. That's why neurochemical drugs that interfere with cognitive functioning can't be administered against a person's will unless there's a clear medical justification. Similarly, according to scholarly opinion, law-enforcement officials can't compel someone to take a lie-detector test, because that would be an invasion of privacy and a violation of the right to remain silent.
大多数的民主宪法都保护我们的身体和大脑免受强加于人的
侵犯
，也赋予了我们思想自由和拥有精神隐私的权利。这就是为什么影响认知功能的精神药物不能在违背个人意志的情况下使用，除非出于明确的医疗理由。同样，根据学术观点，执法机构不能强迫某人进行测谎，因为这种做法既是对个人隐私的侵犯，也是对公民保持缄默权的侵犯。
intrusion
/in'tru·sion/ n. the act of intruding or the state of being intruded
especially
:
the act of wrongfully entering upon, seizing, or taking possession of the property of another 闯入，侵扰，侵犯
But in the present era of ubiquitous technology, philosophers are beginning to ask whether biological
anatomy
really captures the entirety of who we are. Given the role they play in our lives, do our devices deserve the same protections as our brains and bodies?
然而，在当今这个技术无处不在的时代，哲学家们开始质疑，生物学意义上的
机体
是否真正代表我们的全部。考虑到电子设备在我们生活中扮演的角色，它们是否应该得到像我们大脑和身体一样的保护？
anatomy
/ əˈnætəmɪ/ n. human body 人体
After all, your smartphone is much more than just a phone. It can tell a more intimate story about you than your best friend. No other piece of hardware in history, not even your brain, contains the quality or quantity of information held on your phone: it 'knows' whom you speak to, when you speak to them, what you said, where you have been, your purchases, photos,
biometric data
, even your notes to yourself – and all this dating back years.
毕竟，你的智能手机可不只是一部手机这么简单。它比你最好的朋友还要了解你私藏于心的秘密。历史上还没有任何一种硬件设备，能在信息的数量和质量上比得过手机里储存的个人信息，即便是大脑都无法与之匹敌：手机“知道”你通话的对象，通话的时间，通话的内容，去过的地方，购物记录，照片、
生物特征辨识数据
，甚至你写给自己的便签 —— 多年来的数据都存在手机里。
In 2014,
the United States Supreme Court
used this observation to justify the decision that police must obtain a warrant before rummaging through our smartphones. These devices 'are now such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life that the proverbial visitor from Mars might conclude they were an important feature of human anatomy', as Chief Justice John Roberts observed in his written opinion.
在2014年，
美国最高法院
利用这一观察结果作为理由，下令警方在搜查我们的智能手机之前必须获得搜查令。首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨在他的书面意见中指出，这些设备“现在已经成为日常生活中无处不在且不可或缺的一部分，要是火星人来地球，可能也会认为它们是人类机体的一个重要特征”。
The Chief Justice probably wasn't making a
metaphysical
point – but the philosophers Andy Clark and David Chalmers were when they argued in 'The Extended Mind' (1998) that technology is actually part of us. According to traditional cognitive science, 'thinking' is a process of symbol manipulation or neural computation, which gets carried out by the brain. Clark and Chalmers broadly accept this computational theory of mind, but claim that tools can become seamlessly integrated into how we think. Objects such as smartphones or notepads are often just as functionally essential to our cognition as the
synapse
s firing in our heads. They augment and extend our minds by increasing our cognitive power and freeing up internal resources.
首席大法官给出的可能不是
形而上学
的观点，但哲学家安迪·克拉克和大卫·查尔默斯给出的是，他们在《延展认知（1998）》中认为，技术就是我们的一部分。根据传统认知科学理论，“思考”是一个由大脑进行符号处理或神经计算的过程。克拉克和查尔默斯大致接受这种计算理论，但提出工具可以与我们的思维方式无缝融合。像智能手机或笔记本电脑这样的东西，通常与大脑里的
神经突触
一样，在我们的认知功能发挥着重要作用。这些设备能够提高我们的认知能力和释放内部资源，从而实现扩展人类思维的效果。
metaphysical
/ˌmetəˈfɪzɪkəl/
adj. concerned with the study of metaphysics 形而上学的
synapse
/ˈsaɪnæps/ n. place where nerve cells meet, especially in the brain 神经突触
If accepted, the extended mind thesis threatens widespread cultural assumptions about the inviolate nature of thought, which sits at the heart of most legal and social norms. As the US Supreme Court declared in 1942: 'freedom to think is absolute of its own nature; the most tyrannical government is powerless to control the inward workings of the mind.' This view has its origins in thinkers such as John Locke and René Descartes, who argued that the human soul is locked in a physical body, but that our thoughts exist in an immaterial world, inaccessible to other people. One's inner life thus needs protecting only when it is externalised, such as through speech. Many researchers in cognitive science still cling to this Cartesian conception – only, now, the private realm of thought coincides with activity in the brain.
如果接受这种观点，“延展认知理论”就会威胁到普遍存在的文化观念，即思想的不可侵犯性，而这也是大多数法律和社会规范的核心所在。正如美国最高法院1942年宣称的那样：思考的自由是绝对的、自然的。最专制的政府也无力控制内在思维过程。这一观点起源于约翰·洛克和勒奈·笛卡尔等思想家，他们认为人的灵魂被锁在肉体之中，但是我们的思想存在于一个非物质的世界里，其他人无法进入。因此，个体的内在生命只有在被外化时才需要保护，比如通过言语。许多认知科学的研究者仍然坚持这种笛卡尔式的概念——现今，思想的私人领域只与大脑活动一致。
But today's legal institutions are straining against this narrow concept of the mind. They are trying to
come to grips with
how technology is changing what it means to be human, and to devise new normative boundaries to cope with this reality. Justice Roberts might not have known about the idea of the extended mind, but it supports his
wry
observation that smartphones have become part of our body. If our minds now
encompass
our phones, we are essentially cyborgs: part-biology, part-technology. Given how our smartphones have taken over what were once functions of our brains – remembering dates, phone numbers, addresses – perhaps the data they contain should be treated
on a par with
the information we hold in our heads. So if the law aims to protect mental privacy, its boundaries would need to be pushed outwards to give our cyborg anatomy the same protections as our brains.
但如今的法律制度正在竭力扭转这种对于心智的狭义理解。受科技影响，“生而为人”的意义发生了怎样的改变？他们试图
厘清
这个问题，建立新的准则，重新划分边界，以应对当下的局面。罗伯茨法官或许并不了解延展认知理论，但这一概念与他观察到的
讽刺
现状不谋而合：智能手机已成为了我们身体的一部分。如果我们的手机也
是
我们心智和认知的
一部分
，那我们就是不折不扣的半机械人了：一部分是生物，一部分是技术。既然原先由人脑执行的功能现在已经被智能手机所取代，如记住日期、手机号码和地址，那比起储存在我们脑中的信息，手机里的数据或许也应该受到
同等级别的
对待。所以，如果法律旨在保护精神隐私，那隐私的范围就需要扩大，让我们的电子机体得到和大脑相同的保护。
come to grips with (someone of something):
to begin or make an effort to understand, accept and deal with a difficult or problematic person, thing, or situation. 试图理解、接受一个复杂的概念，或着手处理一件棘手的事情。
wry
/raɪ/ adj. slightly amusing 讽刺的，挖苦的，令人啼笑皆非的
encompass
/ɛnˈkʌmpəs/ v. to include, to completely surround or cover 包括，覆盖
on a par with:
equal to 与……不相上下；媲美；比肩
This line of reasoning leads to some potentially radical conclusions. Some philosophers have argued that when we die, our digital devices should be handled as remains: if your smartphone is a part of who you are, then perhaps it should be treated more like your corpse than your couch. Similarly, one might argue that trashing someone's smartphone should be seen as a form of 'extended' assault, equivalent to a blow to the head, rather than just destruction of property. If your memories are erased because someone attacks you with a club, a court would have no trouble characterising the episode as a violent incident. So if someone breaks your smartphone and wipes its contents, perhaps the perpetrator should be punished as they would be if they had caused a head trauma.
按这个逻辑推理下去，就有可能得出一些潜在的激进结论。有些哲学家提出，人过世以后，其电子设备应当作为遗体处理：如果你的手机也是组成你的一部分，那或许它也应该享受和遗体同等的对待，而不是像你的旧沙发那样被处理掉。同理可证，破坏一个人的智能手机也是某种形式的“延展”侵犯，其后果等同于在别人脑袋上砸了一拳，而不仅仅是对私有财产的破坏。如果你被人用木棍殴打以致失忆，法庭无疑会将此定性为暴力事件。那么，如果有人摔坏了你的智能手机，抹掉了里面的一切内容，那肇事者或许就当以人身伤害的罪名受到惩罚，因为这样做无异于使你的头部遭受重创。
The extended mind thesis also challenges the law's role in protecting both the content and the means of thought – that is, shielding what and how we think from undue influence. Regulation bars non-consensual interference in our neurochemistry (for example, through drugs), because that meddles with the contents of our mind. But if cognition encompasses devices, then arguably they should be subject to the same prohibitions. Perhaps some of the techniques that advertisers use to hijack our attention online, to nudge our decision-making or manipulate search results, should count as intrusions on our cognitive process. Similarly, in areas where the law protects the means of thought, it might need to guarantee access to tools such as smartphones – in the same way that freedom of expression protects people's right not only to write or speak, but also to use computers and disseminate speech over the internet.
法律既要保护人们思想的内容，也要保护人们表达思想的手段——也就是说，我们思考什么、如何思考，都应受到法律的保护，不被外界过分干扰。而延展认知理论对法律的这一角色也提出了挑战。法律禁止在未经双方同意的情况下通过化学物质对当事人的神经活动施加干扰（比如通过药物），因为这会扰乱我们思想的内容。但如果电子设备也包括在认知的范围内，那按这个道理说，同样的禁令也应该适用于这些设备。也许广告商用以操纵我们上网时的注意力、推动我们做出决定或操纵搜索结果的某些技术手段，也应该被算作是对我们认知过程的干涉。同样，在人们表达思想的手段受法律保护的那些领域，可能也要确保覆盖到诸如智能手机之类的工具——正如言论自由不仅保护人们写作或说话的权利，也要保护人们使用电脑在互联网上散播言论的权利。
The courts are still some way from arriving at such decisions. Besides the headline-making cases of mass shooters, there are thousands of instances each year in which police authorities try to get access to encrypted devices. Although the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution protects individuals' right to remain silent (and therefore not give up a passcode), judges in several states have ruled that police can forcibly use fingerprints to unlock a user's phone. (With the new facial-recognition feature on the iPhone X, police might only need to get an unwitting user to look at her phone.) These decisions reflect the traditional concept that the rights and freedoms of an individual end at the skin.
法庭距离做出上述判决还有很长的路要走。除了那些抢占头条的大规模枪击案以外，每年还有数以千计的案件，警方都在试图破解与案情有关的加密设备。尽管美国宪法第五修正案保障了个人保持沉默的权利（因此也有权不透露密码），但数个州的法官都曾判定警方可以强行使用指纹解锁用户的手机。（随着iPhoneX新添加的人脸识别功能，警察也许只要让用户在无意中看一眼手机就行了。）这些决定反映出了传统的观念：个人的权利与自由仅止于皮肤的表面。
But the concept of personal rights and freedoms that guides our legal institutions is outdated. It is built on a model of a free individual who enjoys an untouchable inner life. Now, though, our thoughts can be invaded before they have even been developed – and in a way, perhaps this is nothing new. The Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman used to say that he thought with his notebook. Without a pen and pencil, a great deal of complex reflection and analysis would never have been possible. If the extended mind view is right, then even simple technologies such as these would merit recognition and protection as a part of the essential toolkit of the mind.
但引领司法制度的个人权利与自由的概念如今已经过时了。原先的概念是基于这样的模式：自由的个人享有一个外界不能触及的内心世界。然而现今我们的思想甚至可以在发展成形之前就遭到侵犯——而且这种侵犯行径已经不是什么新鲜事儿了。诺贝尔获奖者、物理学家理查德·费曼曾说过，他是用笔记本进行思考的。如果没有纸和笔，大量复杂的思辨与分析就绝对无法成为可能。如果拓展认知理论是对的，那即使简单如纸笔，这些技术手段也应当作为心智的重要工具箱而得到承认与保护。
