Without privacy， at no time are you permitted to have a space that is only just for you.

沒了隱私，任何時候我們都沒有只屬于自己的空間。

—愛德華·斯諾登

My son is 14 today and for his birthday—in addition to a bicycle， a basketball， and a T-shirt—I am giving him the gift of privacy. And I am giving him this gift because of Snowden.

Thats right. Edward Snowden， NSA1） whistle-blower2） and hero to some， traitor to others， has changed not only the way I view privacy but also the way I view my teens privacy and the way I safeguard it—from myself.

When Snowdens revelations about mass government surveillance3） made headlines in 2013， I—like many other Americans—was shocked and disturbed. The PRISM program4）， in which the communications of millions of Americans were collected and stored by the government， without warrant or probable cause， seemed to violate the Constitutions Fourth Amendment， which prohibits warrantless search and seizure. The argument that the innocent should have nothing to fear from such programs rang hollow to me and many others in America.

Then in March， as part of my research on another story I am writing， I listened to a live conversation on privacy between Snowden， constitutional lawyer and co-founder of The Intercept Glen Greenwald and historian and linguist Noam Chomsky.

While the conversation between these three thought leaders fascinated me， it was the remarks of 33-year-old Snowden that affected me most profoundly. “Privacy，” he asserted， “is the right to self…. Privacy is the right to a free mind.” He went on to explain that “privacy is what allows us to determine our beliefs without being influenced by others， subject to peer pressure， or judged before those beliefs are fully formed. Without privacy，” he added， “at no time are you permitted to have a space that is only just for you.”

Consider that statement for a moment： “Without privacy， at no time are you permitted to have a space that is only just for you.”

Greenwald reinforced this idea when he explained that people secure their homes and rooms with locks and their email and social media with passwords in part “to ensure that there is a place they can go in the world to think and reason and explore without the judgmental eyes of other people being cast upon them.… When we lose privacy，” he went on， “we lose a really critical part of what it means to be an independent and free individual.”

All of this was relevant to the research I was doing for my story， but as I listened I realized it was equally relevant to my role as a parent. Like many other parents in the digital age， I have adopted and imperfectly enforced various rules regarding my sons use of media. In fact， it is an issue that has dominated my thinking about parenting and my conversations with other parents. Kids media use is the subject of numerous studies， books， and articles.endprint

When my son spent the summer mowing lawns and pet sitting so that he could purchase his first smart phone at the age of 13， I asserted the right to randomly monitor his online activity and communications. I demanded his passwords， followed him on Instagram， and periodically checked his search history and read his text messages. I strictly forbade the use of Snapchat.

Likely this was appropriate to his age at the time. It certainly was in keeping with conventional wisdom—if there can be such a thing when the technologies involved are so new.

An informal poll of parents in middle-class， progressive neighborhood suggests that many parents are fairly vigilant about monitoring social media， reading texts， and setting up parental controls on all electronic devices. And their reasons for doing so are valid and related to concerns for their childrens safety. In short， we monitor our kids online behavior for the same reason we make them wear bicycle helmets—to protect them.

I cannot help but notice， however， that this is exactly the same reason the NSA and other federal agencies give for mass surveillance programs like PRISM. They are protecting us！ Since 9/11， terrorists have become the public enemy No. 1. Warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens is necessary to keep us safe， we are repeatedly told.

Yet as many have pointed out， statistically speaking， we have little to fear from terrorism. I am much more likely to be killed by my own furniture than by a terrorist. This fact makes me wonder if our fears for our childrens online safety are equally unfounded.

Statistics are difficult to come by， but my own experiences monitoring my son have revealed a few frightening online incidents—the stuff of digital parenting nightmares.

For instance， one night when he was sleeping over with a friend， I checked his Instagram page and noticed that an image he had posted of himself had attracted more than 200 mostly derogatory5） comments—and the insults and threats were still coming. These included bullying and name-calling on the part of high school boys threatening to beat up my middle-school-aged son. My first instinct was to intervene6） immediately. Here was exactly the kind of situation that Id read about and dreaded. As I monitored the comment thread， however， I saw that my son was standing up for himself and holding his own7）. I saw that his friends had his back. In short， I saw that he was handling it and did not need my help.endprint

On another occasion I read a text message in which a friend offered to send my son a “nekid pic” of a girl they both knew. His texted response？ “Hell， no！”

I felt reassured. Nonetheless， my policy of random surveillance remained in place. Without warning or probable cause， I could and did read his private communications， check his search history and monitor his social media use.

Normal， prudent， and part and parcel8） of my responsibility as a parent in the digital age， right？ Perhaps. But consider these parenting policies in light of the following passage from George Orwells 1984：

There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often， or on what system， the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You have to live—did live， from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard， and， except in darkness， every movement scrutinized.

I have been acting， in effect， as the Thought Police in my sons life.

Now consider the developmental task of the adolescent， who is deep in the alchemical process of creating a unique self and personality—developing personal beliefs and a value system. In light of this， Snowdens words struck me like a revelation.

And so today， on his fourteenth birthday， I am giving my son the gift of privacy. I will no longer monitor his private communications or online behavior or history unless I have probable cause. By probable cause， I mean reasonable suspicion that he is in danger or involved in criminal activity. And I have told him so. And yes， I secured my sons permission before publishing this essay.

I am giving him the gift of privacy because if I have not taught him what he needs to know to navigate the world with his own moral compass by now， there is little chance that doing something that sets the needle in my own compass spinning will help. I am giving him the gift of privacy because trying to protect my son from every injury or harm deprives him of the opportunity to learn for himself that fire burns and some dogs bite. I am giving him the gift of privacy because the Golden Rule9） dictates that I treat others as I would like to be treated. And， finally， I am giving my son the gift of privacy because of Edward Snowden.

我兒子今天滿14周歲。除了自行車、籃球和一件T恤衫外，我還要給他一份生日禮物——隱私。給他這個禮物是因為斯諾登。endprint

對！愛德華·斯諾登，美國國家安全局的泄密者，一些人眼中的英雄，另一些人眼中的叛徒，他不僅改變了我對隱私的看法，也改變了我對十幾歲兒子隱私的看法，改變了我保護(hù)兒子隱私—不被我窺探—的方式。

2013年，當(dāng)斯諾登揭發(fā)政府大規(guī)模監(jiān)聽這件事登上頭條時，我和許多其他美國人一樣感到震驚和恐慌。美國政府的棱鏡計劃在沒有征得授權(quán)也沒有任何說得過去的理由的情況下，收集、儲存了數(shù)百萬美國人的通訊信息。這似乎違反了《憲法第四修正案》，該修正案禁止無授權(quán)的搜查和沒收行為。清白者無懼此類計劃的言論讓我感覺空洞而無意義，其他很多美國人也有同感。

然后到了3月，為了我正在寫的另一篇故事，我進(jìn)行調(diào)研，聽了斯諾登、憲法律師同時也是攔截網(wǎng)站聯(lián)合創(chuàng)始人的格倫·格林沃德以及歷史學(xué)家兼語言學(xué)家的諾姆·喬姆斯基之間關(guān)于隱私的實時對話。

這三個思想領(lǐng)袖間的談話讓我很是著迷，但還是33歲的斯諾登的一番言論對我影響最為深刻?！半[私，”他堅稱，“是自己的權(quán)利……隱私是自由思考者的權(quán)利?！彼^續(xù)解釋說，“隱私讓我們能夠決定自己的信念，而不受他人影響，不受同輩壓力，不需要在信念完全形成之前接受裁決。沒了隱私，”他補充道，“任何時候我們都沒有只屬于自己的空間?！?/p>

請花片刻時間思考一下這句話：“沒了隱私，任何時候我們都沒有只屬于自己的空間?！?/p>

格林沃德進(jìn)一步闡釋了這個觀點，他解釋說，人們用鎖保護(hù)自己的家和房間，用密碼保護(hù)郵件和社交媒體，有個目的就是“確保他們在這世界上有個地方可以去思考、推論和探索，而不用接受他人投給你的評判性目光……當(dāng)我們失去隱私，”他繼續(xù)道，“我們也就失去了一個獨立自由的個體所代表的意義中真正關(guān)鍵的一部分。”

所有這些都和我為寫作而做的調(diào)研大有關(guān)系，但是我在聽的時候，我意識到這和我為人父母的角色同樣有關(guān)。和很多處于數(shù)字時代的父母一樣，就兒子如何使用媒介這個問題，我采用并且不夠完美地實施了各種各樣的規(guī)則。實際上，這個話題主導(dǎo)著我對為人父母的思考，以及與其他父母的交談。兒童對媒體的使用也是無數(shù)研究、著作及文章的主題。

兒子在13歲那年的夏天，又是修整草坪，又是照顧寵物，為的就是買自己人生中的第一部智能手機，而我則堅持了不定時檢查他的上網(wǎng)活動和通信的權(quán)利，我強行要了他的各種密碼，關(guān)注了他的Instagram，定期檢查他的搜索歷史，翻看他的手機短信，并嚴(yán)格禁止他使用Snapchat。

這個時候，這種做法對他這個年紀(jì)的孩子大概是合適的。這種做法無疑符合傳統(tǒng)智慧——還有沒有傳統(tǒng)智慧也很難說，畢竟?fàn)可娴氖沁@么新的科技。

在中產(chǎn)階級的開明社區(qū)里舉行的一次父母間的非正式投票表明，很多父母都非常警惕，他們監(jiān)督孩子的社交媒體，閱讀他們的手機短信，在所有的電子設(shè)備上建立起父母控制機制。他們這么做的理由是正當(dāng)?shù)模鲇谒麄儗⒆影踩膿?dān)憂。簡言之，我們監(jiān)視孩子的上網(wǎng)行為和我們給他們戴自行車頭盔是出于同樣的原因——保護(hù)他們。

我不禁想到NSA及其他聯(lián)邦機構(gòu)在為諸如棱鏡之類的計劃辯護(hù)時，提出的也是完全同樣的原因。他們在保護(hù)我們！自9·11以來，恐怖分子已經(jīng)變成公眾的頭號敵人。為了保護(hù)美國公民的安全，無授權(quán)情況下的監(jiān)聽是必要的——政府一次又一次地跟我們這么說。

然而，正如很多人指出的那樣，從統(tǒng)計學(xué)的角度來說，我們對恐怖主義沒有多少可怕的。我被自己家的家具砸死的可能性要高于被恐怖分子殺死的可能性。這讓我懷疑我們對于孩子上網(wǎng)安全的擔(dān)心是否也一樣沒有依據(jù)。

統(tǒng)計數(shù)據(jù)很難獲得，但是我自己監(jiān)視兒子的經(jīng)歷揭示了一些令人恐懼的網(wǎng)絡(luò)事件——這些是父母們實施電子監(jiān)控時遇到的噩夢。

例如，有一天晚上他在朋友那里過夜，我就檢查了他的Instagram主頁，注意到他上傳的一張自己的照片招來了兩百多條評論，大部分都是貶斥的言辭，并且?guī)в形耆栊院屯{性的言論還在不斷出現(xiàn)。其中包括高中男孩的欺辱和謾罵，他們威脅要揍我只有初中生年紀(jì)的兒子。我的第一反應(yīng)是要立刻介入。這正是我以前在書上讀到過并擔(dān)心的情況。但當(dāng)查看后續(xù)評論時，我看到兒子站出來維護(hù)自己的權(quán)利，堅持自己的立場。我看到他的朋友們都支持他。簡言之，我看到他自己在處理這件事，不需要我的幫助。

還有一次，我讀到他的一則短信，他的一個朋友要發(fā)給他一張一個姑娘的“裸圖”。這個姑娘他們都認(rèn)識。他怎么回復(fù)的？“天哪！不要！”

我松了一口氣。但是我隨機檢查的規(guī)定還保留著。沒有通知，沒有任何理由，我可以翻閱他的私人通信，檢查他的搜索歷史，監(jiān)視他的社交情況，而且我真的這么做了。

這是正常、謹(jǐn)慎的，是作為數(shù)字時代父母職責(zé)的重要部分，對嗎？也許吧。但是結(jié)合喬治·奧威爾《1984》中的這段話，再掂量掂量為人父母制定的這些政策吧：

當(dāng)然，沒有辦法知道你自己在某一時間里是否受到監(jiān)視。“思想警察”多久一次又是用什么樣的系統(tǒng)進(jìn)入任何私人通信，這些都只能靠猜測。甚至有可能他們無時無刻不在監(jiān)視著每一個人。至少他們有能力隨時侵入你的通信，只要他們想這么做。你不得不生活在這樣的猜想中，從習(xí)慣變成本能——你每發(fā)出一個聲音都會被竊聽，你的每個動作都會被審視，除非你在黑暗中。

實際上，在兒子的生活中，我一直扮演著“思想警察”的角色。

現(xiàn)在考慮一下青少年的發(fā)展任務(wù)，這個時期的他們正處于打造獨立人格和品格修煉的關(guān)鍵階段，正在形成自己的個人信念和價值體系。從這一點來看，斯諾登的話對我來說如同醍醐灌頂。

所以，今天，在兒子14歲生日這天，我要把隱私作為禮物送給他。我不再監(jiān)視他的私人通信、網(wǎng)絡(luò)行為或歷史記錄，除非出于有充分根據(jù)的理由。有充分根據(jù)的理由，我指的是對他可能有危險或者可能參與犯罪活動的合理懷疑。我是這么跟他說的。而且，沒錯，發(fā)布本文前，我已經(jīng)獲得兒子的允許。

我把隱私作為禮物送給他，因為如果我現(xiàn)在不教給兒子他所需的知識—帶著自己的道德羅盤航行于這個世界所需的知識，那么往后即便我能調(diào)整自己羅盤上的針也不大可能給他任何幫助。我把隱私作為禮物送給他，因為一味努力保護(hù)他，讓他遠(yuǎn)離任何苦痛和傷害，這只會剝奪他學(xué)習(xí)的機會—認(rèn)識到火會造成燒傷，狗也會咬人的機會。我把隱私作為禮物送給他，因為黃金法則告訴我，己所不欲，勿施于人。最后，我把隱私作為禮物送給兒子，是因為愛德華·斯諾登。

1. NSA：National Security Agency的縮寫，指美國國家安全局，是美國政府機構(gòu)中最大的情報部門，專門負(fù)責(zé)收集和分析外國及本國通訊資料，隸屬于美國國防部。

2. whistle-blower：（尤指政府部門或公司里的）告發(fā)者，揭發(fā)者

3. surveillance [s?（r）?ve?l?ns] n. 監(jiān)督；監(jiān)視

4. PRISM program：美國棱鏡計劃，是一項由美國國家安全局自2007年起開始實施的絕密級電子監(jiān)聽計劃。

5. derogatory [d??r?ɡ?t（?）ri] adj. 侮辱的，貶義的

6. intervene [??nt?（r）?vi?n] vi. 干涉；干預(yù)

7. hold ones own：堅持自己的立場；堅守住，不退讓

8. part and parcel：重要（或主要、基本）部分；不可缺少的部分

9. Golden Rule：（尤指在某種情況下使用的）重要的原則，指導(dǎo)準(zhǔn)則endprint