“棱镜门”的披露者、前美国情报人员斯诺登发推特称,他的新书《》中文版关于“国家监控以及民主普世价值”的内容被删,并称将在近期免费分享真正的版本。在本文中,我们列出了一些斯诺登给的例子。

(德国之声中文网)流亡俄罗斯的斯诺登(Edward Snowden)在11月12日发推特称,其自传体新书《永久记录》的中文版遭遇审查,这”违反了合同”。他呼吁中国政府允许出版商印刷原版的未经审查的版本,并称”我们将在几周内免费在线分享真正的版本”。这条推文是斯诺登用简体中文发的,他还为自己的普通话不好而道歉。

此外,斯诺登还用英文发表了更多推特,更详细地阐述了这一事件。他表示,自己看到了被删节的版本,拿到了”一些最糟糕的例子”。他表示,会将这些片段重新翻译成中文,”揭示审查者想要隐瞒的东西”。

斯诺登在推特上贴出了中文版第16章146页和152页、第18章第183页和184页、第25章250页、第26章261页和262页的内容。根据斯诺登贴出的文字截屏,这些内容有关于公民自由、威权社会的,也有关于中国的。

以第16章152页为例,根据斯诺登的推特,该部分的英文内容为:

“The point of my researching this widely dispersed material was to do more than merely on how China was hacking us, however. My primary task was to provide a summary of the IC’s assessment of China’s ability to electronically track American officers and assets operating in the region.

Everyone knows (or thinks they know) about the draconian Internet measures of the Chinese government, and some people know (or think they know) the gravamen of the disclosures I gave to journalists in 2013 about my own government’s capabilities. ”

该部分的中文翻译为:

不过,我搜寻、研究如此广泛材料的目的不仅是为了研究中国如何网络袭击我们。我的主要目标是提供情报界对中国电子跟踪美国官员以及地区运行资产的能力的评估。

每个人都知道(或自以为知道)中国政府严厉的互联网措施,但对我在2013年向记者披露的、有关我自己政府这方面能力的内容,却只有部分人知道(或自以为知道)。

在斯诺登贴出的中文版本中,这一段被缩减为:

“不过,我搜寻如此大量且分散的资料,不仅是为了研究中国……

……有些人知道(或自以为知道),美国的监控能力无比强大,这是我2013年交给记者的文件里披露的内容。”

再以第18章183页关于阿拉伯之春的内容为例。该页用红笔勾出了三处省略号。其中一处是解释”阿拉伯之春”中人们为何开始抗议,内容是关于专制主义、威权主义的。其对应的英文内容是:

“The crowds were calling for an end to oppression, censorship, and precarity. They were declaring that in a truly just society, the people were not answerable to the government, the government was answerable to the people. Although each crowd in each city, even on each day, seemed to have its own specific motivation and its own specifc goals, they all had one thing in common: a rejection of authoritarianism, a recommitment to the humanitarian principle that an individual’s rights are in born and inalienable.

In an authoritarian state, rights deprive from the state and are granted to the people, In a free state, rights deprive from the people and are granted to the state. In the former, people are subjects, who are only allowed to own property, pursue an education, work, pray, and speak because their government permits them to. In the latter, people are citizens, who are agree to be governed in a covenant of consent that must be periodically reviewed and is constitutionally revocable, It’s this crash, between the authoritarian and the liberal democratic, that I believe to be the major ideological conflict of my time-not some concocted, prejudiced notion of an East-West divide, or of a resurrected crusade against Christendom or Islam.

Authoritarian states are typically not governments of laws, but governments of leaders, who demand loyalty from their subjects and are hostile to dissent. Liberal-democratic states, by contrast, make no or few such demands, but depend almost solely on each citizen voluntarily assuming the responsibility of protecting the freedoms of everyone else around them, regardless of their race, ethnicity, creed, ability, sexuality, or gender. Any collective guarantee, predicated not on blood but on assent, will wind up favoring egalitarianism-and though democracy has often fallen far short of its ideal, i still believe it to be the one form of governance that most fully enables people of difference backgrounds to live together, equal before the law.

This equality consists not only of rights but also of freedoms. In fact, many of the rights most cherished by citizens of democracies aren’t even provided for in law except by implication. They exit in that open-ended empty space created through the restriction of government power. For example, Americans only have a “right” to free speech because the government is forbidden from making any law restricting that freedom, and a “right” to a free press because the government is forbidden from making any law to abridge it. They only have a “right” to worship freely because the government is forbidden from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, and a “right” to peaceably assemble and protest because the government is forbidden from making any law that says they can’t. ”

这部分的中文翻译为:

人们要求结束压迫、审查和动荡。 他们表示,在一个真正公正的社会中,不是人民对政府负责,而是政府对人民负责。尽管每个城市的每个群体、甚至每天似乎都有着其特定的动机和特定的目标,但他们都有一个共同之处:拒绝专制;要求重新承诺人道主义原则,在该原则中,个人权利是人们与生俱来的、不可剥夺的。

在威权国家中,权利来自国家,由国家授予人民;在自由国家中,权利来自人民,由人民授予国家。 在前者中,只有在政府允许下,人们只能拥有财产,接受教育,可以工作、祈祷和发言。 在后者中,人们是公民,他们在达成契约的前提下同意接受治理,而该契约必须定期得到审查,并且可以通过宪法收回。我认为,威权主义国家和自由民主国家之间的这种冲突,正是我们这个时代的主要意识形态冲突,而不是对东西方鸿沟或者对基督教世界、伊斯兰重新发起圣战的偏见。

威权国家通常不是法律政府,而是领袖政府,他们要求子民保持忠诚,并对异议声音持敌对态度。相比之下,自由民主国家不会或者很少提出这样的要求,而几乎完全取决于每个公民自愿承担保护周围其他人自由的责任,而不论他们的种族、民族、信仰、能力、性取向以及性别。任何不以血缘而以共识为基础的集体保证,都将最终倾向于平等主义–尽管民主常常远未达到其理想状态,但我仍然相信,它是最充分地让具有不同背景的人们能够实现法律面前平等地生活的一种治理形式。

这种平等不仅包括权利,也包括自由。 实际上,民主国家的公民最珍视的许多权利,甚至并没有在法律章节中出现。它们是通过限制政府权力而创造出的开放空间而实现的。例如,美国人享有言论自由的”权利”,因为政府被禁止制定任何限制自由的法律,他们享有新闻自由,因为政府被禁止制定任何法律限制新闻自由。他们有”权利”进行礼拜,因为政府被禁止制定任何有关宗教信仰的法律,而他们有和平集会和抗议的”权利”,因为政府被禁止制定任何法律说不能这样做。

这4段完全没有在中文版出现,而是以”……”代替。

“我不是为了钱才写这本书的”

斯诺登也在推特上向人们发出呼吁:”如果你懂简体中文以及另外一种《永久记录》的翻译语言,请贴在该帖子的下面,看看是不是可以帮助补全中文版缺失的段落。

他表示,可能还有很多我们尚且不知道的改动,但是”让我们现在就开始订正这些()修订吧,谢谢你们帮助中国读者!”

他在最后补充说,因为美国政府的官司,他不会从该书中文版本中赚一分钱,但”没关系,我不是为了钱才写这本书的”。

2013年,斯诺登泄露了有关西方政府大规模监控项目的机密文件,因此流亡海外。此前,他曾多次在采访中对威权主义的兴起提出警告。他在今年9月17日推出自传《永久记录》(Permanent Record)。

奇客资讯 | Edward Snowden 称其书的简体中文版被修改