美国国家公共电台 NPR Trevor Timm: When It Comes To Government, How Much Do We Have The Right To Know?

 

GUY RAZ, HOST:

So if you were given a choice, a binary¹ choice between too much transparency or secrecy², what would you pick?

TREVOR TIMM: If we're talking about the government that is supposed to work by and for the people, I would absolutely take too much transparency.

RAZ: Always.

TIMM: In almost all cases.

RAZ: This is Trevor Timm.

TIMM: I'm the executive director of Freedom of the Press Foundation.

RAZ: Which advocates for openness and transparency in government.

TIMM: You know, when we're talking about government transparency, what that means is that the people should know what the government is doing, whether that is the policies they're carrying out in the executive branch, the laws that are being debated and discussed in Congress or the court system.

RAZ: But Trevor says - and this probably won't come as a shock - that the government often falls way too short.

TIMM: What we have seen over the past six or seven decades is way too much secrecy, where everything is considered classified by the government that pertains⁴ to foreign policy or national security. And it allows the government to break laws, waste billions of dollars, abuse the system and facilitates corruption⁵. And transparency is a very important tool to prevent those types of things.

RAZ: The problem, of course, is that sometimes when people like whistleblowers or journalists try to hold the government accountable, they're met with intense resistance. Trevor gave one of those examples on the TED³ stage.

(SOUNDBITE OF TED TALK)

TIMM: This is James Risen. You may know him as the Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for The New York Times. Long before anybody knew Edward Snowden's name, Risen wrote a book in which he famously exposed that the NSA was illegally wiretapping the phone calls of Americans. But it's another chapter in that book that may have an even more lasting⁶ impact. In it, he describes a catastrophic U.S. intelligence operation in which the CIA quite literally⁷ handed over blueprints⁸ of a nuclear bomb to Iran. If that sounds crazy, go read it. It's an incredible story.

RAZ: So - all right, let's talk about this James Risen story. So he has this book. And it comes out. And it reveals that the CIA basically handed over blueprints to build a bomb - the bomb - to Iran. Is that what happened, basically?

TIMM: Yeah. It's - basically he was writing about a spectacularly botched CIA operation - this is in the early 2000s - where the CIA was trying to trick Iran into building a fake nuclear weapon. And so they got blueprints for a nuclear bomb, made some small alterations¹⁰ to them that would essentially¹¹ make it inoperable, and attempted to hand them over to the Iranian government. Now, the Iranian government allegedly immediately realize the fake parts of the diagram, but also understood that they handed over a largely accurate blueprint⁹ of a nuclear bomb as well. And so it was really a story about the CIA essentially handing, you know, incredibly sensitive material, the most sensitive you could possibly imagine, to a country which they were trying to prevent from getting a bomb. And they were actually helping¹³ them along.

RAZ: This is classified information that he gets.

TIMM: Yeah, absolutely. The information that Risen publishes in this story I think anybody in the government would agree was highly classified. You know, this was a covert¹⁴ operation by the CIA. It's also important to realize that there is a huge public interest to this story, too.

RAZ: But there's no way the government is happy he published this classified information.

TIMM: No, they're not.

(SOUNDBITE OF TED TALK)

TIMM: For nearly a decade afterwards, Risen was the subject of a U.S. government investigation¹⁵ in which prosecutors¹⁶ demanded that he testify against one of his alleged¹² sources. And along the way he became the face for the U.S. government's recent pattern of prosecuting¹⁷ whistleblowers and spying on journalists. You see, under the First Amendment¹⁸, the press has the right to publish secret information in the public interest. But it's impossible to exercise that right if the media can't also gather that news and protect the identities of the brave men and women who get it to them. So when the government came knocking, Risen did what many brave reporters have done before him - he refused and said he'd rather go to jail. So from 2007 to 2015, Risen lived under the specter of going to federal prison.

RAZ: So what ended up happening to him?

TIMM: They - after the seven-year legal battle they just dropped the subpoena¹⁹ entirely²⁰.

RAZ: Why?

TIMM: Well, you know, over the last decade, while this subpoena and legal battle was going on, the U.S. government realized that to find reporters' sources they actually didn't need the reporters to testify against them anymore. You know, with the explosion of cell phones and email and the Internet, the government realized that it had increased surveillance capabilities²¹. And it could go to a company like Google or Verizon or AT&T or Facebook and gather all sorts of data on who sources are talking to, who reporters are talking to. And they can take this information to court and get a conviction against a source without having the reporter testify at all.

And this is exactly what happened in James Risen's case. They were able to get Risen's phone records, his email records, his travel records. And Risen did not know this until many years later. And they were able to use this information to build a circumstantial case against James Risen's alleged source, who is a former CIA officer named Jeffrey Sterling²². And once the trial began after the subpoena was dropped Mr. Sterling was quickly convicted.

RAZ: So let's say we personally like that James Risen exposed this information and think it's important, right? How do we know what should be secret and what shouldn't be secret? And who decides that?

TIMM: Well, I think this is a great question because I think that people have a misconception about what happens when journalists or reporters or newspapers publish newsworthy stories that the government thinks is classified. You know, number one, it is not just one single source who is deciding what should go in The New York Times and what shouldn't.

You know, reporters are - when they publish these types of stories often have to have multiple sources to make sure that things are accurate. They have experienced national security teams inside these newspapers made up of editors, reporters and lawyers who look at this information from the perspective of, OK, what is the public interest of this story, and what is the potential damage to national security? And can we weigh those two ideas against each other and see if this information is far more in the public interest than could potentially damage national security?

But when the government says to a newspaper virtually every time you shouldn't publish this story because you're going to have blood on your hands, it becomes a boy who cries wolf where the government is saying that everything that they say is classified is definitely a danger to society and they can never know it. And then when a newspaper publishes it, it becomes clear that there was no damage and that this was in the public interest. And this happens over and over again. And you quickly start to realize the classification system is broken.

RAZ: In just a moment, more from Trevor Timm on whether there should be a limit to government transparency. I'm Guy Raz, and you're listening to the TED Radio Hour from NPR.

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

RAZ: It's the TED Radio Hour from NPR. I'm Guy Raz. And on the show today ideas about transparency. And we were just hearing from free speech advocate Trevor Timm, who told the story of New York Times reporter James Risen, who exposed a botched CIA operation. Now, for nearly a decade, Risen faced the threat of prison until the government dropped its legal battle against him. But since then much bigger secrets have been exposed, most famously by Edward Snowden.

TIMM: You know, many people assume that, I think, who didn't follow the story closely - that Edward Snowden took a lot of documents from the NSA and just posted them on the Internet...

RAZ: Right. Right.

TIMM: ...Himself. But that's actually not what happened. You know, he actually purposely went to experienced national security reporters at The Washington Post and The Guardian²³ so that it wasn't just him deciding. And these newspapers combed through these documents and published many important stories in the public interest that actually won both the newspapers the Pulitzer Prize. Yet there was also a lot of material that got held back. And I think that, you know, the Snowden disclosures were an important example about how the First Amendment can act as the safety valve for democracy when our other institutions fail to uphold their duties.

RAZ: OK. So, Trevor, you just made a very compelling case, you know, defending James Risen and Edward Snowden. But what about something like WikiLeaks, you know, publicizing the personal emails of Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, John Podesta? Because so many of those emails had nothing to do with national security. They weren't in the public interest. I mean, do you think that kind of transparency is OK? Or is that an abuse of this idea?

TIMM: Well, I certainly think that we have seen a lot of cases over the past three or four years where people are having their emails hacked²⁴ left and right, they're showing up on the Internet. And certainly not all of those are in the public interest. But, you know, I do think it is a more complicated question than just should we have seen John Podesta's emails or should we not?

You know, first of all, the person or group that hacked John Podesta certainly committed a crime. And certainly you can make the argument that a lot of those emails shouldn't have been published because they didn't contain newsworthy information. But it is a tenet of journalism²⁵ that, you know, when you have some of the most powerful people in the world where you have information that pertains to the public interest, often the right answer is to publish that information.

RAZ: But so much of what they published about John Podesta was basically irrelevant²⁶ personal stuff. Like, it had nothing to do with the campaign or with national security. So why release it?

TIMM: Well, you know, I think there is a difference between government transparency - transparency of elected officials - and the privacy of private citizens who are, number one, not public figures and, number two, should have robust²⁷ privacy rights. You know, I just want to make clear I'm not arguing that everybody's email should be published on the Internet. In fact, the opposite. I'm a privacy activist²⁸. But it is a tough decision that journalists have to make when they are presented with compelling information that would be considered newsworthy by millions and millions of people in the middle of an election campaign. And for them to decide not to publish could have ramifications²⁹ as well.

And I think all in all, while there certainly are tradeoffs, that that is a good thing that they are now much more aggressive about reporting on public figures. And I'm certainly not arguing that, you know, it's a hundred percent good to be transparent³⁰ and a hundred percent bad to have total secrecy. What we're arguing for is more transparency than there is now. And often these tradeoffs, in my mind, can be worth it.

RAZ: That's Trevor Timm. He's the executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation. You can see his full talk at ted.com.

1 binary   

adj.二，双；二进制的；n.双(体)；联星

参考例句：

• Computers operate using binary numbers.计算机运行运用二进位制。
• Let us try converting the number itself to binary.我们试一试，把这个数本身变成二进制数。

2 secrecy   

n.秘密，保密，隐蔽

参考例句：

• All the researchers on the project are sworn to secrecy.该项目的所有研究人员都按要求起誓保守秘密。
• Complete secrecy surrounded the meeting.会议在绝对机密的环境中进行。

3 ted   

vt.翻晒，撒，撒开

参考例句：

• The invaders gut ted the village.侵略者把村中财物洗劫一空。
• She often teds the corn when it's sunny.天好的时候她就翻晒玉米。

4 pertains   

关于( pertain的第三人称单数 )； 有关； 存在； 适用

参考例句：

• When one manages upward, none of these clear and unambiguous symbols pertains. 当一个人由下而上地管理时，这些明确无误的信号就全都不复存在了。
• Her conduct hardly pertains to a lady. 她的行为与女士身份不太相符。

5 corruption   

n.腐败，堕落，贪污

参考例句：

• The people asked the government to hit out against corruption and theft.人民要求政府严惩贪污盗窃。
• The old man reviled against corruption.那老人痛斥了贪污舞弊。

6 lasting   

adj.永久的，永恒的；vbl.持续，维持

参考例句：

• The lasting war debased the value of the dollar.持久的战争使美元贬值。
• We hope for a lasting settlement of all these troubles.我们希望这些纠纷能获得永久的解决。

7 literally   

adv.照字面意义，逐字地；确实

参考例句：

• He translated the passage literally.他逐字逐句地翻译这段文字。
• Sometimes she would not sit down till she was literally faint.有时候，她不走到真正要昏厥了，决不肯坐下来。

8 blueprints   

n.蓝图，设计图( blueprint的名词复数 )

参考例句：

• Have the blueprints been worked out? 蓝图搞好了吗？ 来自《现代汉英综合大词典》
• BluePrints description of a distributed component of the system design and best practice guidelines. BluePrints描述了一个分布式组件体系的最佳练习和设计指导方针。 来自互联网

9 blueprint   

n.蓝图，设计图，计划；vt.制成蓝图，计划

参考例句：

• All the machine parts on a blueprint must answer each other.设计图上所有的机器部件都应互相配合。
• The documents contain a blueprint for a nuclear device.文件内附有一张核装置的设计蓝图。

10 alterations   

n.改动( alteration的名词复数 )；更改；变化；改变

参考例句：

• Any alterations should be written in neatly to the left side. 改动部分应书写清晰，插在正文的左侧。 来自《简明英汉词典》
• Gene mutations are alterations in the DNA code. 基因突变是指DNA 密码的改变。 来自《简明英汉词典》

11 essentially   

adv.本质上，实质上，基本上

参考例句：

• Really great men are essentially modest.真正的伟人大都很谦虚。
• She is an essentially selfish person.她本质上是个自私自利的人。

12 alleged   

a.被指控的，嫌疑的

参考例句：

• It was alleged that he had taken bribes while in office. 他被指称在任时收受贿赂。
• alleged irregularities in the election campaign 被指称竞选运动中的不正当行为

13 helping   

n.食物的一份&adj.帮助人的，辅助的

参考例句：

• The poor children regularly pony up for a second helping of my hamburger. 那些可怜的孩子们总是要求我把我的汉堡包再给他们一份。
• By doing this, they may at times be helping to restore competition. 这样一来, 他在某些时候,有助于竞争的加强。

14 covert   

adj.隐藏的；暗地里的

参考例句：

• We should learn to fight with enemy in an overt and covert way.我们应学会同敌人做公开和隐蔽的斗争。
• The army carried out covert surveillance of the building for several months.军队对这座建筑物进行了数月的秘密监视。

15 investigation   

n.调查，调查研究

参考例句：

• In an investigation,a new fact became known, which told against him.在调查中新发现了一件对他不利的事实。
• He drew the conclusion by building on his own investigation.他根据自己的调查研究作出结论。

16 prosecutors   

检举人( prosecutor的名词复数 )； 告发人； 起诉人； 公诉人

参考例句：

• In some places,public prosecutors are elected rather than appointed. 在有些地方，检察官是经选举而非任命产生的。 来自口语例句
• You've been summoned to the Prosecutors' Office, 2 days later. 你在两天以后被宣到了检察官的办公室。

17 prosecuting   

检举、告发某人( prosecute的现在分词 )； 对某人提起公诉； 继续从事（某事物）； 担任控方律师

参考例句：

• The witness was cross-examined by the prosecuting counsel. 证人接受控方律师的盘问。
• Every point made by the prosecuting attorney was telling. 检查官提出的每一点都是有力的。

18 amendment   

n.改正，修正，改善，修正案

参考例句：

• The amendment was rejected by 207 voters to 143.这项修正案以207票对143票被否决。
• The Opposition has tabled an amendment to the bill.反对党已经就该议案提交了一项修正条款。

19 subpoena   

n.（法律）传票；v.传讯

参考例句：

• He was brought up to court with a subpoena.他接到传讯，来到法庭上。
• Select committees have the power to subpoena witnesses.特别委员会有权传唤证人。

20 entirely   

ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地

参考例句：

• The fire was entirely caused by their neglect of duty. 那场火灾完全是由于他们失职而引起的。
• His life was entirely given up to the educational work. 他的一生统统献给了教育工作。

21 capabilities   

n.能力( capability的名词复数 )；可能；容量；[复数]潜在能力

参考例句：

• He was somewhat pompous and had a high opinion of his own capabilities. 他有点自大，自视甚高。 来自辞典例句
• Some programmers use tabs to break complex product capabilities into smaller chunks. 一些程序员认为，标签可以将复杂的功能分为每个窗格一组简单的功能。 来自About Face 3交互设计精髓

22 sterling   

adj.英币的(纯粹的，货真价实的)；n.英国货币(英镑)

参考例句：

• Could you tell me the current rate for sterling, please?能否请您告诉我现行英国货币的兑换率？
• Sterling has recently been strong,which will help to abate inflationary pressures.英国货币最近非常坚挺，这有助于减轻通胀压力。

23 guardian   

n.监护人；守卫者，保护者

参考例句：

• The form must be signed by the child's parents or guardian. 这张表格须由孩子的家长或监护人签字。
• The press is a guardian of the public weal. 报刊是公共福利的卫护者。

24 hacked   

生气

参考例句：

• I hacked the dead branches off. 我把枯树枝砍掉了。
• I'm really hacked off. 我真是很恼火。

25 journalism   

n.新闻工作，报业

参考例句：

• He's a teacher but he does some journalism on the side.他是教师，可还兼职做一些新闻工作。
• He had an aptitude for journalism.他有从事新闻工作的才能。

26 irrelevant   

adj.不恰当的，无关系的，不相干的

参考例句：

• That is completely irrelevant to the subject under discussion.这跟讨论的主题完全不相关。
• A question about arithmetic is irrelevant in a music lesson.在音乐课上，一个数学的问题是风马牛不相及的。

27 robust   

adj.强壮的，强健的，粗野的，需要体力的，浓的

参考例句：

• She is too tall and robust.她个子太高，身体太壮。
• China wants to keep growth robust to reduce poverty and avoid job losses,AP commented.美联社评论道，中国希望保持经济强势增长，以减少贫困和失业状况。

28 activist   

n.活动分子，积极分子

参考例句：

• He's been a trade union activist for many years.多年来他一直是工会的积极分子。
• He is a social activist in our factory.他是我厂的社会活动积极分子。

29 ramifications   

n.结果，后果( ramification的名词复数 )

参考例句：

• These changes are bound to have widespread social ramifications. 这些变化注定会造成许多难以预料的社会后果。
• What are the ramifications of our decision to join the union? 我们决定加入工会会引起哪些后果呢？ 来自《简明英汉词典》

30 transparent   

adj.明显的，无疑的；透明的

参考例句：

• The water is so transparent that we can see the fishes swimming.水清澈透明，可以看到鱼儿游来游去。
• The window glass is transparent.窗玻璃是透明的。