首页 课程  书店 学校  题库 论坛  网校  地方分站: 北京 | 上海 | 郑州 | 天津 | 山东
报名咨询热线:010-51268840、51268841
CATTI翻译考试网
 新闻动态  报考指南 日语翻译 法语翻译  考试答疑区  学友圈  面授课程  网络课程 热门下载
口译:初级|真题/模拟题/辅导 中级|真题/模拟题/辅导 高级|真题/模拟题/辅导 笔译:初级|真题/模拟题/辅导 中级|真题/模拟题/辅导 高级|真题/模拟题/辅导

2010高口阅读训练21-《Google Buzz惹争议:网上隐私问题如何解决》

作者:不详   发布时间:2010-03-08  来源:网络
  • 文章正文
  • 网校课程
  • 资料下载
  • 热门话题
  • 论坛
无标题文档

  (注:本阅读材料根据高级口译笔试试卷出题大纲选择,适合10年3月参加笔试的考生备考阅读。请精读此类文章,并总结主题相关词汇。详细阅读材料取材规则请见《10春季高口考生必备的外刊阅读资料》。)
  On the Web, privacy has its price.
  Google recently introduced a new service that adds social-networking features to its popular Gmail system. The service is called Buzz, and within hours of its release, people were howling about privacy issues—because, in its original form, Buzz showed everyone the list of people you e-mail most frequently. Even people who weren’t cheating on their spouses or secretly applying for new jobs found this a little unnerving.
  Google backtracked and changed the software, and apologized for the misstep, claiming that, gosh, it just never occurred to us that people might get upset. "The public reaction was something we did not anticipate. But we’ve reacted very quickly to people’s unhappiness," says Bradley Horowitz, vice president for product management at Google.
  It’s hard to imagine Google could have been so clueless. Google’s coder kiddies may be many things, but stupid isn’t one of them.
  Same goes for Facebook. In December, Facebook rolled out a new set of privacy settings. A spokesman says the move was intended to "empower people" by giving them more "granular" control over their personal information. But many viewed the changes as a sneaky attempt to push members to expose more information about themselves—partly because its default settings had lots of data, like your photo, city, gender, and information about your family and relationships, set up to be shared with everyone on the Internet. (Sure, you could change those settings, but it was still creepy.) Facebook’s spokesman says the open settings reflect "shifting social norms around privacy." Five years after Facebook was founded, he says, "we’ve noticed that people are not only sharing more information but also are becoming more comfortable about sharing more information with more people." Nevertheless, the changes prompted 10 consumer groups to file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission.
  Maybe it’s a generational thing. People my age (nearly 50, a.k.a. "the olds" in blogosphere parlance) would probably rather part with a few bucks than with our personal information. Younger people don’t have as much money, and don’t care as much about privacy. So they’re happy to go along with the deal being offered to them by Google and Facebook.
  What’s happening is that our privacy has become a kind of currency. It’s what we use to pay for online services. Google charges nothing for Gmail; instead, it reads your e-mail and sends you advertisements based on keywords in your private messages.
  The real holy grail is your list of friends. With that information, marketers can start sending more targeted messages. If you like a certain movie, or album, or mountain bike, your friends will probably like those, too. So they’ll be good targets for ads for those products. Of course, your friends are not going to buy everything you do. It’s not pinpoint accuracy. But the data helps marketers "narrowcast" their advertising. And it sure beats buying commercials on TV or splattering ads all over the Internet.
  The genius of Google, Facebook, and others is that they’ve created services that are so useful or entertaining that people will give up some privacy in order to use them. Now the trick is to get people to give up more—in effect, to keep raising the price of the service.
  These companies will never stop trying to chip away at our information. Their entire business model is based on the notion of "monetizing" our privacy. To succeed they must slowly change the notion of privacy itself—the "social norm," as Facebook puts it—so that what we’re giving up doesn’t seem so valuable. Then they must gain our trust. Thus each new erosion of privacy comes delivered, paradoxically, with rhetoric about how Company X really cares about privacy. I’m not sure whether Orwell would be appalled or impressed. And who knew Big Brother would be not a big government agency, but a bunch of kids in Silicon Valley?
  The problem with buying things with your privacy is you really don’t know how much you’re paying. With money, five bucks is five bucks. But what is the value of your list of friends? If it’s not worth much, your membership on Facebook may be the deal of a lifetime. If it’s incredibly valuable, you’re getting massively ripped off. Only the techies know how much your info is worth, and they’re not telling. But the fact that they’d rather get your data than your dollars tells you all you need to know.
  词句笔记:
  unnerving:令人烦忧的
  anticipate:预料,预测
  chip away at:损害,削弱

课程名称 老师 课时 试听 报名 学费
二级口译实务 杨老师 60 试 听 400元
三级口译实务 鲁 晖 64 试 听 400元
二级笔译实务 王老师 43 试 听 400元
三级笔译实务 王老师 39 试 听 400元
热门资料下载:
翻译考试论坛热贴:
【责任编辑:育路编辑  纠错
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
外语培训咨询电话:010-51294614
课程辅导
                    
[an error occurred while processing this directive]