The Hands-Off Tech Era Is Over 歐美嚴管科技企業時代已來臨

2022年8月11日星期四

The Hands-Off Tech Era Is Over 歐美嚴管科技企業時代已來臨

電影、日劇、韓劇…選擇那麼多，要選哪一部？聽部落客怎麼說─最精選的部落客影劇評論就在【影劇大好評】！

【慈濟月刊電子報】提供證嚴上人衲履足跡的彙編選粹，慈悲與智慧的雋永語錄，是您日常生活中的心靈資糧！

★ 無法正常瀏覽內容，請按這裡線上閱讀

新聞健康 u值媒 udn部落格

2022/08/12 第395期訂閱/退訂∣看歷史報份

紐時周報精選

Gridlock in Congress Has Amplified the Power of the Supreme Court 美國會僵局增強最高法院權力
The Hands-Off Tech Era Is Over 歐美嚴管科技企業時代已來臨

Gridlock in Congress Has Amplified the Power of the Supreme Court 美國會僵局增強最高法院權力
文/Adam Liptak
譯/李京倫美國會僵局增強最高法院權力 On the last day of a turbulent term that included rulings on what the Constitution has to say about abortion, guns and religion, the Supreme Court issued another sort of decision, one that turned on the words of the Clean Air Act. 美國聯邦最高法院在動盪多事的審期中，就憲法關於墮胎、槍枝和宗教的立場做出判決，而在審期最後一天，最高院針對「潔淨空氣法」的措辭發布另一項決定。 Without "clear congressional authorization," the court said, the Environmental Protection Agency was powerless to aggressively address climate change. In years past, that might have been the start of a dialogue with Congress, which after all has the last word on what statutes mean, because it can always pass new ones. 最高法院說，若無「國會明確授權」，聯邦環保署無權積極應對氣候變遷。在往年，這可能是與國會對話的開端，畢竟國會對法規意涵有最終決定權，因為國會總能通過新法。 But thanks to legislative gridlock, Congress very seldom responds these days to Supreme Court decisions interpreting its statutes — and that means the balance of power between the branches has shifted, with the justices ascendant. 但由於立法僵局，如今國會鮮少回應最高法院詮釋法規的判決，而這意味三權之間的權力平衡改變，司法權增加了。 The consequences have been especially stark in Supreme Court rulings on global emergencies like climate change and the coronavirus pandemic, but the phenomenon is a general one. Congress has largely fallen silent, as a partisan stalemate has gripped Capitol Hill, aggravated by the increased use of the filibuster, which has blocked almost all major legislation in an evenly divided Senate. The upshot is a more dominant court. 最高法院就氣候變遷和新冠疫情等全球緊急事件做出的判決，後果特別嚴重，不過這個現象屢見不鮮。由於國會山莊深陷黨派僵局，國會在很大程度上變得沉默，而愈來愈常使用的議事杯葛拖延戰術，在兩黨各占半數席次的參院阻止了幾乎所有重大法案過關，使國會沉默情況更嚴重。結果是最高法院更有主導權。 It was not always so. 事情並不總是如此。 "If you go back to the '80s, every time the court did something Congress didn't like, they passed a law," said Richard J. Lazarus, a law professor at Harvard. "It was an iterative process between Congress, the agencies and the courts." 哈佛大學法律教授拉薩魯斯說：「如果你回到1980年代，每當最高法院做了國會不喜歡的事，國會就通過法律。這是國會、行政機關和最高法院間重複的過程。」 Congressional inaction following Supreme Court rulings on statutes is not especially new, but it has taken on added importance, as the court has veered to the right and is increasingly insisting on clear grants of congressional authority to executive agencies. In addition to the ruling on climate change, the court has recently declared that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was not authorized to impose a moratorium on evictions and that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration was not authorized to tell large employers to have their workers vaccinated against COVID-19 or undergo frequent testing. 國會在最高法院就法規做出判決後沒有動靜，並非特別新鮮的事，但在最高院向右轉並日益堅持行政機關須有國會明確授權之際，這個現象格外重要。最高法院除了氣候變遷判決之外，最近宣布聯邦疾病防治中心無權實施暫停驅逐欠租房客的命令，職業安全與健康管理局無權責令大型公司要求員工接種新冠疫苗或接受頻繁篩檢。 Congress is, of course, powerless to revive a law that the Supreme Court has struck down as unconstitutional. In such cases, the court gets the last word, and only a constitutional amendment or a later overruling can undo its work. 國會當然無權讓最高法院判決違憲的法律恢復效力。在這類例子中，最高法院有最終決定權，除非修憲或後來推翻原判決，才能讓最初判決失效。

The Hands-Off Tech Era Is Over 歐美嚴管科技企業時代已來臨
文/Shira Ovide
譯/陳韋廷歐美嚴管科技企業時代已來臨 It's clear more than ever that governments will no longer leave technology alone. 情況比過去明顯，政府不會再對科技業放手不管了。 Europe mandated standard phone chargers for portable electronics while Texas passed a contested law to restrain social media companies' policing of online speech. Tech companies can count on more changes like those as government minders wade into how they do business and how we use their products. 歐洲要求手持電子產品配備標準手機充電器，德州則通過一項有爭議的法律，限制社交媒體公司對網路言論的監管。隨著政府監管人員介入科技企業經營及我們使用其產品的方式，科技公司可以預期會有更多類似的變革。 That most likely means new technologies like driverless cars and facial recognition systems will take longer to spread into the world than they might have. For many tech proponents, more deliberation and oversight will slow invention. For others, that's exactly the point. 這很可能意味著，像無人駕駛汽車與臉部識別系統這樣的新技術，將需要更長時間才能普及到世界各地。對於許多科技支持者來說，更多審查和監督將減緩發明的速度，但對其他人來說，這正是重點。 It's easy to be overwhelmed by (or tune out) all the attempted government regulation. In just the past few weeks, journalists have written about pending congressional bills involving data privacy and tech antitrust; the employment classification of drivers for companies like Uber; multiple countries setting standards about how data can and cannot move around the globe. 這些政府試圖實施的監管，很容易讓人不知所措或者無視。就在過去幾周，記者們報導了國會審議中的法案涉及數據隱私與科技反壟斷；Uber等公司對司機的雇傭分類；多個國家制定數據能夠與不能在全球移動的標準。 Those are all the result of a still-evolving rethinking of what had been a relatively laissez-faire approach to tech since the 1990s. With exceptions, the prevailing attitude was that new internet technologies, including digital advertising, e-commerce, social media and gig employment through apps, were too novel, fringe and useful for governments to constrain them with many rules. 1990年代以來科技一直受到相對自由放任的對待，這些監管就是仍在演變中的反思結果。除了少數例外，主流態度是，包括數位廣告、電子商務、社交媒體與透過應用程式提供零工工作等新的網路技術，太過新穎、邊緣和有用，政府無法用許多規則來約束他們。 Just one example: A decade ago, Facebook said U.S. rules that require TV and radio to disclose who is paying for election-related ads shouldn't apply to that company. The Federal Election Commission "should not stand in the way of innovation." a Facebook lawyer said at the time. 就舉一例來說，十年前臉書表示，美國要求電視和廣播揭露誰是選舉相關廣告金主的規定，不應適用於該公司。臉書的一名律師當時說，聯邦選舉委員會「不應阻礙創新」。 Those ad disclosures aren't always effective, but after Russia-backed propagandists spread social media ads and free posts to inflame American political divisions in 2016, Facebook voluntarily started to provide more transparency about political ads. 這些廣告的揭露不一定有效果，但俄羅斯支持的宣傳人員2016年散布社群媒體廣告與免費貼文，煽動美國政治分歧之後，臉書自願開始提供更多關於政治廣告的透明訊息。 Better laws or ad disclosures probably wouldn't have prevented hostile foreign actors from abusing Facebook to wage information wars in the United States or other countries. But the hands-off conventional wisdom most likely contributed to a sense that people in charge of tech should be left alone to do what they wished. 更好的法律或廣告揭露，可能不會阻止敵國行動者濫用臉書在美國或其他國家發動資訊戰，但「放手」的傳統想法很可能助長一種觀念，亦即管理科技的人應不受干擾做自己想做的事。

•說話太直，小心沒朋友! 「我不喜歡…」不要只會說 I don't like…
生活中，我們總是面臨著許多抉擇，若想表達「不喜歡」你的第一反應是不是I don't like it呢?太過直接又怕讓彼此都陷入尷尬氛圍! 要如何更委婉說出「不喜歡…」、「不感興趣」呢? 這六句學起來，不用擔心會傷到對方囉。

•育兒該扮黑臉或白臉？媽媽也是人找回自我與溫度
在家中一定只能一人扮黑臉，另一人扮白臉嗎？為什麼媽媽又總是只能扮黑臉呢？但是委屈的媽媽也想當好人。教養小孩需要溫柔而堅定的同理心，只能扮嚴厲黑臉的媽媽，要怎麼溫柔？