2018年考研英语一阅读 Text 3 原文翻译及答案解析
本页收录2018年考研英语一阅读理解 Part A 第 3 篇的原文、全文翻译与逐题解析。Part A 共 4 篇、20 题、40 分，是考研英语分值最高的部分，题型以细节题、推断题、主旨题与词义题为主。
Any fair-minded assessment of the dangers of the deal between Britain's National Health Service (NHS) and DeepMind must start by acknowledging that both sides mean well. DeepMind is one of the leading artificial intelligence (AI) companies in the world. The potential of this work applied to healthcare is very great, but it could also lead to further concentration of power in the tech giants. It is against that background that the information commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, has issued her damning verdict against the Royal Free hospital trust under the NHS, which handed over to DeepMind the records of 1.6 million patients in 2015 on the basis of a vague agreement which took far too little account of the patients' rights and their expectations of privacy.
任何对英国国民健康服务（NHS）与DeepMind之间交易危险性的公正评估，都必须从承认双方均怀善意开始。DeepMind是全球领先的人工智能（AI）公司之一。这项工作应用于医疗保健的潜力非常大，但也可能导致科技巨头权力的进一步集中。正是在此背景下，信息专员伊丽莎白·德纳姆对NHS下属的皇家自由医院信托提出了严厉的谴责，该信托于2015年基于一份模糊的协议将160万患者的记录移交给了DeepMind，这份协议对患者的权利及其隐私期望考虑甚少。
DeepMind has almost apologized. The NHS trust has mended its ways. Further arrangements - and there may be many - between the NHS and DeepMind will be carefully scrutinised to ensure that all necessary permissions have been asked of patients and all unnecessary data has been cleaned. There are lessons about informed patient consent to learn. But privacy is not the only angle in this case and not even the most important. Ms Denham chose to concentrate the blame on the NHS trust, since under existing law it "controlled" the data and DeepMind merely "processed" it. But this distinction misses the point that it is processing and aggregation, not the mere possession of bits, that gives the data value.
DeepMind几乎已经道歉。NHS信托已经改过自新。NHS与DeepMind之间的进一步安排——可能有很多——将受到仔细审查，以确保已征得所有患者的必要许可，并清理所有不必要的数据。有关知情患者同意的教训需要吸取。但隐私并非此案的唯一角度，甚至不是最重要的。德纳姆女士选择将责任集中在NHS信托上，因为根据现行法律，它“控制”了数据，而DeepMind仅仅“处理”了数据。但这种区分忽略了关键点：赋予数据价值的是处理和聚合，而非仅仅拥有比特。
The great question is who should benefit from the analysis of all the data that our lives now generate. Privacy law builds on the concept of damage to an individual from identifiable knowledge about them. That misses the way the surveillance economy works. The data of an individual there gains its value only when it is compared with the data of countless millions more.
重大问题是，谁应该从我们生活中产生的所有数据的分析中受益。隐私法建立在可识别个人信息对个体造成损害的概念之上。这忽略了监控经济的运作方式。在那里，个体的数据只有当与无数其他人的数据相比较时，才能获得其价值。
The use of privacy law to curb the tech giants in this instance feels slightly maladapted. This practice does not address the real worry. It is not enough to say that the algorithms DeepMind develops will benefit patients and save lives. What matters is that they will belong to a private monopoly which developed them using public resources. If software promises to save lives on the scale that drugs now can, big data may be expected to behave as a big pharma has done. We are still at the beginning of this revolution and small choices now may turn out to have gigantic consequences later. A long struggle will be needed to avoid a future of digital feudalism. Ms Denham's report is a welcome start.
在此案例中，使用隐私法来遏制科技巨头感觉略有不适。这种做法并未解决真正的担忧。仅仅说DeepMind开发的算法将使患者受益并拯救生命是不够的。重要的是，这些算法将属于一个利用公共资源开发它们的私人垄断企业。如果软件能够像现有药物那样大规模拯救生命，那么大数据可能会像大型制药公司那样行事。我们仍处于这场革命的初期，现在的小选择日后可能产生巨大的后果。需要一场漫长的斗争来避免数字封建主义的未来。德纳姆女士的报告是一个受欢迎的开端。