First WikiLeaks and then Edward Snowden – such has been the tsunami of leaks from America’s national security state in recent years, it sometimes feels like there is nothing left to know about how Washington’s diplomats and spies go about their business. The revelations from Snowden, a contractor for the National Security Agency, the omnivorous US eavesdropping body, have far surpassed the initial state department document dump released by Julian Assange.

先是维基解密(WikiLeaks)，再是爱德华•斯诺登(Edward Snowden)——美国国家安全机构近年来的泄密事件如海啸一般汹涌而来。这有时给人以一种感觉：我们对美国外交官和间谍的行为已经无所不知。从事侦听工作的美国国家安全局(NSA)的前合同工斯诺登的爆料，影响远远超过最初由朱利安•阿桑奇(Julian Assange)公布的政府部门文件。

Not only are Snowden’s documents classified at a much higher level of secrecy. He has unveiled as never before the intimate architecture and entrenched networks of the most secretive postwar institution, the “Five Eyes” intelligence alliance binding the US with the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Snowden’s documents have disclosed so much about its operations, from the national leaders bugged to the mind-boggling masses of data trawled in search of terror targets, that the extraordinary new material still pouring out is losing its ability to shock.

斯诺登泄露的文件不仅保密程度更高，而且他头一回揭露了“五只眼睛”(Five Eyes)情报联盟的紧密结构和牢固网络。“五只眼睛”是二战后最为神秘的组织，联合了美国、英国、加拿大、澳大利亚和新西兰五国的情报机构。斯诺登的文件大量披露了该机构的运作情况（如监听国家领导人，以及为搜寻恐怖分子目标而收集的海量数据），以至于仍在不断泄露的新资料失去了震惊世人的能力。

In many ways, the NSA has tried to subvert the internet itself, tapping into offshore cables carrying the data of US technology giants such as Google and Yahoo, and manipulating telecommunications systems so as to gain access to them remotely. It is no wonder Washington is so worried about Beijing tapping into equipment made by Chinese telecoms companies such as Huawei and sold around the world. Everything the Americans accuse China and Huawei of doing, they can do themselves, only much better.

从许多方面看，NSA试图颠覆互联网本身，监听为谷歌(Google)和雅虎(Yahoo)等美国科技巨擘传输数据的海外光缆，并且操纵电信系统，试图进行远程访问。难怪华盛顿方面如此担心中国监听华为(Huawei)等电信公司制造并行销世界各地的设备。但凡是美国人指责中国和华为做的事情，他们自己也能做，而且拿手得多。

The Snowden Files arrives just ahead of an account of the NSA scandal to be published in April by Glenn Greenwald, the lawyer-cum-journalist whom Snowden entrusted with his material. The Guardian journalist Luke Harding’s involvement in the story came later; he has interviewed people who worked with Snowden but not Snowden himself, and his portrait of the disillusioned intelligence IT expert-turned-leaker inevitably suffers from the kinds of faults you would expect from a book written so quickly. After all, it is only eight months since Snowden’s first leak.

《斯诺登档案》出版不久后，由律师转行当记者、受斯诺登委托发布文件的格伦•格林沃尔德(Glenn Greenwald)将于今年4月出版一本叙述NSA丑闻的书。《卫报》(The Guardian)记者卢克•哈丁(Luke Harding)对斯诺登爆料一事的参与晚于格林沃尔德。他采访了与斯诺登共事过的人，但没有采访斯诺登本人。对于曾经担任情报机构IT专家、但因为幻想破灭而成为泄密者的斯诺登，哈丁的描写难免有瑕疵——鉴于本书成书速度如此之快，这是意料之中的。毕竟，从斯诺登最初爆料到本书出版只有8个月。

Harding skirts difficult questions about how intelligence agencies can keep up with legitimate targets in the internet age. The arguments justifying the publication of details of intelligence over-reach and lawbreaking, similarly, do not necessarily support the disclosure of sensitive digital tradecraft that can only aid geopolitical rivals of the west such as Russia and China. But this is little discussed here.

对于情报机构在互联网时代如何盯住正当的目标，哈丁绕过了一些棘手的问题。类似地，为泄露情报机构越权违法的细节提供理由的论点，不一定能支持暴露敏感的数字谍报技术，从而让俄罗斯和中国等西方的地缘政治对手得益。然而，本书对此探讨甚少。

In passing, the author also draws snooty comparisons between what he sees as a timid US journalistic establishment and the bravehearts of the British press. But the sometimes self-important deliberativeness of the US media is hardly self-censorship. Who brought the world the Pentagon Papers and Watergate, and more recently, Abu Ghraib and details of the US intelligence penetration of Iran’s nuclear programme?

作者顺带进行的比较也显得傲慢：在他看来，美国媒体胆小怕事，而英国媒体英勇无畏。但是，美国媒体有时自认为重要的慎重很难算得上是自我审查。是谁将《五角大楼文件》（Pentagon Papers，是美国国防部对1945年-1967年期间美国政治、军事介入越南的评估报告——译者注）和水门事件(Watergate)公诸于众的？近些年来又是谁将阿布格莱布(Abu Ghraib)监狱虐囚丑闻和美国情报机构渗透伊朗核计划的详情大白于天下的？

As a journalist who was kicked out of Putin’s Russia, however, Harding at least has the perspective to admit there is something creepy about Snowden, fleeing the US in the name of free speech, taking refuge in an unapologetically authoritarian country.

不过，作为在普京主政期间被俄罗斯驱逐的记者，哈丁至少能从另一个角度承认，关于斯诺登，有一些令人不安的困惑：此人以言论自由之名逃离美国，却前往一个威权国家寻求庇护。

Snowden himself remains an enigma, someone who once raged in chat rooms against leaking secrets only to turn into perhaps the biggest leaker in intelligence history. One explanation is his politics. Snowden, and indeed many of the people he worked with – notably Greenwald – are as much libertarians as they are civil-libertarians. As Harding notes, Snowden donated money to Ron Paul, the Republican libertarian presidential candidate and long an avowed opponent of the national security state. Greenwald, likewise, has expressed sympathy for Paul’s ideas.

斯诺登本人仍然难以捉摸。他曾经在聊天室里厉声反对泄密，到头来却成了也许是情报史上最大的泄密者。斯诺登——的确，还有许多曾与他合作的人，尤其是格林沃尔德——不仅是自由意志主义者，还是公民自由主义者。哈丁提到，斯诺登曾捐款给共和党总统候选人罗恩•保罗(Ron Paul)，后者是自由意志主义者，一直是国家安全机构的公开反对者。与此相似，格林沃尔德也表示赞同保罗的理念。

The book works best in its first half, which recounts the incredible story of how Snowden becomes angry about the abuses he says he witnessed inside the system, resolves to pull off a stunning electronic heist by downloading the NSA’s and its partners’ most sensitive files, and gives them to journalists he has persuaded to meet him in Hong Kong. Harding captures nicely the moment when The Guardian pushes the button on its first Snowden story, an intense, adrenalin-filled cocktail of high-minded journalistic zeal and the sheer thrill of publishing sensitive information.

本书最出色的是前半部，其描述相当扣人心弦：斯诺登对他眼里的体制内部越权行为产生愤怒，决心发动一场惊天动地的电子盗窃，下载NSA及其合作伙伴的最敏感文件，将其交给同意在香港见面的记者。哈丁精彩描述了《卫报》发表第一篇有关斯诺登报道的时刻，故事紧张刺激，既不乏高尚的新闻热情，又洋溢着公布敏感信息的兴奋。

That Snowden is no gin-soaked Kim Philby is simply emblematic of the times. Unshackled from cold war ideologies in a new information age, we are a long way from dead drops behind trees. There is a continuum, however: the greatest threat to the Anglo-American postwar intelligence project has always been less the Soviets and the Chinese than an internal distaste for the system’s hypocrisies. John le Carré has made a career turning them into fiction.

斯诺登不是贪杯的金•菲尔比（Kim Philby，冷战时期在英国情报部门工作、暗中为克格勃效力的间谍——译者注），这一点是当前时代的特征。在新的信息时代，没有了冷战意识形态的束缚，情报机构早已不再使用树下秘密情报传递点。但某些方面没有变化：英美战后情报项目面临的最大威胁不是苏联人和中国人，而是其内部对体制虚伪性的反感。约翰•勒卡雷(John le Carré)正是以描写该题材的小说为职业。

In many ways, there is a straight line connecting Snowden to 9/11 and the ricochet of reactions that propelled Washington into Afghanistan and Iraq, and put its intelligence agencies on steroids and encouraged them to circumvent the law. In the case of Iraq, the White House hounded intelligence agencies to get the analysis it wanted about Saddam Hussein. Barack Obama, by contrast, seems captive to the extraordinary intelligence tools he found at his disposal on coming to office. Few believe the White House when it says that the president didn’t know Angela Merkel’s phone was being tapped but it is doubtful he insisted upon it himself. Either way, Obama has come down firmly on the spies’ side.

从许多方面看，9·11事件及其引发的一系列反应（推动美国出兵阿富汗和伊拉克，扩充情报机构，鼓动它们绕过法律）与斯诺登有着直接的联系。在伊拉克问题上，白宫不断敦促情报机构拿出它想要的有关萨达姆•侯赛因(Saddam Hussein)的分析。与此形成对比的是，巴拉克•奥巴马(Barack Obama)上任后似乎被动地接受了手头强大的情报工具。白宫表示总统不知道安格拉•默克尔(Angela Merkel)的电话被监听，这点很少有人相信，但不好说是奥巴马本人坚持要监听默克尔。不论如何，奥巴马坚定地站在间谍一边。

It is beyond the remit of Harding’s book to assess the fallout of the leaks but so far, considering what Snowden has revealed, there has been remarkably little. A few people, such as Merkel, and institutions, such as the World Bank, have received assurances that they will no longer be targets. Otherwise, Obama has given little away. In that respect, Snowden and this book illustrate more than just the reach of the Anglosphere’s national security state. The true story may be its remarkable resilience.

评价泄密的后果不在哈丁这本书的讨论范围内，但考虑到斯诺登泄密的内容，迄今后果小得惊人。默克尔等少数人和世界银行(World Bank)等少数机构得到承诺：他们将不再是监听目标。除此之外，奥巴马没有做什么让步。就此而言，斯诺登和本书所展现的，并不只是英语国家安全机构的触角，还有其惊人的韧性。