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.
任何对英国国家医疗服务体系（NHS）和深度思考公司之间交易的危险性的公正评估必须首先要承认，双方的初衷都是好的。
DeepMind is one of the leading artificial intelligence (AI) companies in the world.
深度思考公司是全球领先的人工智能公司之一。
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.
人工智能应用于卫生保健领域的前景可观，但这也可能致使科技巨头的权力进一步集中。
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,
而在这一背景下，信息专员伊丽莎白·德纳姆却发表了她对NHS皇家自由医院信托的裁决，
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.
谴责NHS基于一份措辞含糊的协议，在2015年把160万名患者的记录交给了深度思考公司，这份协议几乎没有考虑到患者的权利和他们所期待的隐私权。
DeepMind has almost apologized. The NHS trust has mended its ways.
深度思考公司已基本致歉，NHS信托也做出了更正。
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.
NHS和深度思考公司进一步的安排（也许会有很多）都将接受详细审查，确保向患者征求必要的许可，还要清除掉所有不必要的数据。
There are lessons about informed patient consent to learn.
我们应该从给过往的患者同意事件中吸取教训。
But privacy is not the only angle in this case and not even the most important.
但隐私并不是该案例涉及的唯一问题，甚至都不是最重要的一个问题。
Ms Denham chose to concentrate the blame on the NHS trust, since under existing law it "controlled" the data and DeepMind merely "processed" it.
德纳姆女士认为，根据现有法律，“掌控”数据的是NHS，而深度思考公司只是“处理”数据，因此NHS信托应该负主要责任。
But this distinction misses the point that it is processing and aggregation, not the mere possession of bits, that gives the data value.
但这一差别忽略了一个事实：给予数据价值的是处理与整合，而不是对数据的简单占有。
The great question is who should benefit from the analysis of all the data that our lives now generate.
最重要的问题是，谁应该从分析我们生活中获取的所有数据之中获益。
Privacy law builds on the concept of damage to an individual from identifiable knowledge about them.
隐私法建立在损害个人的概念之上，正是他们的身份信息遭到损害。
That misses the way the surveillance economy works.
这忽略了经济监督的运行方式。
The data of an individual there gains its value only when it is compared with the data of countless millions more.
只有与大量数据进行对比时，个人数据才有价值。
The use of privacy law to curb the tech giants in this instance feels slightly maladapted.
本案中用隐私法限制科技巨头似乎稍显牵强。
This practice does not address the real worry.
这种做法并不能真正地消除忧虑。
It is not enough to say that the algorithms DeepMind develops will benefit patients and save lives.
至今还没有证据能够充分证明，深度思考公司开发的算法能够起到救死扶伤的作用。
What matters is that they will belong to a private monopoly which developed them using public resources.
重要的是，这些算法属于利用公共资源进行开发的私人垄断企业。
If software promises to save lives on the scale that dugs now can, big data may be expected to behave as a big pharm has done.
如果软件技术承诺其拯救生命的数量可以与当下的药物相匹敌，那么大数据也许有望像大型制药公司那样发挥作用。
We are still at the beginning of this revolution and small choices now may turn out to have gigantic consequences later.
我们仍处于这种变革的开端，如今的一个小小选择或许在将来会有巨大的影响。
A long struggle will be needed to avoid a future of digital feudalism. Ms Denham's report is a welcome start.
因此，我们仍需长期的努力，避免一个数字专制的未来。德纳姆女士的报告是一个不错的开始。