除了股票和房地產的投資組合，有錢人現在還購買一種新形式的經濟保障：護照投資組合。

Wealthy investors from around the world are shopping for visas or citizenship in other countries, hoping to protect against volatile governments or economies. A majority are new millionaires and billionaires from emerging-market countries, especially China, Russia and nations in the Middle East. Often, they’re shopping for entree into Europe, the United States, Canada and Australia.

來自世界各地的有錢投資人，正選購其他國家的簽證或公民身分，希望藉此不受政府或經濟動盪的影響。他們多數是新興市場國家新生的百萬或億萬富翁，特別是中國大陸，俄羅斯和中東國家。通常，他們選購的是前往歐洲、美國、加拿大、澳洲的門票。

Experts estimate that these “economic citizens” are spending $2 billion a year on second or third passports and visas. Demand is so strong that governments around the world have started an arms race of sorts for V.I.P. visas, offering ever-faster residencies and passports for ever-higher prices. Over the past year, Australia, Canada, and several European countries have raised the prices or investment requirements of their so-called golden visas and created a new fast lane for citizenship.

專家估計，這些「經濟公民」每年花在購買第二或第三本護照與簽證的錢達20億美元。需求如此強勁，因此世界各國政府已就V.I.P.簽證展開有如軍備競賽的爭逐，以史上最高價碼提供史上最快捷的居留權和護照。1年來，澳洲、加拿大與數個歐洲國家都就他們所謂的黃金簽證上調價碼或投資門檻，或是新闢提供公民身分的捷徑。

Opponents, however, say the programs have the potential to offer safe harbor to people who made their fortune through illegal activities. Others say th ey amount to selling citizenship to the rich . “These programs bring huge benefits to the Russian oligarchs or the various Chinese wanting to benefit from the rule of law, good educations and robust capital markets,” said David Metcalf, chairman of the British government’s Migration Advisory Committee . “But the fundamental question is, What does everyone else get out of it?”

不過，反對者認為這些計畫可能為靠非法活動致富的人提供避風港。還有人說，他們等於是販賣公民身分給有錢人。英國政府「移民顧問委員會」主席梅考夫說：「這些計畫帶給想享受法治社會、良好教育制度、強大資本市場好處的俄羅斯寡頭商人，或是各種的中國人龐大的利益。但根本問題是，其他人也從中得利了嗎？」

Even as criticism mounts, governments are cashing in. In January, Malta, a nation of 425,000 people, started selling citizenship for a fee of 650,000 euros (more than $800,000) with no residency requirements. Because Malta is a European Union member, citizenship gives holders the ability to settle within the Union’s 28 countries.

儘管批評升高，政府還是大賺護照錢。1月時，人口42萬5000的馬爾他開始以65萬歐元（逾80萬美元）價碼兜售公民身分，不附帶任何居留要求。馬爾他是歐盟成員國，公民身分賦予持有人在歐盟28國定居的權利。

After the plan drew protests, the government added requirements, including a demand that applicants spend at least 350,000 euros on real estate and 150,000 euros on government bonds. In the first six months, more than 200 investors signed up, earning the government $200 million.

該計畫引來抗議，政府於是提高要求，包括要求申請人至少要花35萬歐元購買房地產以及15萬歐元購買政府債券。結果頭6個月，就有逾200名投資人提出申請，為政府賺進2億美元。

Elsewhere, Australia recently announced plans for a Premium Investor visa . That nation already has a Significant Investor visa, which offers permanent residency after four years in exchange for an investment of 5 million Australian dollars ($4.15 million). The new program will give residency in 12 months in return for 15 million Australian dollars in investments.

在其他地方，澳洲最近宣布一項「頂級投資人簽證計畫」。該國已有「重大投資人簽證」，投資人只要投資500萬澳元（415萬美元），4年後即可取得永久居留權。新計畫則是投資人投資1500萬澳元，可在12個月後取得居留權。

Consultants, lawyers and advisers to the wealthy say golden visas bring many benefits to host countries, like skills and investment. But critics like Mr. Metcalf argue that the benefits are often offset by the overseas rich bidding up prices for real estate and services. And, he contends, because most of the investments go into government bonds that pay interest, “we are essentially paying oligarchs to come to the U.K.”

有錢人的律師和顧問們說，黃金簽證為地主國帶來許多好處，如專業技能和投資。但像梅考夫這樣的批評者認為，這些好處往往因外國有錢人炒高了房地產和服務的價格而抵銷。他還指出，因為大部分的投資是購買有利息收入的政府債券，「我們根本是付錢給寡頭商人，讓他們前來英國」。

In Britain, an investor visa program gives residency for 2 million pounds ($3.14 million); applicants are eligible for “indefinite leave to remain” after five years. But the government recently added fast-track programs for people who invest 5 million pounds (requiring a wait of three years) and 10 million pounds (a wait of two years). Mr. Metcalf argues that visas, if sold at all, should be offered through a formal auction, with proceeds going to a n education program.

英國有一種投資簽證計畫，提供投資200萬英鎊（314萬美元）的人居留權；5年後，申請人即可無限期留在英國（類似永久居留權）。但政府最近新增捷徑計畫給投資500萬英鎊（只需等待3年）和1000萬英鎊（只需等待2年）的投資人。梅考夫指出，若要販賣這兩項簽證，應透過正式的拍賣方式進行，所得款項投入教育計畫。

“Let’s find out what the optimal price really is,” he sa id. “People say, ‘Well, you’re selling citizenship.’ We’re not selling citizenship; we’re selling settlement. And right now, we’re practically giving it away.”

他說：「就讓我們找出它的最高實價。人們會說：『好傢伙，你們在賣公民身分』。但我們不是在賣公民身分；我們是在賣定居的權利。而且現在，我們幾乎是免費贈送。」

美國科技公司從矽谷監管他們日益擴大的全球版圖。

Google has a bigger slice of the online search market in Europe than it does at home . More than 80 percent of Facebook’s 1.3 billion users live outside the United States, with Brazil and India among the social network’s most important markets. And Apple now sells more iPhones and iPads in Shanghai and St. Petersburg than it does in San Diego.

谷歌在歐洲的網路搜尋市占率比在美國還高。社群網站臉書的13億用戶逾8成住在美國境外，首要市場包括巴西和印度。而蘋果iPhone及iPad在上海及聖彼得堡的銷量比美國聖地牙哥市還多。

The world’s seemingly insatiable appetite for all things tech has made many of these giants among the most profitable companies in the world. But selling these products has also placed them largely at odds with global privacy rules that go far beyond what American lawmakers demand at home.

世人對各種科技產品的需求似乎永無止境，使得許多科技業巨擘躋獲利在世上名列前茅。但銷售這些產品也讓這些公司與全球隱私法規格格不入，那些法規遠比美國國內要嚴。

The tech companies often rely on lengthy (frequently incomprehensible) consent forms and free speech rights to protect themselves against claims of misuse of their users’ online information. But that defense does not hold up in large parts of the world, including Malaysia, South Africa, Brazil, Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan and Argentina.

科技公司多半仰賴冗長（且往往難懂）的同意書及言論自由權，保護自己不因濫用用戶的線上資料而挨告。但在世上許多地區這套防禦措施並不管用，包括馬來西亞、南非、巴西、新加坡、香港、日本及阿根廷。

The right to privacy is taken more seriously abroad, notably in Europe, where politicians are considering rules that would fine any company up to $125 million or 5 percent of its annual revenue if it flouted the region’s strict data protection rules.

美國以外國家把隱私權看得比較嚴重，尤其歐洲，政界正考慮訂頒新法規，對違反當地嚴格的資料保護法規的科技公司，最高罰款1億2500萬美元（約台幣39億5千萬元）或年營收的5%。

And regulators from Paraguay to the Philippines are lifting passages — almost word for word — from Europe’s tough privacy laws .

從巴拉圭到菲律賓，各國主管單位現在幾乎逐字照抄歐洲嚴格的隱私法。

“Europe’s data protection rules have become the default privacy settings for the world,” said Billy Hawkes, a former data protection regulator for Ireland .

曾任愛爾蘭資料保護管制官員的哈克斯說：「歐洲的資料保護法規已成為有關隱私權的全球預設模式。」

Facebook has repeatedly had to rewrit e its privacy policies to give its global users a greater say in how their online data is used.

臉書已多次改寫隱私權政策，針對如何使用用戶線上資料納入全球用戶的更多意見。

“Facebook just took its U.S. privacy policy and rolled it out in Europe,” said Max Schrems, an Austrian lawyer who has filed a class-action lawsuit against the social network involving more than 25,000 users for violating the region’s data protection laws when it sent individuals’ personal data to the United States, where domestic intelligence agencies could gain access to the information. “They never wanted to adapt their privacy rules to anywhere outside America.”

奧地利律師施倫姆斯說：「臉書原只是把它在美國的隱私權政策推行到歐洲。」施倫姆斯已就一件涉及2萬5千名用戶的案子對臉書提起集體訴訟，指其違反歐洲資料保護法，把用戶個資傳到美國，讓美國國內情報單位可以取用。「他們從不想調整自己的隱私法規以適應海外任何地區。」

Microsoft claims that its cloud computing services (which allow people to store documents and photos on the Internet) now comply with Europe’s tough data protection rules — the only American company so far to receive such approval.

微軟公司宣稱，該公司（讓人們把文件和照片儲存在網路上）的雲端運算服務，現在符合歐洲嚴格的資料保護法，微軟是目前唯一獲此認可的美國公司。

Google, meanwhile, is scrambling to comply with a recent European court ruling that allows anyone — whether in or out of the 28-member European Union — to ask that links to online information about themselves be removed from its global search results.

同時，谷歌正忙著遵從歐洲法院最近的一項判決，即任何人皆可提出把個人線上資訊連結從谷歌搜尋結果中移除的要求，無論當事人是否住在有28個會員國的歐盟。

Although Google fought hard to block this so-called right to be forgotten, it lost the battle, and has scrubbed thousands of links from its search results to adhere to the European ruling. Advocates for the new standard are hoping to force the company to extend the practice across its entire global search business — and potentially to the United States.

谷歌雖極力阻擋這種所謂的「被遺忘權」，還是輸了官司，且已遵照歐洲判決，從其搜尋結果中取消數以千計的連結。鼓吹這套新標準的人希望迫使谷歌把這項作法擴大到整個全球搜尋業務，可能也及於美國。

“Americans really do care about these issues,” said Gus Hosein, a senior fellow at Privacy International, a London- based consumer advocacy group . “But right now, they have very limited rights that they can exert over how their data is used.”

總部設在倫敦的消費者權益團體「國際隱私權」的資深研究員霍森說：「美國人的確很在乎這些議題，但在當下，對於他們的資料如何為人所用，美國人能行使的權利很有限。」

Across the globe, countries are looking toward Europe for cues on how best to protect their citizens’ privacy. When Brazil unveiled the country’s new Internet bill of rights, lawmakers demanded that tech companies obtain permission from users before sharing their data with online advertisers and marketers.

全球許多國家現在都向歐洲取經，以求找出最能保護國民隱私權的方法。巴西推出新的網路權益法時，國會議員要求科技公司在向線上廣告商及行銷業者分享用戶資料前，先取得用戶同意。

New rules in South Africa forbid sending people’s online information electronically to countries that do not replicate its stringent privacy laws .

南非的新法規禁止把民眾的線上資訊，以電子方式傳送到其他沒有類似南非那套嚴格隱私法的國家。

In South Korea, people have the right to access their online information held by tech companies whenever they want.

在南韓，民眾有權在任何時間，取得科技公司保存的、有關他們本人的線上資料。

For tech giants like Google and Facebook, the path ahead is clear. These companies may call Silicon Valley home, but they’re increasingly falling in step with international regulators.

對於谷歌、臉書這樣的科技巨擘而言，前途已定。這些公司或許可稱矽谷為家，卻日益遵從國際監理機關的步調。