作者：杨大鹏
这些年，中国政府投入了巨额财政资金建设所谓的“天网工程”“雪亮工程”，数以亿计的摄像头遍布城市街道、车站、商场、小区、学校以及乡村路口。官方媒体不断宣传这是世界上最先进的社会治理体系，声称能够实现对社会的全面感知、精准管理和实时监控。然而，一个尖锐而无法回避的问题始终摆在人们面前：为什么在这样一个摄像头无处不在、人脸识别技术高度发达、个人信息几乎被全面收集的国家，仍然不断出现儿童失踪、人口拐卖以及长期无法侦破的案件？如果一个普通群众闯红灯，摄像头可以迅速识别身份；如果一辆汽车违章，系统可以立即锁定车主；如果有人在网络上发表敏感言论，相关内容甚至可能在短时间内被删除，发布者也可能被有关部门关注。那么，为什么一个活生生的孩子失踪之后，却常常多年没有结果？
这已经不仅仅是技术问题，而是一个涉及权力运行逻辑和政府责任的问题。中国政府长期强调“维稳压倒一切”。据公开资料显示，每年投入维稳和监控体系的资金规模极其庞大。从遍布全国的摄像头网络到大数据分析平台；从人脸识别系统到手机定位和信息追踪，普通民众的一举一动似乎都处于严密监控之下。但越来越多的人开始意识到，这套庞大的监控体系最主要的功能似乎并不是保护普通人的生命安全，而是维护权力对社会的控制。当民众上访时，监控系统能够迅速发现；当异议人士组织活动时，监控系统能够迅速锁定；当维权人士发表批评意见时，监控系统同样能够发挥作用；当政府认为某些声音“不稳定”时，相关人员甚至可能被提前约谈或限制行动。然而，当一些家庭寻找失踪孩子的时候，他们面对的却往往是漫长的等待、有限的信息以及无尽的绝望。许多失踪儿童的父母几十年如一日地寻找自己的孩子。他们走遍全国，耗尽积蓄，失去工作，甚至导致家庭破裂。有些家庭最终找回了孩子，但已经过去了十几年甚至几十年；还有更多家庭直到今天仍然没有得到任何明确答案。最令人不安的，并不仅仅是案件本身，而是整个过程中的不透明和缺乏问责。公众不知道调查进展；公众不知道案件细节；公众不知道相关责任人是否受到追究；公众不知道案件为何长期没有结果；公众甚至不知道那些失踪的孩子究竟去了哪里。在一个信息受到严格控制的环境下，各种猜测和怀疑自然会不断滋生。有人怀疑拐卖网络长期存在却未被彻底打击；有人怀疑地方保护主义阻碍案件调查；有人怀疑某些利益链条长期存在而缺乏有效监督。
无论这些猜测是否准确，它们都反映出同一个现实：公众对政府公信力的严重不信任。而这种不信任并非凭空产生，而是在长期的信息封锁、缺乏透明度以及缺乏独立监督的环境中逐渐形成的。一个真正负责任的政府，应该主动公开真相，而不是让公众在猜测中寻找答案。一个真正关心人民的政府，应该优先保障人民的生命安全，而不是把大量资源投入到对人民的监控之中。一个真正以人民为中心的社会，不应该让失踪儿童的父母在绝望中寻找几十年，却始终得不到明确交代。更令人讽刺的是，中国政府经常以“科技强国”“智慧治理”作为宣传口号，向外界展示其先进的监控能力。但对于许多普通家庭而言，他们看到的却是另一幅景象：政府拥有识别每一个普通人的能力，却无法让他们相信自己的孩子能够得到有效保护；政府拥有庞大的数据收集能力，却无法向公众解释许多重大案件背后的真相；政府拥有强大的维稳机器，却无法建立真正的社会信任。
这种矛盾暴露出一个根本问题：在缺乏监督和制衡的体制下，技术的发展未必服务于公民权利，而更可能服务于权力本身。当权力不受约束时，监控技术首先被用于维护统治，而不是保障公民安全；当政府最关心的是社会控制而不是社会责任时，再先进的技术也无法解决公众最关心的问题。
对于我而言，这种现象让我开始重新审视中国社会的运行方式。我逐渐认识到，一个缺乏独立监督、缺乏新闻自由、缺乏公开问责机制的体制，即使拥有再先进的技术，也无法真正保障普通人的权利。因为问题从来不只是技术落后，而是权力缺乏约束。一个社会最重要的，不是拥有多少摄像头，而是是否尊重人的生命价值；不是能够监控多少人，而是是否愿意对人民负责；不是能够收集多少数据，而是是否愿意接受公众监督。当遍地都是摄像头，却仍然有无数家庭找不到自己的孩子时，人们当然有权提出质疑。而当这些质疑难以得到公开回应，当批评的声音受到压制，当追问真相的人被视为“制造问题的人”而不是“寻找答案的人”时，这种沉默本身就已经成为制度性问题的一部分。一个真正值得信任的政府，不是让人民害怕被监控，而是让人民相信自己能够得到保护。遗憾的是，在今天的中国，越来越多的人感受到的是被监控，而不是被保护。
编辑：周志刚 校对：冯仍 翻译：戈冰
When Cameras Are Everywhere, Why Are There Still So Many Missing Children?
Author: Yang Dapeng
Abstract: This article discusses the reasons behind the widespread deployment of cameras in China. The frequent occurrence of missing infant cases is sufficient to demonstrate that installing cameras is not for protecting the people, but for control and exploitation.
Over the years, the Chinese government has invested massive amounts of fiscal funds into constructing the so-called “Skynet Project” and “Sharp Eyes Project,” with hundreds of millions of cameras blanketing urban streets, stations, shopping malls, residential communities, schools, and rural intersections. Official state media continuously propagandizes this as the world’s most advanced social governance system, claiming it can achieve comprehensive perception, precise management, and real-time monitoring of society. However, a sharp and unavoidable question is always placed before the public: why is it that in such a country where cameras are everywhere, facial recognition technology is highly advanced, and personal information is almost comprehensively collected, cases of child disappearances, human trafficking, and long-unsolved crimes still continuously emerge? If an ordinary citizen runs a red light, cameras can swiftly identify their identity; if a car commits a traffic violation, the system can immediately lock onto the vehicle owner; if someone posts sensitive speech on the internet, the relevant content can even be deleted within a short period, and the publisher may also receive attention from relevant authorities. Why then, after a living, breathing child goes missing, is there frequently no result for many years?
This is no longer merely a technical issue, but a question involving the operational logic of power and government accountability. The Chinese government has long emphasized that “maintaining stability overrides everything.” According to public data, the scale of funds invested annually into the stability maintenance and surveillance systems is extremely massive. From the network of cameras blanketing the entire country to big data analysis platforms; from facial recognition systems to mobile phone positioning and information tracking, every single move of ordinary citizens seems to be under strict surveillance. However, more and more people are beginning to realize that the primary function of this colossal surveillance system does not seem to be protecting the lives and safety of ordinary people, but rather maintaining power’s control over society. When citizens petition the government, the surveillance system can swiftly detect them; when dissidents organize activities, the surveillance system can swiftly lock onto them; when rights defense activists express critical opinions, the surveillance system can likewise play a role; when the government considers certain voices to be “unstable,” the relevant personnel may even be summoned for a talk in advance or have their movements restricted.
However, when some families look for their missing children, what they face is frequently prolonged waiting, limited information, and endless despair. Many parents of missing children look for their children for decades as if it were a single day. They travel across the entire country, exhaust their savings, lose their jobs, and even cause their families to break apart. Some families eventually find their children back, but more than a decade or even decades have already passed; still more families, up until today, have yet to receive any clear answer. What is most disturbing is not merely the cases themselves, but the opacity and lack of accountability throughout the entire process. The public does not know the investigation progress; the public does not know the case details; the public does not know whether the relevant responsible persons have been held accountable; the public does not know why the cases have had no results for a long time; the public does not even know where those missing children have actually gone. In an environment where information is strictly controlled, various speculations and suspicions will naturally and continuously breed. Some suspect that human trafficking networks have existed for a long time yet have not been thoroughly cracked down upon; some suspect that local protectionism hinders case investigations; some suspect that certain chains of interest have existed for a long time while lacking effective supervision.
Regardless of whether these speculations are accurate, they all reflect the same reality: the public’s severe distrust of government credibility. Furthermore, this distrust does not arise out of thin air, but is gradually formed within a long-term environment of information blockades, a lack of transparency, and a lack of independent supervision. A truly responsible government should proactively disclose the truth, rather than letting the public search for answers amid speculation. A government that truly cares about the people should prioritize guaranteeing the life and safety of the people, rather than investing massive amounts of resources into the surveillance of the people. A truly people-centered society should not let the parents of missing children search in despair for decades, yet never receive a clear accounting.
Even more ironically, the Chinese government frequently uses “technological power” and “smart governance” as promotional slogans to showcase its advanced surveillance capabilities to the outside world. But for many ordinary families, what they see is a completely different picture: the government possesses the ability to identify every ordinary individual, yet cannot make them believe that their own children can receive effective protection; the government possesses a colossal data collection capability, yet cannot explain to the public the truth behind many major cases; the government possesses a powerful stability maintenance machine, yet cannot establish genuine social trust.
This contradiction exposes a fundamental problem: under a system that lacks supervision, checks, and balances, the development of technology does not necessarily serve civil rights, but is more likely to serve power itself. When power is unconstrained, surveillance technology is first and foremost utilized to maintain rule, rather than to guarantee citizen safety; when what the government cares about most is social control rather than social responsibility, no matter how advanced the technology is, it cannot solve the problems that the public cares about the most.
For me, this phenomenon has caused me to begin re-examining the way Chinese society operates. I have gradually come to realize that a system lacking independent supervision, lacking freedom of the press, and lacking public accountability mechanisms, even if it possesses the most advanced technology, can never truly guarantee the rights of ordinary people. This is because the problem has never been a lag in technology, but rather a lack of constraint on power. What is most important for a society is not how many cameras it possesses, but whether it respects the value of human life; it is not how many people it can surveil, but whether it is willing to be responsible to the people; it is not how much data it can collect, but whether it is willing to accept public supervision.
When cameras are everywhere, yet there are still countless families who cannot find their children, the people naturally have the right to raise questions. Furthermore, when these questions struggle to receive a public response, when the voices of criticism are suppressed, and when the people pursuing the truth are viewed as “those who create problems” rather than “those who look for answers,” this silence itself has already become a part of the institutional problem. A truly trustworthy government does not make the people fear being surveilled, but makes the people believe that they can receive protection. Regrettably, in today’s China, what more and more people experience is being surveilled, rather than being protected.
Editor: Zhou Zhigang Proofreader: Feng Reng Translator: Ge Bing
