When Ant Financial, the payments affiliate of the internet group Alibaba, goes public, its potential $120bn valuation could exceed that of Goldman Sachs. Alipay, Ant's mobile payments platform with 520m users, is innovative as well as valuable, having devised a new method of credit rating.

當(dāng)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)集團(tuán)阿里巴巴旗下的金融服務(wù)公司螞蟻金服上市時，其1200億美元的潛在估值將超過高盛集團(tuán)。螞蟻金服成立的第三方支付平臺支付寶擁有5.2億用戶，并且在這個基礎(chǔ)上，設(shè)計出一套即創(chuàng)新又具有價值的信用評級體系。

Sesame Credit, Alipay's alternative to traditional credit scores is intriguing. It broadens access to loans in a developing market by monitoring people's buying habits and social circles as well as their credit records. Alipay insists that it does not share personal data with governments without users' permission. But they have plenty of drawbacks nonetheless.

支付寶用來替代傳統(tǒng)信用評分制度的"芝麻信用"在表面上看來十分有趣。芝麻信用分是芝麻信用對海量信息數(shù)據(jù)的綜合處理和評估，主要包含了用戶購物歷史、人脈關(guān)系、信用歷史等五個維度。"芝麻信用"通過分析大量的網(wǎng)絡(luò)交易及行為數(shù)據(jù)，可對用戶進(jìn)行信用評估，這些信用評估可以幫助互聯(lián)網(wǎng)金融企業(yè)對用戶的還款意愿及還款能力做出結(jié)論，繼而為用戶提供快速授信及現(xiàn)金分期服務(wù)。然而雖然支付寶堅稱，未經(jīng)用戶許可它不會向政府透露用戶的個人數(shù)據(jù)，"芝麻信用"體系仍存在很多問題。

First, they have been designed by technology companies, which have a laxer attitude to data than banks. Banks store enormous amounts of data on the spending and personal habits of their customers but, thanks to regulation and the tradition of confidentiality, they do not exploit it as much as they might.

首先，"芝麻信用"系統(tǒng)是由科技公司設(shè)計的，它們對數(shù)據(jù)的管理和監(jiān)控較銀行而言更為寬松。銀行儲存了大量關(guān)于客戶消費(fèi)和個人生活習(xí)慣的數(shù)據(jù)，但是由于嚴(yán)監(jiān)管和保密的傳統(tǒng)，銀行并未盡其所能地利用這些數(shù)據(jù)。

Tech companies, on the other hand, tend to think they can hold and analyze any data they get their hands on. That includes all the information from people's mobile phones - not only their location but details of their social media circles and the products and services they buy. The potential for abuse is enormous and there is less regulation than in financial services.

而科技公司則更傾向于認(rèn)為他們有權(quán)分析他們掌握的任何數(shù)據(jù)，這包括客戶手機(jī)上的所有信息-不僅是他們的位置信息，還有他們的個人社交圈以及他們購買的產(chǎn)品和服務(wù)的細(xì)節(jié)。這些數(shù)據(jù)信息被利用的可能性極大，且目前我國對科技公司的監(jiān)管也比金融服務(wù)業(yè)少。

Second, there is a perverse incentive built into calculating credit scores on the basis of transactions and activity. One improves a traditional credit score by borrowing less and displaying self-control. Social credit tends to work in the opposite way - it gives users an incentive to buy and rent items through platforms, and to build a circle of active and highly rated friends.

其次，基于交易和活動計算的信用評分制度本身就有一種不合理的激勵元素。以傳統(tǒng)的信用評分來說，我們?nèi)绻胍岣咝庞迷u分，就需要通過減少借款以及修煉自身約束能力等途徑來實現(xiàn)。但"芝麻信用"采用的是一個相反的方式-它不斷地給予用戶在網(wǎng)絡(luò)平臺上進(jìn)行購買或租賃交易的動力，并且時時督促用戶要積極去維持自己的高等人際關(guān)系網(wǎng)。

Social credit is thus "gamified" - a tournament in which people must compete to raise their numbers through activity, like a financial version of social networks and mobile games.

因此，社會信用評分被"游戲化"--在這場比賽中，人們必須通過聚會或交易活動來提高自己的評分，就像金融版本的社交網(wǎng)絡(luò)和移動端的游戲。

Third, in order to build a high Sesame score, a user must keep using Alipay. There is a glaring conflict of interest in being a payment platform as well as a judge of credit ratings-one tweak to a credit score algorithm can push customers to transact more. China's central bank has belatedly realized that giving power over credit scores to rival tech companies has pitfalls.

第三，為了建立一個高的芝麻信用評分，用戶將面臨被硬性捆綁式地繼續(xù)使用支付寶的局面。支付寶作為一個獨(dú)立第三方支付平臺，如果進(jìn)而成為信用評級的決裁者，這本身就存在明顯的利益沖突。對信用評級算法的一個小調(diào)整即可推動客戶在其支付平臺上進(jìn)行更多的交易。中國央行后知后覺地意識到，將信用評分的權(quán)力交給科技公司這個決定是有缺陷的。

So social credit must be treated carefully before everyone has a number that determines their reputation as well as their ability to borrow. One essential safeguard is that ownership of the trove of data generated by every digital citizen is held not by governments or companies but citizens themselves. Rather than customers of payment and social platforms ceding control of personal information to brands, they should retain it.

由于信用評分的結(jié)果將會直接影響我們大眾的聲譽(yù)和借貸能力，故在社會信用評級廣泛推行之前，我們必須謹(jǐn)慎考慮及對待此評級制度將會帶來的隱性問題。一個基本的保障措施是，每個網(wǎng)絡(luò)公民產(chǎn)生大量數(shù)據(jù)信息的所有權(quán)不應(yīng)該是由政府或個別公司擁有，而是應(yīng)該由公民自己擁有。支付平臺和社交平臺的用戶應(yīng)該注意不要把個人信息的控制權(quán)交給品牌公司。