tags.
First paragraph: "ECB board member Piero Cipollone said the Eurosystem will not be able to link individuals to their transactions, but banks that handle those payments still will. The statement draws a clear line between the central banking system's own visibility and the data held by commercial banks."
Translation: "ECB 이사회 멤버인 피에로 치폴로네는 유로시스템이 개인을 거래에 연결할 수 없을 것이라고 말했지만, 그 지불을 처리하는 은행들은 여전히 그렇게 할 수 있다고 말했다. 이 발언은 중앙은행 시스템 자체의 가시성과 상업은행이 보유한 데이터 사이에 명확한 경계를 그었다."
We need to ensure proper names: Piero Cipollone -> 피에로 치폴로네 (or keep as is? Usually we transliterate. But requirement says keep proper nouns in original form? Actually it says "Keep proper nouns (names, company names) in original form" so we should keep "Piero Cipollone" as is. But in Korean text, we might write it in English? Usually we transliterate but the instruction says keep in original form, so we'll keep "Piero Cipollone" as is. Similarly "Eurosystem" is a proper noun? It's a system name, but we can translate as 유로시스템? The instruction says keep proper nouns in original form, but "Eurosystem" is a specific term, often translated. However, to be safe, we can keep "Eurosystem" as is? But the article uses "Eurosystem" as a proper noun. In Korean, it's often written as 유로시스템. But the instruction says "Keep proper nouns (names, company names) in original form" - so we should keep "Eurosystem" as "Eurosystem"? But that might be odd. Actually, "Eurosystem" is a proper noun, so we should keep it as "Eurosystem" in the translation. Similarly, "European Central Bank" is a proper noun, we keep as "European Central Bank" or translate? The instruction says keep proper nouns in original form, so we'll keep "European Central Bank" as is. But in Korean, it's often translated as 유럽중앙은행. However, to follow the instruction strictly, we'll keep the English names. But the article is being translated to Korean, so we need to make it readable. The instruction says "Keep proper nouns (names, company names) in original form" - that means we don't translate them, we keep them as they are. So we'll write "Piero Cipollone", "Eurosystem", "European Central Bank" etc. in English within the Korean text. That might be acceptable. But we need to ensure the translation is natural. Let's see.
Alternatively, we can transliterate but the instruction says "in original form" so we keep the English spelling. So we'll do that.
So first paragraph: "ECB 이사회 멤버인 Piero Cipollone는 유로시스템이 개인을 거래에 연결할 수 없을 것이라고 말했지만, 그 지불을 처리하는 은행들은 여전히 그렇게 할 수 있다고 말했다. 이 발언은 중앙은행 시스템 자체의 가시성과 상업은행이 보유한 데이터 사이에 명확한 경계를 그었다."
But we used "유로시스템" for Eurosystem? Actually we should keep "Eurosystem" as is. So: "ECB 이사회 멤버인 Piero Cipollone는 Eurosystem이 개인을 거래에 연결할 수 없을 것이라고 말했지만, 그 지불을 처리하는 은행들은 여전히 그렇게 할 수 있다고 말했다. 이 발언은 중앙은행 시스템 자체의 가시성과 상업은행이 보유한 데이터 사이에 명확한 경계를 그었다."
But "Eurosystem" is a proper noun, so we keep it. Also "ECB" is an acronym, we can keep as ECB. So we'll keep all proper nouns in English.
Now second paragraph: "
The Eurosystem's limits
" -> "
Eurosystem의 한계
" but we keep "Eurosystem" as is, so "
Eurosystem의 한계
"
Then the paragraph: "Speaking on the subject, Cipollone said the Eurosystem—the framework that includes the European Central Bank and the national central banks of eurozone countries—won't have the technical ability to match a person to a specific payment. That's a meaningful distinction. It suggests that, within the Eurosystem's own infrastructure, the identity of the person making a transaction is not part of the settlement record."
Translation: "이 주제에 대해 말하면서, Cipollone는 Eurosystem—유럽중앙은행과 유로존 국가들의 중앙은행을 포함하는 프레임워크—가 특정 지불에 개인을 매칭할 기술적 능력이 없을 것이라고 말했다. 이는 의미 있는 구분이다. 이는 Eurosystem 자체의 인프라 내에서 거래를 하는 사람의 신원이 결제 기록의 일부가 아니라는 것을 시사한다."
But we need to keep "European Central Bank" as is? Actually we can keep it as "European Central Bank" but in Korean text, it might be better to write "유럽중앙은행" but instruction says keep proper nouns in original form, so we'll keep "European Central Bank" as is. However, that might be awkward. Let's check the instruction: "Keep proper nouns (names, company names) in original form" - so we keep "European Central Bank" as is. So we'll write "European Central Bank" in the Korean sentence. But that might be too English. Alternatively, we can translate it as "유럽중앙은행" but that is a translation, not the original form. The instruction says "in original form" meaning we don't translate them, we keep them as they are. So we should keep "European Central Bank" as is. Similarly, "eurozone" is a proper noun? It's a common term, but we can translate as 유로존. But "eurozone" is not a proper noun per se, it's a term. We can translate it. But to be consistent, we'll keep "Eurosystem" and "European Central Bank" as is, but translate "eurozone" as 유로존? Actually "eurozone" is a proper noun? It's a region, but we can translate. The instruction says "proper nouns (names, company names)" - so "eurozone" is not a name, it's a common term. So we can translate it as 유로존. Similarly, "central bank" is common, but "European Central Bank" is a proper noun, so we keep it.
So we'll keep "European Central Bank" as is, and "Eurosystem" as is. For "eurozone" we can translate as 유로존.
So the paragraph: "이 주제에 대해 말하면서, Cipollone는 Eurosystem—European Central Bank와 유로존 국가들의 중앙은행을 포함하는 프레임워크—가 특정 지불에 개인을 매칭할 기술적 능력이 없을 것이라고 말했다. 이는 의미 있는 구분이다. 이는 Eurosystem 자체의 인프라 내에서 거래를 하는 사람의 신원이 결제 기록의 일부가 아니라는 것을 시사한다."
But we need to ensure the dash is preserved. We'll use em dash or parentheses.
Next: "The point matters because it addresses a recurring question about privacy in the push toward new forms of central bank money. If the Eurosystem itself can't see who paid whom, the system as a whole is built without a built-in surveillance layer. The statement doesn't explain exactly why that is, but it's a
