考研英语阅读,这样做才有效 49 Digital privacy

考研英语阅读，这样做才有效49 Digital Privacy
1)Just how much does the Constitution protect your digital data? The Supreme Court will now consider whether police can search the contents of a mobile phone without a warrant if the phone is on or around a person during an arrest.
2)California has asked the justices to refrain from a sweeping ruling, particularly one that upsets the old assumption that authorities may search through the possessions of suspects at the time of their arrest. It is hard, the state argues, for judges to assess the implications of new and rapidly changing technologies.
3)The court would be recklessly modest if it followed California’s advice. Enough of the implications are discernible, even obvious, so that the justices can and should provide updated guidelines to police, lawyers and defendants.
4)They should start by discarding California’s lame argument that exploring the contents of a smartphone--a vast storehouse of digital information--is similar to, say, going through a suspect’s purse. The court has ruled that police don’t violate the Fourth Amendment when they go through the wallet or pocketbook of an arrestee without a warrant. But exploring one’s smartphone is more like entering his or her home. A
smartphone may contain an arrestee’s reading history, financial history, medical history and comprehensive records of recent correspondence. The development of “cloud computing,” meanwhile, has made that exploration so much the easier.
5)Americans should take steps to protect their digital privacy. But keeping sensitive information on these devices is increasingly a requirement of normal life. Citizens still have right to expect private documents to remain private and protected by the Constitution’s prohibition on unreasonable searches.
6)As so often is the case, stating that principle doesn’t ease the challenge of line-drawing. In many cases, it would not be overly burdensome for authorities to obtain a warrant to search through phone contents They could still invalidate Fourth Amendment protections when facing severe, urgent circumstances, and they could take reasonable measures to ensure that phone data are not erased or altered while waiting for a warrant. The court, though, may want to allow room for police to cite situations where they are entitled to more freedom.
7)But the justices should not swallow California’s argument whole. New, disruptive technology sometimes demands novel
applications of the Constitution’s protections. Orin Kerr, a law professor, compares the explosion and accessibility of digital information in the 21st century with the establishment of automobile use as a virtual necessity of life in the 20th: The justices had to specify novel rules for the new personal domain of the passenger car then; they must sort out how the Fourth Amendment applies to digital information now.
Questions:
1 How do you interpret “California has asked the justices to refrain from a sweeping ruling?”
2 What’s the author’s attitude toward California’s argument?
3 What does the author think of exploring one’s phone contents?
4 What does Orin Kerr’s comparison indicate?
For your references:
1 It seems that California likes the old assumption that authorities may search through the possessions of suspects at the time of their arrest.
本题信息来自对一二段的理解，尤其是第二段：California has asked the justices to refrain from a sweeping ruling, particularly one that upsets the old assumption that authorities may search through the possessions of suspects at the time of their arrest.（加利福尼亚州已要求法官们先不要做出一刀切的裁决，特别是不要推翻过去允许执法机构在逮捕犯罪嫌疑人时搜查他们的所有物的假定。

）
2 The author disapproves of California’s argument.
这里要弄明白加利福尼亚州的argument指的是第二段中提及的允许执法人员检查嫌疑犯的手机内容。

第三段中也借助虚拟语气表达了自己的态度。

The court would be recklessly modest if it followed California’s advice.（如果最高法院听从加利福尼亚州的建议，那就是recklessly modest(过于保守了)）。

3 The author believes that exploring one’s phone contents is comparable to getting into one’s house.
本题语境信息来自第四段：But exploring one’s smartphone is more like entering his or her home.（查看手机内容相当于进入他/她的家里。

）
4 Orin Kerr’s comparison indicates that new technology requires reinterpretation of the Constitution.
本题信息来自第七段中法学教授Orin Kerr将21世纪的数字信息的爆炸性增长与普及与20世纪汽车作为生活必需品做对比。

指出：The justices had to specify novel rules for the new personal domain of the passenger car then; they must sort out how the Fourth Amendment applies to digital information now.（法官们当时必须为私家车中的个人领域详细制定一些创新的规则；而现在他们则必须清楚第四修正案该如何应用在数字信息上。

）。