考研英语阅读真题考研英语毙考题

2015考研英语阅读真题：考研英语（一）第2篇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.
California has asked the justices to refrain from a sweeping ruling,
particularly one that upsets the old assumptions 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.
The court would be recklessly modest if it followed California’s advice.
Enough of the implications are discernable, even obvious,
so that the justice can and should provide updated guidelines to police, lawyers and defendants.
They should start by discarding California’s lame argument
that exploring the contents of a smart phone —a vast storehouse of digital information is similar to say, going through a suspect’s pur se.
The court has ruled that police don’t violate the Fourth Amendment when they go through the wallet or pocket book, of an arrestee without a warrant.
But exploring one’s smart phone is more like entering his or her home.
A smart phone 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.
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 a right to expect private documents to remain private and protected by the Constitution’s prohibition on unreaso nable searches.
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 onerous 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 a warrant is pending.
The court, though, may want to allow room for police to cite situations where they are entitled to more freedom.
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 digital 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.
宪法对你的数字资料的保护到底有多大?
最高法院现在将会考虑
如果手机在嫌疑人的身上或身边，警察是否能在未经许可的前提下搜索其手机的内容。

加州要求法官们制止笼统的裁决，
尤其是这个推翻以往臆断的裁决——当局在实施逮捕时可以搜查嫌疑犯的所有物。

加州争辩说，要让法官去评估日新月异的技术可能引发的后果是很难的。

如果法院听从了加州的建议，那它就谦逊过头了。

可能引发的后果都在意料之中，甚至是显而易见的，
因此法官们可以也应该给警察、律师和被告提供最新的指导方针。

法官们首先就应该予以摒弃，
智能手机是个巨大的数据信息仓库，而加州关于“搜查智能手机的内容，就像在搜查嫌疑犯的钱包”的说辞是站不住脚的。

法院已作出判定，警察在没有授权的前提下搜查被捕人的钱包或皮夹时，并没有违反第四修订案规定。

但是搜查某人的智能手机更像是闯进他的家。

因为智能手机很可能含有被捕人的阅读历史、财政状况、医疗信息和详细的最近通信记录。

而此时“云计算”的发展使得搜查变得更加容易。

美国人应该采取措施保护他们的数据隐私。

而在智能手机上保存敏感信息越来越成为日常生活的需求。

公民依然有权期望私密文件不被人知道，遇到不正当的搜查时受到宪法保护。

即便如此规定，但也很难帮助我们做到泾渭分明，这种事情也是时有发生。

在很多情况下，当局很容易获得搜查手机内容的搜查令。

但在遭遇严重、紧急的情况时，他们依然会使第四修订案失效，
而在等待搜查令的时候，他们可以采取恰当的手段来确保手机中的数据不删除或修改。

法院会让警方证明在许多情况下，他们都有权进行搜查。

但是法官们不应该一股脑地同意加州说辞。

新的突破性技术有时要求宪法保护的创新运用。

法学教授奥林·科尔将21世纪的数字信息爆炸和易获取性
与20世纪作为生活必需品的移动应用的建立进行了对比。

法官那时为车厢的个人空间制定了明确的新条例;
他们现在也就必须弄清第四修订案该如何运用到数据信息的保护上。

invalidate[in’vælideit]vt. 使无效，使作废
disruptive[dis’rʌptiv]adj. 破坏的;分裂性的;制造混乱的
cite[sait]vt. 引用，引证，举(例)
establishment[is’tæbliʃmənt]n. 确立，制定，设施，机构，权威amendment[ə’mendmənt]n. 改善(正), 修正案，某物质能改善土壤有助生长privacy[‘praivəsi]n. 隐私，隐居，秘密
challenge[‘tʃælindʒ]n. 挑战v. 向... 挑战
reasonable[‘ri:znəbl]adj. 合理的，适度的，通情达理的
sensitive[‘sensitiv]adj. 敏感的，灵敏的，易受伤害的，感光的，善解人意的obtain[əb’tein]vt. 获得，得到。