Question

    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(执行令)if the phone is on or around a person during an arrest.

California has asked the justices to restore the practice that the police 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 careless if it followed California's advice. Enough of the implications are recognizable, even obvious, so that the justice can and should provide updated guidelines to police, lawyers and defendants.

They should start by casting away 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.

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 unreasonable 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 very difficult for authorities to obtain a warrant to search through phone contents. They could still ignore 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, destructive 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 cars; similarly, they must sort out how the Fourth Amendment applies to digital information now.

1.The Supreme Court, will work out whether, during an arrest, it is legal to ____.

A.search for suspects' mobile phones without a warrant

B.check suspects' phone contents without being authorized

C.prevent suspects from deleting their phone contents

D.prohibit suspects from using their mobile phones

2.The author's attitude toward California's argument is one of ____.

A.tolerance. B.indifference C.disapproval D.cautiousness

3.In Paragraph 5 and 6, the author shows his concern that ____.

A.principles are hard to be clearly expressed

B.the court is giving police less room for action

C.phones are used to store sensitive information

D.citizens' privacy is not effective protected

4.Orin Kerr's comparison is quoted to indicate that ____.

A.the Constitution should be carried out flexibly

B.New technology requires reinterpretation of the Constitution

C.California's argument violates principles of the Constitution

D.Principles of the Constitution should never be changed

Answer

1.B

2.C

3.D

4.B

【解析】

本文为议论文。本文主要讲述了最高法院考虑警察在逮捕嫌犯时能否在没有搜查令的情况下搜查被捕者的手机内容，以及宪法应保护个人数字隐私这一更大的问题。

1.细节理解题。根据第一段第二句的"The Supreme Court will now consider whether police can search the contents of a mobile phone without a warrant（授权令）if the phone is on or around a person during an arrest．"可知，联邦最高法院将考虑：拘捕嫌犯时，如果嫌犯的手机在身上或在旁边，是否警察可以在没有搜查令的情况下搜查手机的内容。由此可知，最高法院将研究在逮捕期间未经授权查看嫌疑人手机是否合法。故选B。

2.推理判断题．根据第三段第一句的“The court would be careless if it followed California's advice.” 如果法院采纳了加州的建议，那就太草率了。以及第四段第一句“They should start by casting away California's lame argument that”可知，他们应该从抛弃加利福尼亚的站不住脚的观点开始......。由文中的的“careless”、“casting away (抛弃)”和“lame(没有说服力的)”等词，可以看出作者对于California’s argument 是不支持的态度，故选C。

3.推理判断题。根据第五段第一句的“Americans should take steps to protect their own digital privacy and should avoid putting important information in smartphones”美国人应该采取措施保护自己的数字隐私，并应避免把重要的信息放在智能手机上。和第六段的“and they could take reasonable measures to ensure that phone data are not deleted or altered...他们可以采取合理的措施，确保在申请搜查令期间电话数据不会被删除或改变......。可知，作者的担心公民的隐私权得不到有效的保护，故选D。

4.推理判断题。根据题干关键词Orin Kerr可以回文定位到文章最后一段。作者引用Orin Kerr这个人的比较是为了说明相关的论点。分析最后一段结构可知，最后一段的第三句和第四句都是在阐述该例子本身，所以相关论点应该往前面找，即是第二句话，“New，disruptive technology sometimes demands novel applications of the Constitution’s protection”, 可知新技术有时需要宪法保护的与时俱进新的运用（即重新解读）。所以作者引用Orin Kerr的比较是用来表明新技术也需要宪法的重新解读，选项B与之同义替换，其中，reinterpretation of the Constitutionbe和novel applications the Constitution’s protection对应。故选B。