Question

    Just how much does the Constitution （宪法）protect your digital data? 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.

California has asked the justices to restore the practice that the police may search through the contents of suspects' smartphones at the time of their arrest. It is hard, the state says, for judges to assess the implications of new and rapidly changing technologies .

The justices would be careless if they followed California's advice. They should start by rejecting California's weak argument that exploring the contents of a smart phone is similar to say, going through a suspect's wallet. The court has ruled that police don't offend against the Fourth Amendment（修正案） when they go through the wallet, of an arrestee without a warrant. In fact, 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.

Americans should take steps to protect their own digital privacy and should avoid putting important information in smartphones. 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.

In many cases, it would not be very difficult for authorities to obtain a warrant to search through phone contents. They could still trump （打出王牌）the Fourth Amendment protections when facing severe and dangerous circumstances, such as the threat of immediate harm, and they could take reasonable measures to ensure that phone data are not deleted or altered while a warrant is on the way. The justices, though, may want to allow room for police to cite situations where they are entitled to more flexibility.

But the justices should not swallow California's argument whole. New technology sometimes demands fresh 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. At that time, the justices had to explain new rules for the new personal domain （领域）of cars. Similarly, the justices must sort out how the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution applies to digital information now.

1.The author's attitude toward California's argument is one of ________

A.disapproval. B.tolerance.

C.indifference. D.cautiousness.

2.The author believes that exploring one's phone content is comparable to

A.scanning one's correspondences. B.handing one's historical records.

C.getting into one's residence. D.going through one's wallet.

3.In paragraph 4 and 5, the author shows his concern that

A.citizens' privacy is not effectively protected.

B.principles are hard to be clearly expressed.

C.phones are used to store sensitive information.

D.the court is giving police less room for action.

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

A.the Constitution should be implemented flexibly.

B.Principles of the Constitution should never be changed.

C.California's argument violates principles of the Constitution.

D.New technology requires reinterpretation of the Constitution

Answer

1.A

2.C

3.A

4.D

【解析】

这是一篇议论文。文章就“警方逮捕犯人期间能否未经授权就查看其手机内容”这一主题，探讨了美国宪法对个人隐私的保护。

1.推理判断题。根据第三段第一、第二句“The justices would be careless if they followed California's advice. They should start by rejecting California^ weak argument that exploring the contents of a smart phone is similar to say, going through a suspect's wallet.”可知，作者认为法官如果听从加利福尼亚方面的建议就是太过草率了，认为法官应当先拒绝这一提案，可见作者对其的态度是不认可的。故选A项。

2.细节理解题。根据第三段倒数第二句“In fact, exploring one's smartphone is more like entering his or her home.”可知，作者认为查看一个人的手机就好比入侵了这个人的家，C选项“进入一个人的住宅”含义相同。故选C项。

3.推理判断题。第四段作者提出人们应该重视对个人数据隐私的保护并避免在手机里存放重要信息，但这一点随着时代发展越来越难做到；第五段则表明警方想要查看人们的手机内容并不难做到。综合来看，再根据第四段中“Citizens still have a right to expect private documents to remain private and protected by the Constitution's prohibition on unreasonable searches.”可知，作者对于人们的个人隐私能否得到有效保护是比较担心的。故选A项。

4.推理判断题。根据全文最后两句“At that time, the justices had to explain new rules for the new personal domain （领域）of cars. Similarly, the justices must sort out how the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution applies to digital information now.”可知，Orin Kerr将20世纪将手机使用视为生活必需和21世纪的数字化信息的爆发和可获取作比较，表示当时的法官为新领域解释了新规则，言下之意就是今天的宪法也必须与时俱进作出相应的调整。故选D项