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 _____________.

A.skeptical B.tolerant

C.indifferent D.disapproving

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

A.getting into one's residence B.handing one's historical records

C.scanning one's correspondences D.going through one's wallet

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

A.principles are hard to be clearly expressed

B.citizens' privacy is not effectively protected

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.New technology requires reinterpretation of the Constitution

D.California's argument violates principles of the Constitution

Answer

1.D

2.A

3.B

4.C

【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.

推理判断题。根据第三段中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.可知如果法官们听从加州的建议，那就草率了。他们应该首先拒绝加州的薄弱的论点，即探索智能手机的内容类似于说，翻阅嫌疑人的钱包。由此可推知，作者对加利福尼亚的观点持不支持态度。故选D。

2.

细节理解题。根据第三段中In fact, exploring one's smartphone is more like entering his or her home.可知事实上，查看一个人的智能手机更像是进入他或她的家。由此可知，作者认为查看一个人的手机就好比进入了这个人的家。故选A。

3.

推理判断题。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.可知公民仍然有权期待私人文件保持隐私，并受到宪法禁止不合理搜查的保护。以及第五段中In many cases, it would not be very difficult for authorities to obtain a warrant to search through phone contents.可知在很多情况下，当局获得搜查令来搜查手机内容并不困难。文章第四段中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。由此可推知，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B。

4.

推理判断题。根据最后一段中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 of cars. Similarly, the justices must sort out how the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution applies to digital information now.”可知法学教授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。由此可推知，引用Orin Kerr的比较是为了表明新技术需要宪法重新解释。故选C。