Text2
JUST HOW much does the Constitution protect your digital data? The Supreme Court is only just coming to grips with that question. On Tuesday,it will consider whether police can search the contents of a mobile phonewithout 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 assumption that authorities may search through the effects of suspects at the time of their arrest. Even if the justices are tempted, the state argues, it is hard 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, that the justices 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 smartphone — a vast storehouse of digital information — is similar to, say, rifling through a suspect’s purse. The court has ruled that police don’t violate the Fourth Amendment when they sift 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, means that police officers could conceivably access even more information with a few swipes on a touchscreen.
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 overly onerous for authorities to obtain a warrant to search through phone contents. They could still trump Fourth Amendment protections when facing severe, exigent circumstances, such as the threat of immediate harm, 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 leeway.
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 who blogs on The Post’s Volokh Conspiracy,comparesthe 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.
The Supreme court, will work out whether, during an arrest, it is legitimate to
[解析] 根据题干关键词“The Supreme Court”可定位到文章第一段第二句“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. ”。句中的“police can search the contents of a mobile phone without a warrant”与C项“check suspects" phone contents without being authorized(未经授权检查嫌疑人的手机内容)”意思相近。
The author’s attitude toward California’s argument is one of
[解析] 本题考查的是作者的观点态度。根据题干关键词“California"s argument”可定位到文章第四段第一句“They should start by discarding California"s lame argument...”。由该句中的“discard(抛弃)”和“lame(没有说服力的)”可以看出作者对于“California"s argument”是不赞成的态度。disapproval意为“不赞成”，符合题意。indifference意为“漠不关心，冷漠”；tolerance意为“宽容，容忍”；cautiousness意为“谨慎”。
The author believes that exploring one’s phone content is comparable to
[解析] 根据题干关键词“exploring one"s phone contents”可定位到文章第四段第三句“But exploring one"s smartphone is more like entering his or her home. ”。句中的“entering"与A项中的“getting into”对应，“one"s residence”与“his or her home”对应。故答案为A。
In Paragraph 5 and 6, the author shows his concern that
[解析] 根据文章第五段第一句“Americans should take steps to protect their digital privacy. ”可知，美国人应该采取措施来保护他们的数据隐私。而且，文章第六段第三句后半句又提及“...and they could take reasonable measures to ensure that phone data are not erased”。综上可推知，作者的顾虑在于公民的隐私未能被有效保护。
Orin Kerr’s comparison is quoted to indicate that
[解析] 根据题干关键词“Orin Kerr”可定位到文章最后一段。作者在此处引用Orin Kerr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，因此相关论点应该往前面找，即为本段第二句“New, disruptive technology sometimes demands novel applications of the Constitution"s protections. ”。句中的“applications”与A项中的“be implemented”对应，“novel”和“flexibly”对应。故答案为A。