Just how much does the Constitution（憲法）?protect your?digital data（數(shù)字信息）? ②The Supreme Court（最高法院）?will now consider?（考慮）whether police can search the contents of a mobile phone without a warrant?（逮捕令）if the phone is on or around a person during an arrest（第一題）.

提出憲法對于人們的數(shù)字信息有多少保護作用的疑問，最高法院正在考慮在警察實行任務(wù)的過程中是否能夠在沒有逮捕令的情況下，查看嫌疑人的手機內(nèi)容。

Constitution（憲法）

The Supreme Court（最高法院）

后面與法院，執(zhí)法人員相關(guān)的詞匯還有：

?Justices法官

?Ruling裁決

?judge?法官

court 法院

lawyer律師

?defendants（被告人）

①California has asked the justices to refrain from（避免）?a sweeping（籠統(tǒng)的）?ruling, particularly one that upsets?(推翻)the?old?assumption（假設(shè)）?that?authorities?（當(dāng)局）may?search?through（搜索）?the?possessions?（財務(wù)）of?suspects?（嫌疑人）at?the?time of?their?arrest.?②It?is?hard,?（the?state?argues）?for?judges?to?assess（評估）?the?implications（影響）?of?new?and?rapidly changing?（高速發(fā)展）technologies.

①The court would be?recklessly?（魯莽的）modest if it followed California’s advice. （第二題）②Enough of the implications are discernable（可識別的）, even obvious, so that the justices can and should provide updated guidelines（指導(dǎo)方針）?to police, lawyers and defendants.（被告人）

這兩段的邏輯關(guān)系有點難理解，第二段表示的是加利福尼亞周讓法官避免籠統(tǒng)的裁決，這些裁決指的是反對讓當(dāng)局在執(zhí)行公務(wù)的時候查看嫌疑人的手機內(nèi)容的那些裁決，也就是說加利福尼亞州是同意讓當(dāng)局在執(zhí)行公務(wù)的時候查看嫌疑人的手機內(nèi)容的，給出的理由是，法官們很難在現(xiàn)在判斷出高速發(fā)展的科技帶來的影響。而作者給出態(tài)度如果法院同意了加利福尼亞州的提議，那它是魯莽的，作者的任何科技的影響分明是可識別并且甚至是明顯的，說明作者是不認可當(dāng)局在執(zhí)行公務(wù)的時候查看嫌疑人的手機內(nèi)容的。并且作者提出，法官應(yīng)該給警察，辯護律師，以及被告人指導(dǎo)方針。

①They should start by?discarding（丟棄）?California’s lame（蹩腳的）?argument that exploring the contents of a

smartphone—a vast?storehouse(倉庫）?of digital information（數(shù)據(jù)信息）—is similar to, say, going through（檢查）?a suspect’s purse.?②The?court?has?ruled?that?police?don’t?violate（違背）?the?Fourth?Amendment（第四修正案）?when?they?go?through the wallet or pocketbook（錢包）?of an arrestee without a warrant. ③But exploring one’s smartphone is more like entering his or her home.（第三題）?④A smartphone may contain an arrestee’s reading history, financial history, medical history and comprehensive records of recent correspondence（通信）. ⑤The development of “cloud computing（云計算）,” meanwhile, has made that exploration so much the?easier.

作者指出應(yīng)該首先拋棄加利福尼亞州的意見——檢查嫌疑人的手機內(nèi)容就好像警察檢查嫌疑人的錢包一樣。因為法院曾經(jīng)規(guī)定在執(zhí)行公務(wù)的過程當(dāng)中檢查嫌疑人的錢包是不違背第四修正案的。再一次說明加利福利亞是支持檢查嫌疑人的手機內(nèi)容的。但是作者認為查看嫌疑人的手機內(nèi)容更像是進入了別人的家，所有的私人信息都有可能被泄露，在此表明作者是反對的。

①Americans should?take steps（采取行動）?to protect their?digital privacy（數(shù)字隱私）. ②But keeping sensitive information（敏感信息）?on these?devices（設(shè)備）?is increasingly a requirement of normal life. ③Citizens?（共民）still have a right to?（有權(quán)）expect private documents to remain private and protected by the Constitution’s prohibition（禁止）?on unreasonable searches.

作者呼吁共民采取行動保護自己的信息隱私。應(yīng)該通過憲法的限制來保證共民的私人信息能夠不被無理由的搜查

①As?so?often?is?the?case（情況通常也是如此）,?stating?that?principle?doesn’t?ease?the?challenge?of?line-drawing.?②In many?cases,?it?would?not?be?overly?burdensome（沉重）?for?authorities?to?obtain?a?warrant?to?search?through phone contents. ③They could still invalidate?（使無效）Fourth Amendment protections when facing severe, urgent circumstances, and they could take reasonable measures to ensure that phone data are not?erased?（刪除）or altered（更改）?while waiting for a warrant. ④The court, though, may want to allow room for police to cite situations where they are entitled to （有權(quán)）more?freedom.

平時的情況是，警察即便獲得搜捕令并不難，但是在緊急的情況下，還是會打破第四修正案的規(guī)定。

①But the justices should not swallow California’s argument whole（swallow吞咽，一個形象的說法）. ②New, disruptive （破壞性的）technology sometimes demands novel （新的）applications of the Constitution’s protections.?③Orin Kerr, a law professor, compares the explosion and?accessibility（可訪問性）?of digital information in the 21st century with the?establishment of automobile（汽車的）?use?as a virtual necessity?（虛擬的必要性）of life in the 20th: The justices had to?specify（規(guī)定）?novel?rules?for?the?new?personal?domain（領(lǐng)域）?of?the?passenger?car?then;?they?must?sort?out?（整理）how the Fourth Amendment applies to?（適用于）digital information?now.（第五題）

作者認為法官不應(yīng)該認同加利福尼亞的觀點。應(yīng)該調(diào)整憲法修正案來適用于數(shù)字信息。

[if !supportLists]21.?[endif]The Supreme Court will work out（解決）?whether, during an arrest, it is legitimate（合法的）?to（細節(jié)題）

這一題里面不僅僅是考查考生對于文章信息的把握，還有對于詞組的理解。A選項的意思是搜索嫌疑人的手機，而B選項是檢查嫌疑人的電話內(nèi)容。二者是不一樣的，而本文要說的是警察在執(zhí)行公務(wù)過程中是否應(yīng)該檢查手機內(nèi)容，而不是搜索手機本身。

［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.

[if !supportLists]22.?[endif]The author’s attitude toward California’s argument is one?of（作者態(tài)度題）

［A］tolerance. ［B］indifference（冷漠的）——“小墓碑選項”.

［C］disapproval. ［D］cautiousness.

第三段開頭作者便指明The court would be?recklessly?（魯莽的）modest if it followed California’s advice. 后面又一再地否認加利福尼亞的做法，呼吁共民要保護自己的隱私。

[if !supportLists]23.?[endif]The author believes that exploring one’s phone contents is comparable?to（細節(jié)題）

［A］getting into one’s?residence.（住宅）

［B］handling one’s historical?records.

［C］scanning one’s?correspondences.

［D］going through one’s wallet.

本題中的四個選項皆有提到，但是BC選項的內(nèi)容實際上是說檢查嫌疑人手機內(nèi)容的時候可能會做的事情，D選項是加利福尼亞用來為自己辯解的一個例子。注意區(qū)分不要混淆。

[if !supportLists]24.?[endif]In Paragraphs 5 and 6, the author shows his concern?that（細節(jié)題）

［A］principles are hard to be clearly expressed.（并不是難以表達清楚，而是即便表達清楚，警察也常常不照做）

［B］the court is giving police less room for?action.（與文章相反）

［C］phones are used to store sensitive?information.（有提及，但是作者擔(dān)心的是敏感信息被泄露而非手機被用來儲存敏感信息）

［D］citizens’ privacy is not effectively protected.

在第五，六段，作者反復(fù)地提到保護公民隱私的話題。

[if !supportLists]25.?[endif]Orin Kerr’s comparison is quoted to indicate?that（細節(jié)題）

文章最后和文章最后一段第二句表明，新技術(shù)的需要憲法的新的解釋，也就是說要對憲法做出改善。并且拿汽車的使用來做例子。

［A］the Constitution should be implemented flexibly.

［B］new technology requires?reinterpretation（重新解釋）?of the?Constitution.

［C］California’s argument violates principles of the?Constitution.

［D］principles of the Constitution should never be altered.

文章主要行文脈絡(luò)：

提出法院的面臨的問題：是否應(yīng)該允許警察在執(zhí)行公務(wù)的時候在沒有得到搜捕令的情況下檢查嫌疑人的手機內(nèi)容——>加利福尼亞州的觀點認為是應(yīng)該被允許的——>作者認為不可以并且呼吁公眾采取措施保護自己的隱私安全——>作者認為憲法應(yīng)該做出修改。