Just how much does the Constitution prot

练习题库2022-08-02 69

问题 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 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 assumptions that authorities 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 recklessly modest if it followed California’s advice. Enough of the implications are discernable, even obvious, so that the justice 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 smart phone—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 smart phone is more like entering his or her home. A smart phone 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 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, 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: 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 author believes that exploring one’s phone content is comparable to ______.A. getting into one’s residenceB. handing one’s historical recordsC. scanning one’s correspondencesD. going through one’s wallet

选项 A. getting into one’s residence
B. handing one’s historical records
C. scanning one’s correspondences
D. going through one’s wallet

答案 A

解析事实细节题。根据第四段第三句“But exploring one’s smart phone is more like entering his or her home”，可知检查一个人的手机内容就相当于查看他或她的家，A项中的residence与原文中的home对应，get into与enter对应，因此选A项。B项内容在文中未提及。C项与“查看一个人的手机内容”不是类比关系。D项是加州的观点，不是作者的观点，作者认为翻看手机内容比翻看钱包要严重得多。

转载请注明原文地址:https://www.tihaiku.com/xueli/2698994.html

本试题收录于：英语一研究生题库研究生入学分类

英语一研究生

研究生入学

相关试题推荐

随机试题

最新回复(0)

Just how much does the Constitution prot

英语一研究生

研究生入学