Just how much does the Constitution prot

admin2022-08-02 21

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 ______.Orin Kerr’s comparison is quoted to indicate that ______.A. the Constitution should be implemented flexiblyB. New technology requires reinterpretation of the ConstitutionC. California’s argument violates principles of the ConstitutionD. Principles of the Constitution should never be altered

选项 A. the Constitution should be implemented flexibly
B. New technology requires reinterpretation of the Constitution
C. California’s argument violates principles of the Constitution
D. Principles of the Constitution should never be altered

答案 A

解析例证分析题。根据文章最后一段第二句“New，disruptive technology sometimes demands novel applications of the Constitution's protection”可知，“新的、引发混乱的技术需要对宪法条例进行新的应用”，A项所述与原文意思正好吻合，A项中be implemented 与原文中applications对应，novel与flexibly对应，故选A项。B项的内容在文中未提及。作者并未认为加州政府的观点违背了宪法，故排除C项。D项的内容在文中没有相关依据。

转载请注明原文地址:https://www.tihaiku.com/xueli/2698996.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