$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$Text 2
$\quad$$\quad$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.
$\quad$$\quad$宪法保护了多少你的个人隐私数字信息?最高法院如今将考虑是否允许警察在怀疑或已经确凿一个人是嫌犯的时候,在没有搜查令的情况下搜查嫌犯的手机清单。
$\quad$$\quad$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.
$\quad$$\quad$加州已经要求法官不要做出一项全面的裁决,尤其是那项裁决颠覆了以往的假设,即当局在逮捕嫌疑人时可以搜查他们的财产。该州认为,法官很难评估快速变化的新技术的影响。
$\quad$$\quad$The court would be recklessly modest if it followed California’s advice. Enough of the implications are discernable, even obvious, so that the justices can and should provide updated guidelines to police, lawyers and defendants.
$\quad$$\quad$如果法庭采取了加州的建议,那就会显得他们太过谦逊了。足够多的影响里是可以被重视的,甚至是明显的,所以法官能且应当提供与时俱进的指导方针给警察、律师和被告人。
$\quad$$\quad$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.
$\quad$$\quad$他们应该从抛弃加州的蹩脚论点开始,即探索智能手机的内容—一个巨大的数字信息仓库—类似于,比如说,搜查嫌疑人的钱包。法院规定了警察在逮捕过程中在没有搜查令的情况下搜查嫌犯的钱包或皮夹不违反第四搜查令。但是搜查一个人的手机更像进了他的家门。手机可能包含了嫌犯的阅读记录,财政记录,医药记录和最近联系人的记录。与此同时,“云计算”的发展使这种探索变得更加容易。
$\quad$$\quad$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.
$\quad$$\quad$美国人需要采取保护自己数字隐私的行动。但在这些设备上保存敏感信息正日益成为日常生活的要求。公民仍然有权要求私人文件保持私密性,并受到宪法禁止不合理搜查的保护。
$\quad$$\quad$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 burdensome for authorities to obtain a warrant to search through phone contents. They could still invalidate Fourth Amendment protections when facing severe, urgent circumstances, and they could take reasonable measures to ensure that phone data are not erased or altered while waiting for a warrant. The court, though, may want to allow room for police to cite situations where they are entitled to more freedom.
$\quad$$\quad$通常情况下,陈述原则并不能缓解制定法条的挑战。在很多情况下,对于当局来说,获得搜查电话内容的搜查令并不会太麻烦。在面临严重、紧急的情况时,他们仍然可以使第四修正案的保护失效,他们还可以采取合理措施,确保在等待搜查令期间,手机数据不会被删除或更改。不过,法院可能希望给警察留出空间,让他们引述他们有权获得更多自由的情况。
$\quad$$\quad$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 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.
$\quad$$\quad$但是法官们不应该全盘接受加州的论点。新的颠覆性技术有时需要对宪法保护的新应用。法学教授奥林·克尔(Orin Kerr)将21世纪数字信息的爆炸式增长和可获取性与20世纪汽车使用作为一种实际生活必需品的确立进行了比较:当时,法官必须为乘用车的新个人领域制定新的规则;他们现在必须弄清楚第四修正案如何适用于数字信息。
26 The Supreme Court will work out whether, during an arrest, it is legitimate to
[A] prevent suspects from deleting their phone contents.
[B] search for suspects’ mobile phones without a warrant. 正确
[C] check suspects’ phone contents without being authorized.
[D]prohibit suspects from using their mobile phones.
27 The author’s attitude toward California’s argument is one of
[A] disapproval. 正确
[B] indifference.
[C] tolerance.
[D]cautiousness.
28 The author believes that exploring one’s phone contents is comparable to
[A] getting into one’s residence. 正确
[B] handling one’s historical records.
[C] scanning one’s correspondences.
[D] going through one’s wallet.
29 In Paragraph 5 and 6, the author shows his concern that
[A] principles are hard to be clearly expressed.
[B] the court is giving police less room for action.
[C] citizens’ privacy is not effectively protected. 正确
[D] phones are used to store sensitive information.
30 Orin Kerr’s comparison is quoted to indicate that
[A] the Constitution should be implemented flexibly. 正确
[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