|
TEXT 2
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 Californias 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 Californias lame argument that exploring the contents of a
smartphone- a vast storehouse of digital information is similar to say, going
through a suspects purse .The court has ruled that police dont violate the
Fourth Amendment when they go through the wallet or pocketbook, of an arrestee
without a warrant. But exploring ones smartphone is more like entering his or
her home. A smartphone may contain an arrestees 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.
But the
justices should not swallow Californias argument whole. New, disruptive technology
sometimes demands novel applications of the Constitutions 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.
26. The
Supreme court, will work out whether, during an arrest, it is legitimate to
[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.
27. The
authors attitude toward Californias argument is one of
[A]
tolerance.
[B]
indifference.
[C]
disapproval.
[D]
cautiousness.
28. The
author believes that exploring ones phone content is comble to
[A] getting
into ones residence.
[B] handing
ones historical records.
[C] scanning
ones correspondences.
[D] going
through ones wallet.
29. In graph
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] phones
are used to store sensitive information.
[D] citizens
privacy is not effective protected.
30.Orin
Kerrs comparison is quoted to indicate that
(A)the
Constitution should be implemented flexibly.
(B)New
technology requires reinterpretation of the Constitution.
(C)Californias
argument violates principles of the Constitution.
(D)Principles
of the Constitution should never be altered.
26. Bcheck
suspects phone contents without being authorized.
27.Cdisapproval
28.A getting
into ones residence
29. D
citizens privacy is not effectively protected
30.B new
technology requires reinterpretation of the constitution
|