2. 外语
  3. Most people don’t leave their front door unlocked, and the same is true of their home Wi-Fi networks. But some believe that prev

Most people don’t leave their front door unlocked, and the same is true of their home Wi-Fi networks. But some believe that prev

admin2014-02-25  55
问题     Most people don’t leave their front door unlocked, and the same is true of their home Wi-Fi networks. But some believe that preventing access to your wireless Internet actually does more harm than good. Peter Eckersley of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an organisation devoted to defending digital rights, is calling for an "Open Wireless Movement" and encouraging people to be "socially responsible" by sharing their connection.
    Eckersley compares the current situation of locked-down networks to "finding yourself parched(干透的)and thirsty while everyone around you is sipping from nice tall glasses of iced water", and offers a technological solution. We restrict access to our networks for two reasons: to prevent other people from using up our bandwidth, and to ensure our security and privacy.
    He suggests we can still protect ourselves from both problems by using routers(路由器)that share a certain amount of bandwidth in the open while also providing an encrypted(加密的)connection for personal use, but such technology already exists, and people aren’t choosing to use it.
    Perhaps the problem is not technological, but legal, as home users don’t want to be responsible for the activities of others on their network. Quite understandable, really. But Eckersley says that "individuals can enjoy the same legal protections against liability as any other Internet access provider", but the law is far from clear in this area and differs from country to country.
    In a footnote on his article, Eckersley says US law "may" offer protection, but that didn’t prevent a man who left his network open from being called a paedophile(恋童癖者)by armed police in his living room this past weekend. Courts in Germany have previously ruled that people can be fined if they allow unauthorised users to access illegal materials through their connection, while in the UK disputes over recent changes to the law leave the matter uncertain.
    Perhaps these legal concerns can be overcome by turning to an unlikely role-model — Estonia, where access to the Internet is a legal human right. The country is blanketed in a network of free Wi-Fi access points in cafes, bars and other public locations, allowing people to easily get online almost anywhere. So who wants to open up their network first?
What can be inferred from Eckersley’s words "individuals ... Internet access provider"(Lines 3-4, Para. 4)?
选项 A、Laws protect home users of Internet from responsibilities.
B、Internet access providers take no responsibility for their users’ illegal activities.
C、Home users enjoy the same rights as Internet access providers.
D、It is Internet access providers who should be responsible for their users’ activities.
答案B
解析 根据题干中的“individuals…Internet access provider”(Lines 3—4，Para．4)将本题出处定位于第4段。该段第1句提到，网络的家庭用户不想为使用其网络的人的活动承担责任，最后一句引号中埃克斯利提到个人可以享受和其他网络接入提供者一样的法律保护，而不必承担责任，由此可知网络接入提供者是不会为其使用者承担法律责任的，B)与此意一致，故为答案。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/O4S7777K
0

大学英语四级

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)