2. 考研
  3. Just how much does the Constitution protect your digital data? The Supreme Court will now consider whether police can search the

Just how much does the Constitution protect your digital data? The Supreme Court will now consider whether police can search the

admin2021-01-06  41
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 assumption 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 discemable,even obvious, so that the justices 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 smartphone-—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 smartphone is more like entering his or her home. A smartphone 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 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.
    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.
In Paragraphs 5 and 6,the author shows his concern that
选项 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.
D、phones are used to store sensitive information.
答案C
解析 本题属于推断题。首先根据题干定位至第五、六段。其中，第五段首句为中心句提到“美国人应该采取措施保护数据隐私”；第六段则接着提到现有搜查原则的不当之处。题干问的是作者最关注什么问题，显然根据这两段内容，可以推断C选项“市民隐私未能得到有效保护”为正确答案。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/iC1Z777K
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)