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

admin2019-11-21  44
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 discernable, 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 smart-phone 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.
选项
答案 究竟宪法能在多大程度上保护你的数字数据?如今最高法院正在考虑警方是否能在没有授权的情况下搜查被捕者身上或身边的手机中的内容。 加利福尼亚州已要求法官们先不要作出一刀切的裁定，特别是不要推翻过去允许执法机构在逮捕嫌疑人时搜查他们的所有物的假定。加州方面认为，让法官去评估日新月异的新技术带来的影响有点勉为其难。 若是最高法院真的听从了加州的建议，那他们是太过谨慎小心了。新科技带来的影响有目共睹，甚至是显而易见的，因此法官们能够并应该向执法人员、律师和被告方提供更新的指导标准。 他们首先应该抛弃加州方面软弱无力的申辩，加州认为检查智能手机——一个庞大的数字信息储存器——的内容近似于，例如，搜查嫌疑人的钱包。法院已裁决警方在没有授权的情况下详查被捕者的钱包并不违反宪法第四修正案。但搜查智能手机内容更像是私闯民宅。智能手机里可能包含了被捕者的阅读、经济和就医情况的历史记录，以及近期所有的通信记录。与此同时，“云计算”的发展让这样的探查变得简单了许多。 美国人民应采取措施来保护他们的数据隐私。然而，将敏感信息记录在这些设备上正逐渐成为正常生活的需求。公民依然享有保持私密文档不外泄并在宪法保护下不受不合理搜查的权利。 就像许多情形一样，陈述原则并不会让划定界限的挑战变得轻松。很多时候，当局要获得搜查手机内容的授权并不十分麻烦。他们仍可以在严重和紧急情况下使第四修正案不具效力，也可以采取合理手段保证在等待授权的时间里手机上的数据不被删除或修改。不过法院可能想给警方一些余地，让他们可以援引那些被赋予更多自由的情形作为办案模板。 但法官们不应完全相信加州方面的意见。新的、颠覆性的技术有时候需要对宪法赋予的保护权利进行创新运用。法学教授奥瑞-科尔将21世纪数字信息的激增和平民化，与20世纪时确立汽车为生活必需品做了个对比：法官们当时必须为私家车中的个人空间详细制定一些创新的规则：而现在他们则必须弄清楚第四修正案该如何应用在数字信息上。
解析
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/wOe4777K
0

考研英语二

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)