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 California’s 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 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.

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 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 author’s attitude toward California’s argument is one of

[A] tolerance.

[B] indifference.

[C] disapproval.

[D] cautiousness.

28. The author believes that exploring one’s phone content is comparable to

[A] getting into one’s residence.

[B] handing 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] phones are used to store sensitive information.

[D] citizens’ privacy is not effective protected.

30.Orin Kerr’s comparison is quoted to indicate that

(A)the Constitution should be implemented flexibly.

(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.

T2答案解析：

26 答案B check suspects’ phone contents without being authorized

解析：细节题。根据自然段定位原则，定位到首段。根据题干关键词supreme court，whether精确定位到第一段最后一句whether police can search the contents of a mobile phone….，与选项进行对应，即为B在不授权的情况下检查嫌疑人的电话信息。注意A选项应是search contents。

27 答案 C disapproval

解析：态度题。根据题干California’s argument定位到第二段最后一句及第三段首句，这些句子中提到hard… recklessly modest…等负向词，表达的是负面态度。看选项属于负面的就是disapproval。A 容忍，B冷漠是典型错误，D粗心。

28 答案A getting into one’s residence

解析：细节题。题干问：作者认为搜索电话薄就相当于什么?根据段落界定原则定位到第四段转折处，提到But exploring one’s smart phone is more like entering his or her home.与选项对应，A中的residence对应home，是原文的同意替换。注意D选项不是作者的观点，不能将文中人物观点当作作者观点。

29 答案D citizens’ privacy is not effective protected

解析：细节题。根据题干定位到5段和6段，题干问作者最关注的是什么，即是相应段落的段落中心。因此，该题表面是细节题，实质为段落核心。5段首句为中心句提到，应采取措施保护数据隐私;6段又继续陈述原则的不恰当之处。根据这些内容，对应答案D 市民隐私未能得到有效保护。

30 答案 B New technology requires reinterpretation of the Constitution

解析：例证题。题干问的是引用Orin Kerr的目的是什么，即Orin Kerr是论据，其目的是论点。论点往往在论据的前面，所以要找例子前面的一句话，即New, disruptive technology sometimes demands novel applications of the Constitution’s protections.与选项对应，就是B new technology是原词复现，require等同于demands，reinterpretation of the Constitution同义替换applications of the Constitution’s protections。