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 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 smart phone — a vast storehouse of digital information — is similar to, say, rifling through a suspect’s purse. The court has ruled that police don’t violate the Fourth Amendment when they sift 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 smart phone 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 onerous 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 a warrant is pending. 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.

　　26. The Supreme Court will work out whether, during an arrest, it is legitimate to

　　[A] prevent suspects from deleting their phone contents.

　　[B] search for suspects’ mobile phones without a warrant.

　　[C] check suspects’ phone contents without being authorized.

　　[D]prohibit suspects from using their mobile phones.

　　【答案】[C] check suspects’ phone contents without being authorized

　　【解析】這是一道事實細節(jié)題，根據(jù)題干關(guān)鍵詞The Supreme Court回文定位到第一段的第二句話，“The Supreme Court will now consider whether police can search for the contents of a mobile phone without a warrant if the phone is on or around a person during an arrest”,一一比對選項，原文中的“police can search for the contents of a mobile phone without a warrant”與選項C “check suspects’ phone contents without being authorized”是同義替換，其他選項均是無關(guān)選項。

　　27. The author’s attitude toward California’s argument is one of

　　[A] disapproval.

　　[B] indifference.

　　[C] tolerance.

　　[D]cautiousness.

　　【答案】[A] disapproval

　　【解析】本題是觀點態(tài)度題，考察作者的態(tài)度。根據(jù)題干關(guān)鍵詞“California’s argument”，可以定位到文章第四段第一句“They should start by discarding California’s lame argument…”。由第四段第一句話中的“discard(拋棄)”和“l(fā)ame(沒有說服力的)”可以看出作者對于California’s argument 是不支持的態(tài)度，因此選A。

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

　　[A] getting into one’s residence.

　　[B] handling one’s historical records.

　　[C] scanning one’s correspondences.

　　[D] going through one’s wallet.

　　【答案】[A] getting into one’s residence

　　【解析】根據(jù)題干關(guān)鍵詞the author believes和“exploring one’s phone contents is comparable to”可回文定位到文章第四段第三句“But exploring one’s smartphone is more like entering his or her home”，選項A語義與之一致，其中，getting into與entering對應，one’s residence與his or her home對應，故A選項為正確答案。

　　29. The author believes that exploring one’s phone contents is comparable to

　　[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] citizens’ privacy is not effectively protected

　　【解析】根據(jù)題干信息In paragraphs 5and 6定位第5段第一句話“Americans should take steps to protect their digital privacy.及第6段最后一句話，...and they could take reasonable measures to.....，可推知作者的顧慮，因此答案為C.

　　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

　　【答案】[A] the Constitution should be implemented flexibly

　　【解析】這是一道例證題，根據(jù)題干關(guān)鍵詞Orin Kerr可以回文定位到文章最后一段。作者引用Orin Kerr這個人的比較是為了說明相關(guān)的論點。分析最后一段結(jié)構(gòu)可知，最后一段的第三句和第四句都是在闡述該例子本身，所以相關(guān)論點應該往前面找，即是第二句話，“New，disruptive technology sometimes demands novel applications of the Constitution’s protection”,選項A與之同義替換，其中，be implemented和applications對應，novel和flexibly對應。

掃描二維碼關(guān)注"566考研"微信，第一時間對答案 看視頻解析！

考研題庫【手機題庫下載】　|　微信搜索"566考研"

　　相關(guān)推薦：

　　2015考研政治答案 ※ 2015考研英語答案 ※ 2015考研數(shù)學答案 ※ 關(guān)注微信 對答案

　　2015考研真題在線交流專區(qū) ※ 考研題庫估分 【手機題庫下載】

　　2015年考研成績查詢時間 ※ 查分免費提醒 ※ 考研復試分數(shù)線