考研英語(yǔ)真題閱讀理解試題分析
考研英語(yǔ)真題閱讀理解試題分析
考研英語(yǔ)閱讀測(cè)試的是考生較高層次的英語(yǔ)能力,其選材廣泛,文章無(wú)論從長(zhǎng)度、詞匯、句型結(jié)構(gòu),還是邏輯、選項(xiàng)設(shè)置等,難度都遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)大于四、六級(jí)。下面就是學(xué)習(xí)啦小編給大家整理的考研英語(yǔ)真題閱讀理解試題分析，希望對(duì)你有用!
考研英語(yǔ)閱讀原文
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 smart phone — 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 pocket book, 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 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.
考研英語(yǔ)閱讀翻譯
憲法對(duì)你的數(shù)字資料的保護(hù)到底有多大?
最高法院現(xiàn)在將會(huì)考慮
如果手機(jī)在嫌疑人的身上或身邊，警察是否能在未經(jīng)許可的前提下搜索其手機(jī)的內(nèi)容。
加州要求法官們制止籠統(tǒng)的裁決，
尤其是這個(gè)推翻以往臆斷的裁決——當(dāng)局在實(shí)施逮捕時(shí)可以搜查嫌疑犯的所有物。
加州爭(zhēng)辯說(shuō)，要讓法官去評(píng)估日新月異的技術(shù)可能引發(fā)的后果是很難的。
如果法院聽(tīng)從了加州的建議，那它就謙遜過(guò)頭了。
可能引發(fā)的后果都在意料之中，甚至是顯而易見(jiàn)的，
因此法官們可以也應(yīng)該給警察、律師和被告提供最新的指導(dǎo)方針。
法官們首先就應(yīng)該予以摒棄，
智能手機(jī)是個(gè)巨大的數(shù)據(jù)信息倉(cāng)庫(kù)，而加州關(guān)于“搜查智能手機(jī)的內(nèi)容，就像在搜查嫌疑犯的錢(qián)包”的說(shuō)辭是站不住腳的。
法院已作出判定，警察在沒(méi)有授權(quán)的前提下搜查被捕人的錢(qián)包或皮夾時(shí)，并沒(méi)有違反第四修訂案規(guī)定。
但是搜查某人的智能手機(jī)更像是闖進(jìn)他的家。
因?yàn)橹悄苁謾C(jī)很可能含有被捕人的閱讀歷史、財(cái)政狀況、醫(yī)療信息和詳細(xì)的最近通信記錄。
而此時(shí)“云計(jì)算”的發(fā)展使得搜查變得更加容易。
美國(guó)人應(yīng)該采取措施保護(hù)他們的數(shù)據(jù)隱私。
而在智能手機(jī)上保存敏感信息越來(lái)越成為日常生活的需求。
公民依然有權(quán)期望私密文件不被人知道，遇到不正當(dāng)?shù)乃巡闀r(shí)受到憲法保護(hù)。
即便如此規(guī)定，但也很難幫助我們做到?jīng)芪挤置?，這種事情也是時(shí)有發(fā)生。
在很多情況下，當(dāng)局很容易獲得搜查手機(jī)內(nèi)容的搜查令。
但在遭遇嚴(yán)重、緊急的情況時(shí)，他們依然會(huì)使第四修訂案失效，
而在等待搜查令的時(shí)候，他們可以采取恰當(dāng)?shù)氖侄蝸?lái)確保手機(jī)中的數(shù)據(jù)不刪除或修改。
法院會(huì)讓警方證明在許多情況下，他們都有權(quán)進(jìn)行搜查。
但是法官們不應(yīng)該一股腦地同意加州說(shuō)辭。
新的突破性技術(shù)有時(shí)要求憲法保護(hù)的創(chuàng)新運(yùn)用。
法學(xué)教授奧林·科爾將21世紀(jì)的數(shù)字信息爆炸和易獲取性
與20世紀(jì)作為生活必需品的移動(dòng)應(yīng)用的建立進(jìn)行了對(duì)比。
法官那時(shí)為車(chē)廂的個(gè)人空間制定了明確的新條例;
他們現(xiàn)在也就必須弄清第四修訂案該如何運(yùn)用到數(shù)據(jù)信息的保護(hù)上。
考研英語(yǔ)閱讀詞語(yǔ)解析
invalidate[in'vælideit]vt. 使無(wú)效，使作廢
disruptive[dis'rʌptiv]adj. 破壞的;分裂性的;制造混亂的
cite[sait]vt. 引用，引證，舉(例)
establishment[is'tæbliʃmənt]n. 確立，制定，設(shè)施，機(jī)構(gòu)，權(quán)威
amendment[ə'mendmənt]n. 改善(正), 修正案，某物質(zhì)能改善土壤有助生長(zhǎng)
privacy['praivəsi]n. 隱私，隱居，秘密
challenge['tʃælindʒ]n. 挑戰(zhàn) v. 向 ... 挑戰(zhàn)
reasonable['ri:znəbl]adj. 合理的，適度的，通情達(dá)理的
sensitive['sensitiv]adj. 敏感的，靈敏的，易受傷害的，感光的，善解人意的
obtain[əb'tein]vt. 獲得，得到
猜你喜歡：