Text2
JUST HOW much doesthe Constitution protect your digital data? The Supreme Court is only justcoming to grips with that question. On Tuesday,it will considerwhether police can search the contents of a mobile phonewithout awarrant if the phone is on or around a person during an arrest.
California has askedthe justices to refrain from a sweeping ruling, particularly one that upsetsthe old assumption that authorities may search through the effects of suspectsat the time of their arrest. Even if the justices are tempted, the stateargues, it is hard for judges to assess the implications of new and rapidlychanging technologies.
The court would berecklessly modest if it followed California’s advice. Enough of the implications are discernable, even obvious,that the justices can and should provide updated guidelines to police, lawyersand defendants.
They should start bydiscarding California’slame argument that exploring the contents of a smartphone — 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 theFourth Amendment when they sift through the wallet or pocketbook of an arresteewithout a warrant. But exploring one’s smartphone ismore like entering his or her home. A smartphone may contain an arrestee’s reading history, financial history, medical history andcomprehensive records of recent correspondence. The development of “cloud computing,” meanwhile, means thatpolice officers could conceivably access even more information with a fewswipes on a touchscreen.
Americans should takesteps to protect their digital privacy. But keeping sensitive information onthese devices is increasingly a requirement of normal life. Citizens still havea right to expect private documents to remain private and protected by theConstitution’s prohibition onunreasonable searches.
As so often is thecase, stating that principle doesn’t ease the challenge of line-drawing. In many cases, it would not beoverly onerous for authorities to obtain a warrant to search through phonecontents. They could still trump Fourth Amendment protections when facingsevere, exigent circumstances, such as the threat of immediate harm, and theycould take reasonable measures to ensure that phone data are not erased oraltered while a warrant is pending. The court, though, may want to allow roomfor police to cite situations where they are entitled to more leeway.
But the justicesshould not swallow California’sargument whole. New, disruptive technology sometimes demands novel applicationsof the Constitution’s protections. Orin Kerr, a lawprofessor who blogs on The Post’s Volokh Conspiracy,comparestheexplosion and accessibility of digital information in the 21st century with theestablishment of automobile use as a virtual necessity of life in the 20th: Thejustices had to specify novel rules for the new personal domain of thepassenger car then; they must sort out how the Fourth Amendment applies todigital information now.
26. The Supremecourt, will work out whether, during an arrest, it is legitimate to
[A] search forsuspects’ mobile phones without awarrant.
[B] check suspects’ phone contents without beingauthorized.
[C] prevent suspectsfrom deleting their phone contents.
[D] prohibit suspectsfrom 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 authorbelieves 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 5and 6, the author shows his concern that
[A] principles arehard to be clearly expressed.
[B] the court isgiving police less room for action.
[C] phones are usedto store sensitive information.
[D] citizens’ privacy is not effective protected.
30.Orin Kerr’s comparison is quoted to indicate that
(A)the Constitutionshould be implemented flexibly.
(B)New technologyrequires reinterpretation of the Constitution.
(C)California’s argument violates principles of theConstitution.
(D)Principles of theConstitution should never be altered.
用户评论