银行招聘考试、农信社考试每日一练（二）

　　【导读】华图上海银行招聘考试网发布：银行招聘考试、农信社考试每日一练（二）,详细信息请阅读下文!如有疑问请加【2019上海银行招聘考试交流群：343137297】 ，更多资讯请关注上海华图微信公众号(shanghaiht),考试培训咨询电话：021-33621401

　　Passage 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.

　　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.

　　【答案】B。细节题。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。故正确答案是选项B。

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

　　A. tolerance.

　　B. indifference.

　　C. disapproval.

　　D. cautiousness.

　　【答案】C。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C项disapproval：不支持。选项A：容忍;选项B：冷漠(第一时间排除);选项D：粗心。故正确答案是选项C。

　　The author believes that exploring ones phone content is comparable to ( ).

　　A. getting into ones residence.

　　B. handing ones historical records.

　　C. scanning ones correspondences.

　　D. going through ones wallet.

　　【答案】A。细节题。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.选项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。故正确答案是选项A。

　　In graph 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.

　　【答案】D。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。可知市民隐私并未能得到有效保护，故正确答案是选项D。

　　Orin Kerrs 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】B。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.选项B：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。故正确答案是选项B。