2015年考研英语一阅读 Text 2 原文翻译及答案解析

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.

宪法在多大程度上保护你的数字数据？最高法院现在将考虑，如果手机在逮捕时位于人身上或附近，警察是否可以在没有搜查令的情况下搜查手机内容。

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.

加利福尼亚州请求大法官们避免做出一项全面裁决，尤其是一项颠覆旧有假设的裁决，该假设认为当局可以在逮捕时搜查嫌疑人的财物。该州辩称，法官很难评估新技术和快速变化的技术的影响。

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.

如果法院遵循加利福尼亚州的建议，那将是过于谦逊的鲁莽行为。影响的足够部分是可以辨别、甚至显而易见的，因此大法官们能够且应该向警察、律师和被告提供更新的指导方针。

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.

他们应该首先摒弃加利福尼亚州的无力论点，即探索智能手机内容——一个巨大的数字信息库——类似于，比如说，翻查嫌疑人的钱包。法院已裁定，警察在没有搜查令的情况下翻查被捕者的钱包或钱夹并不违反第四修正案。但探索某人的智能手机更像是进入他或她的家。智能手机可能包含被捕者的阅读历史、财务历史、医疗历史以及近期通信的全面记录。与此同时，“云计算”的发展使得这种探索变得更加容易。

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.

美国人应该采取措施保护他们的数字隐私。但在这些设备上保存敏感信息越来越成为正常生活的必需。公民仍然有权期望私人文件保持私密，并受到宪法禁止无理搜查的保护。

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 burdensome 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 waiting for a warrant. The court, though, may want to allow room for police to cite situations where they are entitled to more freedom.

正如常见的情况一样，陈述这一原则并不能缓解划线的挑战。在许多情况下，当局获取搜查令以搜查手机内容并不算过于负担。在面临严重、紧急情况时，他们仍然可以使第四修正案的保护无效，并且在等待搜查令期间，他们可以采取合理措施确保手机数据不被删除或更改。然而，法院可能希望为警察留出空间，以引用他们有权享有更多自由的情形。

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.

但大法官们不应该全盘接受加利福尼亚州的论点。新的、颠覆性技术有时需要宪法保护的新应用。法律教授Orin Kerr将21世纪数字信息的爆发和可及性与20世纪汽车使用成为生活实际必需品的确立进行比较：当时大法官们必须为乘客车厢这一新的个人领域指定新规则；他们现在必须理清第四修正案如何适用于数字信息。