评论
打印
Just how much does the Constitution protect your digital data?
宪法对你的数字资料的保护到底有多大？
The Supreme Court will now consider
最高法院现在将会考虑
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.
如果手机在嫌疑人的身上或身边，警察是否能在未经许可的前提下搜索其手机的内容。
California has asked the justices to refrain from a sweeping ruling,
加州要求法官们制止笼统的裁决，
particularly one that upsets the old assumptions that authorities may search through the possessions of suspects at the time of their arrest.
尤其是这个推翻以往臆断的裁决——当局在实施逮捕时可以搜查嫌疑犯的所有物。
It is hard, the state argues, for judges to assess the implications of new and rapidly changing technologies.
加州争辩说，要让法官去评估日新月异的技术可能引发的后果是很难的。
The court would be recklessly modest if it followed California's advice.
如果法院听从了加州的建议，那它就谦逊过头了。
Enough of the implications are discernable, even obvious,
可能引发的后果都在意料之中，甚至是显而易见的，
so that the justice can and should provide updated guidelines to police, lawyers and defendants.
因此法官们可以也应该给警察、律师和被告提供最新的指导方针。
They should start by discarding California's lame argument
法官们首先就应该予以摒弃，
that exploring the contents of a smart phone — a vast storehouse of digital information is similar to say, going through a suspect's purse.
智能手机是个巨大的数据信息仓库，而加州关于“搜查智能手机的内容，就像在搜查嫌疑犯的钱包”的说辞是站不住脚的。
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.
法院已作出判定，警察在没有授权的前提下搜查被捕人的钱包或皮夹时，并没有违反第四修订案规定。
But exploring one's smart phone is more like entering his or her home.
但是搜查某人的智能手机更像是闯进他的家。
A smart phone may contain an arrestee's reading history, financial history, medical history and comprehensive records of recent correspondence.
因为智能手机很可能含有被捕人的阅读历史、财政状况、医疗信息和详细的最近通信记录。
The development of "cloud computing." meanwhile, has made that exploration so much the easier.
而此时“云计算”的发展使得搜查变得更加容易。
Americans should take steps to protect their digital privacy.
美国人应该采取措施保护他们的数据隐私。
But keeping sensitive information on these devices is increasingly a requirement of normal life.
而在智能手机上保存敏感信息越来越成为日常生活的需求。
Citizens still have a right to expect private documents to remain private and protected by the Constitution's prohibition on unreasonable searches.
公民依然有权期望私密文件不被人知道，遇到不正当的搜查时受到宪法保护。
As so often is the case, stating that principle doesn't ease the challenge of line-drawing.
即便如此规定，但也很难帮助我们做到泾渭分明，这种事情也是时有发生。
In many cases, it would not be overly onerous for authorities to obtain a warrant to search through phone contents.
在很多情况下，当局很容易获得搜查手机内容的搜查令。
They could still invalidate Fourth Amendment protections when facing severe, urgent circumstances,
但在遭遇严重、紧急的情况时，他们依然会使第四修订案失效，
and they could take reasonable measures to ensure that phone data are not erased or altered while a warrant is pending.
而在等待搜查令的时候，他们可以采取恰当的手段来确保手机中的数据不删除或修改。
The court, though, may want to allow room for police to cite situations where they are entitled to more freedom.
法院会让警方证明在许多情况下，他们都有权进行搜查。
But the justices should not swallow California's argument whole.
但是法官们不应该一股脑地同意加州说辞。
New, disruptive technology sometimes demands novel applications of the Constitution's protections.
新的突破性技术有时要求宪法保护的创新运用。
Orin Kerr, a law professor, compares the explosion and accessibility of digital information in the 21st century
法学教授奥林·科尔将21世纪的数字信息爆炸和易获取性
with the establishment of automobile use as a digital necessity of life in the 20th:
与20世纪作为生活必需品的移动应用的建立进行了对比。
The justices had to specify novel rules for the new personal domain of the passenger car then;
法官那时为车厢的个人空间制定了明确的新条例；
they must sort out how the Fourth Amendment applies to digital information now.
他们现在也就必须弄清第四修订案该如何运用到数据信息的保护上。
