an arrest. 26
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 Californias 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 Californias lame argument that exploring the contents of a smartphone- a vast
storehouse of digital information is similar to say, going through a suspects purse .The court has ruled that
police dont violate the Fourth Amendment when they go through the wallet or pocketbook, of an arrestee
without a warrant. But exploring ones smartphone is more like entering his or her home. A smartphone may
contain an arrestees 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.
But the justices should not swallow Californias argument whole. New, disruptive technology sometimes
demands novel applications of the Constitutions 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.
26. 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.
27. The authors attitude toward Californias argument is one of
[A] tolerance. 27
[B] indifference.
[C] disapproval.
[D] cautiousness.
28. The author believes that exploring ones phone content is comble to
[A] getting into ones residence.
[B] handing ones historical records.
[C] scanning ones correspondences.
[D] going through ones wallet.
29. 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.
30.Orin Kerrs comparison is quoted to indicate that
(A)the Constitution should be implemented flexibly.
(B)New technology requires reinterpretation of the Constitution.
(C)Californias argument violates principles of the Constitution.
(D)Principles of the Constitution should never be altered. 28
26. Bcheck suspects phone contents without being authorized.
27.Cdisapproval
28.A getting into ones residence
29. D citizens privacy is not effectively protected
30.B new technology requires reinterpretation of the constitution Text 3
The journal Science is adding an extra source at Peer-review process, editor-in-chief Marcia McNott announced
today. The Follows similar efforts from other journals, after widespread concern that Mistakes in data analysis
are contributing to the Published research findings.
Readers must have confidence in the conclusions published in our journal,writes McNutt in an editorial.
Working with the American Statistical Association, the Journal has appointed seven experts to a statistics board
of reviewing Manut will be flagged up for additional scrutiny by the Journals editors, or by its existing Board of
Reviewing Editors or by outside peer The SBoRE panel will then find external statisticians to review these
Asked whether any particular papers had impelled the change, McNutt said,The creation of thestatistics
boardwas motivated by concerns broadly with the application of statistics and data analysis in scientific
research and is part of Sciences overall drive to increase reproducibility in the research we publish.
Giovanni Parmigiani，a biostatistician at the Harvard School of Public Health, a mr of the SBoRE group, says
he expects the board to play primarily on advisory role. He agreed to join because he found the foresight behind
the establishment of the SBoRE to be novel, unique and likely to have a lasting impact. This impact will not
only be through the publications in Science itself, but hopefully through a larger group of publishing places that
may want to model their approach after Science.
John Ioannidis, a physician who studies research methodology, says that the policy is a most welcome step
forwardand long overdue,Most journals are weak in statistical review，and this damages the quality of what they
publish. I think that, for the majority of scientific papers nowadays, statistical review is more essential than
expert review,he says. But he noted that biomedical journals such as Annals of Internal Medicine, the Journal of
the American Medical Association and The Lancet pay strong attention to statistical review. 29
Professional scientists are expected to know how to analyze data, but statistical errors are