2. 职称英语
  3. The simple act of surrendering a telephone number to a store clerk may not s

The simple act of surrendering a telephone number to a store clerk may not s

游客2023-11-12  59
问题     The simple act of surrendering a telephone number to a store clerk may not seem harmful—so much so that many consumers do it with no questions asked. Yet that one action can set in motion a cascade of silent events, as that data point is acquired, analyzed, categorized, stored and sold over and over again. Future attacks on your privacy may come from anywhere, from anyone with money to purchase that phone number you surrendered. If you doubt the multiplier effect, consider your e-mail inbox. If it’s loaded with spam, it’s undoubtedly because at some point in time you unknowingly surrendered your e-mail to the wrong Web site.
    Do you think your telephone number or address is handled differently? A cottage industry of small companies with names you’ve probably never heard of—like Acxiom or Merlin—buy and sell your personal information the way other commodities like corn or cattle futures are bartered. You may think your cell phone is unlisted, but if you’ve ever ordered a pizza, it might not be. Merlin is one of many commercial data brokers that advertises sale of unlisted phone numbers compiled from various sources—including pizza delivery companies. These unintended, unpredictable consequences that flow from simple actions make privacy issues difficult to grasp, and grapple with.
    In a larger sense, privacy also is often cast as a tale of "Big Brother"—the government is watching you or a big corporation is watching you. But privacy issues don’t necessarily involve large faceless institutions: A spouse takes a casual glance at her husband’s Blackberry, a co-worker looks at e-mail over your shoulder or a friend glances at a cell phone text message from the next seat on the bus. While very little of this is news to anyone—people are now well aware there are video cameras and Internet cookies everywhere—there is abundant evidence that people live their lives ignorant of the monitoring, assuming a mythical level of privacy. People write e-mails and type instant messages they never expect anyone to see. Just ask Mark Foley or even Bill Gates, whose e-mails were a cornerstone of the Justice Department’s antitrust case against Microsoft.
    And polls and studies have repeatedly shown that Americans are indifferent to privacy concerns. The general defense for such indifference is summed up a single phrase: "I have nothing to hide." If you have nothing to hide, why shouldn’t the government be able to peek at your phone records, your wife see your e-mail or a company send you junk mail? It’s a powerful argument, one that privacy advocates spend considerable time discussing and strategizing over.
    It is hard to deny, however, that people behave different when they’re being watched. And it is also impossible to deny that Americans are now being watched more than at any time in history. [br] From Paragraph 3, we learn that
选项 A、cases of privacy intrusion happen only in large institutions.
B、people are quite aware of how their privacy is intruded.
C、it is not privacy intrusion when a wife glances at her husband’s cell phone.
D、Bill Gates’ email messages were cited as evidence against him.
答案 D
解析 段落细节题。由第3段第2句可知A错误；由该段倒数2、3句可知人们对隐私受侵犯并没有多深的意识，故B也错：But一句指出隐私问题并不一定只涉及大机构，冒号后所列举的例子即是对此观点的支持，可见C的说法也是不正确的；末句指出司法部控告微软公司就是利用比尔·盖茨的邮件为证据，故D正确。
转载请注明原文地址:http://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3180949.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)