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2025-01-29  2
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 Website.
    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 cellphone is unlisted, but if you’ve ever ordered a pizza, it might not be. Merlin is one of the commercial data brokers that advertise 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 coworker looks at e-mail over your shoulder or a friend glances at a cellphone 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 almost 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 as 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] Why does the author give the example of spam in the first paragraph?
选项 A、To prove e-mail addresses are much easier to be sold out.
B、To elaborate the ripple effects caused by giving others the privacy.
C、To illustrate spam is harmful to e-mail.
D、To explain why we should not surrender the private information.
答案 B
解析 作者在举电子邮件这个例子前，强调了multiplier effect，因而这一例子是为了进一步阐述将隐私透露给陌生人之后的恶果。A选项与原文内容不符合；B选项与原文的multiplier effect相对应；C选项不是本文重点；第一段并没有解释为什么不能给私人信息，仅仅只对这个现象进行了描述，排除D项。所以选项B为答案。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3934060.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)