ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 10885|回复: 65

[阅读小分队] 【Native Speaker每日综合训练—39系列】【39-09】文史哲 Privacy

[精华]   [复制链接]
发表于 2014-7-20 02:01:53 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
内容:枣糕兔 编辑:枣糕兔

Stay tuned for our latest post! Follow us here ---> http://weibo.com/u/3476904471


Part I: Speaker


Driving an Off-Road Vehicle

Claudia: When you invited me to go for a drive, this wasn’t what I pictured.

Jae: You’re about to have the ride of your life. Get in and I’ll strap you in.

Claudia: What is this thing?

Jae: It’s an off-road vehicle. Haven’t you seen one before? It has four-wheel drive and can travel on any terrain.

Claudia: When you say “any terrain,” what exactly do you mean?

Jae: With this baby, we can drive on sand, gravel, mud, and even snow.

Claudia: You mean you intend to take me driving on sand and gravel?

Jae: Yeah, just wait until we start spinning and skidding. You’re going to love it. You’d better put on this crash helmet – just in case.

Claudia: I was picturing a drive in the country.

Jae: But this is much more exciting, right?

Claudia: I don’t know...

Jae: Come on. If you’re lucky, I’ll take you mudding next weekend.

Claudia: Whoopee.

Source: ESLPOD
http://www.eslpod.com/website/show_podcast.php?issue_id=15401909


[Rephrase 1, 17’59]

本帖子中包含更多资源

您需要 登录 才可以下载或查看,没有帐号?立即注册

x
 楼主| 发表于 2014-7-20 02:01:54 | 显示全部楼层
Part II: Speed


Earlier this year, the European Court of Justice ruled that Google was responsible for personal data revealed by searches.

Is Google undermining the 'right to be forgotten'?
Paul Bernal  |  July 7, 2014

[Time 2]
(CNN) -- Earlier this year, a European court ruled that search engine operators such as Google could be held responsible for personal data which appear on web pages published by third parties and found through their searches.

As thousands of people ask for their information to be removed, is Google is trying its best to provide a workable solution or trying to undermine a ruling that, from the very start, it really did not like?

In the commentary I wrote for CNN the day after the ruling in the Google Spain case, I suggested the result created a headache -- and potentially huge costs -- for Google, and that it could open the door to a flood of cases, each of which would need a resolution.

I wrote that how Google responded to the ruling would be critical -- and the initial signs are that the company's response has already caused problems.

As predicted, Google received a huge volume of requests to have links removed -- more than 40,000 in the first four days after the ruling. The company has now begun the process of responding to them.

If the request appears valid -- and how that is determined is one key issue -- there seem to be three parts to their response:

First is the removal of the search result -- and it must be remembered that it is only search results when a particular name is searched for that are removed, not the source material nor search results for that material when searched for in any other way.

Second is that search results for individuals using European versions of Google (that is, google.co.uk rather than google.com) will now often include a message at the bottom that reads: "Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe." The curious are then offered the chance to "learn more" on the company's privacy and terms page.

This alert does not, however, mean that search results have been removed -- it appears if any search is made for an individual's name where there are no "public figures" with that same name.

Thirdly comes the part of the response which has triggered the most dramatic results: If a link to an article is blocked as a result of a request, notification is sent to the publisher of that article. When journalists receive that notification they are, quite naturally, upset.
[399 words]

[Time 3]
Two particular examples involving prominent journalists in the UK have highlighted this -- and both have written about it. The first was James Ball in the Guardian, the second Robert Peston for the BBC. Both wrote pieces about the experience; Peston's had an understandably dramatic headline: "Why has Google cast me into oblivion?"

In both Ball's and Peston's cases, many of the stories that they had been notified about did not seem to fall into categories covered by the Google Spain ruling: old, irrelevant stories about people who were not public figures. Ball's stories included pieces from 2010 and 2011 -- scarcely old -- while Peston's covered critical events in the banking world in 2007 -- the ousting of banker Stan O'Neal from Merrill Lynch -- something that cannot be described as irrelevant or not in the public interest.

It looked as though this was exactly what the opponents of the right to be forgotten were worried about: censorship and the rewriting of history.

Peston, however, was not quite convinced, hence his headline that Google was casting him into oblivion, not the European Court of Justice.

Was it, in fact, that Google were overreacting -- either that they were, as Peston put it, "clumsy" or that, perhaps, they were deliberately attempting to undermine the ruling by making it seem either unworkable or a dangerous form of censorship.

That Google might be deliberately undermining the ruling seems possible; all three parts of their response could contribute to this view.

Firstly, they seem to be erring on the side of the people wishing for things to be blocked -- and hence they do create more censorship.

Secondly, by alerting about far more search results than are actually affected by the rulings, they create an atmosphere in which people feel more censored.

Thirdly, by the form which their notification to journalists takes, they make journalists feel censored -- and might make strong, important and expert journalists into allies in their attempts to undermine the ruling.

The combination of these three is a potent one.

On the other hand, it is possible that it is simply clumsy, and that these are teething troubles.

Peston says: "Google insists it is simply complying with the relevant articles in the European Court of Justice's ruling."
[378 words]

[Time 4]
In a message to those seeking to have content removed, Google itself acknowledges it is still "working to finalize our implementation of removal requests."

The individual cases that have made the headlines have begun to unravel a little: Google has reversed its decisions on James Ball's pieces, recognising there is a public interest. Peston's piece is more interesting.

The assumption Peston made, reasonably enough, was that the link would be blocked when people search for Sean O'Neal, since his was the only name that appeared in the article in question.

But in fact, it turns out that the request to block the story related to a member of the public whose name appeared in the comments on the piece -- the link removed relates to searches for that person. Searching for Sean O'Neal still brings up the article.

Google's response is in line with the law -- but it looks far worse than it is.

That, indeed, may be true of the whole story surrounding the right to be forgotten. It looks worse than it is.

I hope that is the case, and that these events are just teething troubles, and that better, more workable solutions will appear, and a more appropriate balance between privacy and freedom of expression can be struck.

How Google's response develops in the weeks and months to come is the key -- and whether they really want to find a way to make it work will determine that.

This whole affair demonstrates the huge power that Google already wields. Because, ultimately, it is Google carrying out this "censorship," not the court.

Google does similar things already, though without such a fanfare, in relation to copyright protection, links to things like obscene or illegal content and so forth. They are already acting as censors -- and as they tailor search results to the individual anyway, they are already choosing what people see and read -- and what they don't see and read.

The most important thing that Google can do in response to the court ruling is to engage positively and actively with the ongoing reform process of the Data Protection Regime.

A well-executed reform, with a better written, more limited and more appropriate version of the right to be forgotten could be the ultimate solution here. If that can be brought in soon -- rather than delayed or undermined -- then we can all move on from the Google Spain ruling, both legally and practically. Everyone might benefit from that.
[415 words]

Source: CNN Opinion
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/07/07/opinion/bernal-google-undermining-privacy-ruling/index.html?hpt=op_bn8


Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in April 2014 in Washington.(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

How exactly does this court know how significant the privacy interest is?
Eric Posner


[Time 5]
The question for today is how well the Supreme Court is grappling with new technology. In Riley v. California, the court decided that the police cannot read through the cellphone taken from someone they arrest without first obtaining a warrant. In ABC v. Aereo, the court ruled that a newfangled system for transmitting television programs over the Internet violated the copyrights of the broadcasters who own those programs.

Last year, Justice Antonin Scalia famously wrote a separate opinion in a case involving the patentability of a genetic test in which he said of the majority’s discussion of the “fine details of molecular biology” that “I am unable to affirm those details on my own knowledge or even my own belief.” Scalia did not explain how he could agree with the majority’s holding without understanding the facts of the case, and one got the distinct impression that he did not think the majority understood the facts of the case either. A molecular biologist I know concurs.

Fortunately, Riley involves a piece of technology that we all understand. Riley, the defendant, possessed a smartphone, which the court helpfully defines as “a cell phone with a broad range of other functions based on advanced computing capability, large storage capacity, and Internet connectivity.” Another defendant in the case owned a flip phone (“a kind of phone that is flipped open for use and that generally has a smaller range of features than a smart phone”).

Various earlier opinions established that when the police arrest someone, they are allowed to search his person for dangerous items and contraband. They can flip through his wallet. They can look at personal photos he may be carrying. They can even read his diary if he happens to have it in his pocket. Prosecutors can then use this information, if it is incriminating, to convict him of crimes. So if they can do all these things, shouldn’t they also be able to flip through his phone, and then use the information they find there—addresses, incriminating photos, messages—to convict him of crimes?

The opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, points out that modern cellphones are truly different from old-style pocket clutter. They contain gigabytes of personal data—names and addresses of associates, personal messages, medical information, sexts and naked selfies (he actually doesn’t mention the last two). My cellphone contains the exact route, speed, and even elevation of occasional jogs along Lake Michigan; it even contains the number of steps I take in a given day. And it will tell anyone who looks at it how bad I am at chess, which I would like to keep to myself above all.
[465 words]

[Time 6]
So it is gratifying that a court that often has trouble understanding new technology had little trouble holding that the cellphone represents something new—something that justices addressing searches incident to arrest in opinions written 30 or 40 years ago did not anticipate, to say nothing of the founders. Because people’s privacy interests in the contents of their cellphones are so strong, police cannot examine them without first getting warrants.

All that said, I sympathize a bit with Alito, who in a separate opinion wonders why the Supreme Court should decide how important the privacy interest is in one’s cellphone contents. Isn’t this a better question for legislatures? The court applies a balancing test in Fourth Amendment cases, under which the police can search a person without obtaining a warrant if the degree to which the search intrudes upon privacy is less than the degree to which the search is needed for a legitimate government interest—typically, in catching criminals and protecting police from danger.

How exactly does this court know how significant the privacy interest is? Many people don’t care much about their privacy; others do. Maybe those who care a lot don’t put personal information on their cellphones, or they ensure that it is encrypted or otherwise protected. Or they put information on their cellphones that you or I might consider personal but they don’t. Indeed, technology is not the only thing in flux here; so are social norms and personal beliefs about what information it is appropriate to share and what information should be kept to oneself.

And if the justices know what a smartphone is, they don’t know what these norms and beliefs are, and certainly not for the great mass of the population younger than they are, who have grown up with smartphones, Facebook, personal blogs, the Web. The court doesn’t seriously try to figure out how much people are really injured if a police officer looks at information on their cellphones. To do so, one would need to engage in a massive amount of empirical investigation, using surveys, focus groups, and market research—the stuff of committee hearings before legislatures. One senses, as is so often the case, that the justices are relying on their own personal experiences. They are thinking about what’s on their cellphones and how they would feel if a police officer saw them. As for the rest of society, we’re as opaque to them as DNA.
[429 words]

Source: Slate
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2014/scotus_roundup/supreme_court_and_cellphones_does_the_court_really_have_any_idea_how_americans.html

本帖子中包含更多资源

您需要 登录 才可以下载或查看,没有帐号?立即注册

x
 楼主| 发表于 2014-7-20 02:01:55 | 显示全部楼层
Part III: Obstacle


Photograph by E. O. Hoppe/Mansell/Time Life Pictures/Getty.

Virginia Woolf’s Idea of Privacy
Joshua Rothman  |  July 9, 2014


[Paraphrase 7]
These days, when we use the word “privacy,” it usually has a political meaning. We’re concerned with other people and how they might affect us. We think about how they could use information about us for their own ends, or interfere with decisions that are rightfully ours. We’re mindful of the lines that divide public life from private life. We have what you might call a citizen’s sense of privacy.

That’s an important way to think about privacy, obviously. But there are other ways. One of them is expressed very beautifully in “Mrs. Dalloway,” in a famous scene early in the book. It’s a flashback, from when Clarissa was a teen-ager. One night, she goes out for a walk with some friends: two annoying boys, Peter Walsh and Joseph Breitkopf, and a girl, Sally Seton. Sally is sexy, smart, Bohemian—possessed of “a sort of abandonment, as if she could say anything, do anything.” The boys drift ahead, lost in a boring conversation about Wagner, while the girls are left behind. “Then came the most exquisite moment of her whole life passing a stone urn with flowers in it.” Sally picks a flower from the urn and kisses Clarissa on the lips:
The whole world might have turned upside down! The others disappeared; there she was alone with Sally. And she felt that she had been given a present, wrapped up, and told just to keep it, not to look at it—a diamond, something infinitely precious, wrapped up, which, as they walked (up and down, up and down), she uncovered, or the radiance burnt through, the revelation, the religious feeling!

Woolf often conceives of life this way: as a gift that you’ve been given, which you must hold onto and treasure but never open. Opening it would dispel the atmosphere, ruin the radiance—and the radiance of life is what makes it worth living. It’s hard to say just what holding onto life without looking at it might mean; that’s one of the puzzles of her books. But it has something to do with preserving life’s mystery; with leaving certain things undescribed, unspecified, and unknown; with savoring certain emotions, such as curiosity, surprise, desire, and anticipation. It depends on an intensified sense of life’s preciousness and fragility, and on a Heisenberg-like notion that, when it comes to our most abstract and spiritual intuitions, looking too closely changes what we feel. It has to do, in other words, with a kind of inner privacy, by means of which you shield yourself not just from others’ prying eyes, but from your own. Call it an artist’s sense of privacy.

Many people accept the idea that each of us has a certain resolute innerness—a kernel of selfhood that we can’t share with others. (Levin, at the end of “Anna Karenina,” calls it his “holy of holies,” and says that, no matter how close he grows to the people around him, there will always be “the same wall between my soul’s holy of holies and other people, even my wife.”) What interested Woolf was the way that we become aware of that innerness. We come to know it best, she thought, when we’re forced, at moments of exposure, to shield it against the outside world.

There can be something enjoyable, even revelatory about that feeling of self-protection, which is why we seek out circumstances in which we can feel more acutely the contrast between the outside world and our inner selves. Woolf was fascinated by city life—by the feeling of solitude-on-display that the sidewalk encourages, and by the way that “street haunting,” as she called it, allows you to lose and then find yourself in the rhythm of urban novelty and familiarity. She was drawn to the figure of the hostess: the woman-to-be-looked-at, standing at the top of the stairs, friendly to everyone, who grows only more mysterious with her visibility. (One of the pleasures of throwing a party, Woolf showed, is that it allows you to surprise yourself: surrounded by your friends, the center of attention, you feel your separateness from the social world you have convened.) She showed how parents, friends, lovers, and spouses can become more unknowable over time, not less—there is a core to their personhood that never gives itself up. Even as they put their lives on display, she thought, artists thrive when they maintain a final redoubt of privacy—a wellspring that remains unpolluted by the world outside. “A thing there was that mattered; a thing, wreathed about with chatter, defaced, obscured in her own life, let drop every day in corruption, lies, chatter,” Clarissa thinks, at the end of “Mrs. Dalloway.” Of course, it’s the chatter—the party—that helps her know that she has something to lose in the first place.

There are costs and benefits to maintaining this kind of inner privacy. About halfway through “Mrs. Dalloway,” Clarissa’s husband, Richard, decides that, during his lunch hour, he’ll buy roses for Clarissa; his plan is to walk home, hand them to her, and say, “I love you.” It’s an unusually romantic thing for him to do, but, for whatever reason, he’s overcome with the realization that it’s “a miracle he should have married Clarissa.” Richard strides into the drawing room, gives her the flowers, but then finds himself unable to say the words. He is elated, overflowing with love: “Happiness is this, is this,” he thinks. A wave of feeling is cresting inside him. But, despite his feelings, he can only speak about trivial things: lunch, that night’s party, and their daughter’s tutor. Finally, he stands up to go. Clarissa watches him. “He stood for a moment as if he were about to say something,” Woolf writes, “and she wondered what? Why? There were the roses.” As Richard takes his leave, Clarissa thinks:
There is a dignity in people; a solitude; even between husband and wife a gulf; and that one must respect … for one would not part with it oneself, or take it, against his will, from one’s husband, without losing one’s independence, one’s self-respect—something, after all, priceless.

It’s typical of Woolf to take a romantic scene and make it steely—that’s the price, you might say, of inner privacy. Marriage, love, and intimacy only take you so far; at the end of that path, you fall back on the austere, solitary dignity of the inner life. And yet Clarissa prefers austerity to intimacy. She thinks, from time to time, about Peter Walsh, who was in love with her, and whom she might have married instead of Richard. Peter was thoughtful, intellectual, romantic, passionate. He loved to talk, and took her thoughts seriously. He was determined to know her, soul-to-soul. To people who hold intimacy to be the highest good in a relationship, that’s a desirable thing. “But with Peter everything had to be shared; everything gone into. And it was intolerable,” Clarissa thinks. Years later, sitting in the park, she is still rehearsing, in her mind, the arguments she and Peter once had: “Suddenly it would come over her, If he were with me now what would he say?” Richard gives her privacy, and, therefore, inner solitude; he lets her soul remain her own. Of course, he never says “I love you.” Meanwhile, Peter thinks, of Clarissa, that there has always been “this coldness, this woodenness, something very profound in her … an impenetrability. Yet Heaven knows he loved her.” (The case of Septimus Smith, which makes up roughly half of “Mrs. Dalloway,” shows the saddest consequence of inner privacy: hurt to his core, Septimus remains beyond the reach of even those who would help him.)

At the same time, the benefits of remaining “impenetrable” can be profound. Clarissa, famously, buys the flowers herself, and that allows her to enjoy the coolness, stillness, and beauty of the flower shop; the same, Woolf suggests, happens in Clarissa’s inner life, where her heightened feelings are allowed to stay pure, untouched. Even Peter, with time, comes to regard himself in this way: “The compensation of growing old,” he thinks, is that “the passions remain as strong as ever, but one has gained—at last!—the power which adds the supreme flavour to existence,—the power of taking hold of experience, of turning it around, slowly, in the light.” By learning to leave your inner life alone, you learn to cultivate and appreciate it.

And you gain another, strangely spiritual power: the power to regard yourself abstractly. Instead of getting lost in the details of your life, you hold onto the feelings, the patterns, the tones. You learn to treasure those aspects of life without communicating them, and without ruining them, for yourself, by analyzing them too much. Woolf suggests that those treasured feelings might be the source of charisma: when Peter, seeing Clarissa at her party, asks himself, “What is this terror? what is this ecstasy? … What is it that fills me with extraordinary excitement?,” the answer might be that it’s Clarissa’s radiance, never seen directly, but burning through. Clarissa, meanwhile, lets her spiritual intuitions lift her a little above the moment. Wandering through her lamp-lit garden, she sees her party guests: “She didn’t know their names, but friends she knew they were, friends without names, songs without words, always the best.” That’s the power of artist’s privacy. It preserves the melodies otherwise drowned out by words, stories, information.
[1705 words]

[The Rest]
Woolf’s abstract, inner sense of privacy bears the stamp, of course, of a very particular time and place (not to mention Woolf’s very particular biography—she had an unusually rich hidden life). It’s indebted to feminism, and to the realization that men, but not women, have long been granted a right to solitude. It also flows from the particularly modernist idea that there is a coherent, hidden, inner self from which art springs. Today, we may be more likely to see art as a collaborative process—the product of a scene, rather than a person. We are also, I suspect, especially aware of how much we rely upon on social networks to help us know ourselves. In recent years, philosophers have argued that other people may know us better than we do.

To me, though, Woolf’s sense of privacy still feels relevant; when I keep it in mind, I see it everywhere. Adelle Waldman’s novel “The Love Affairs of Nathaniel P.” is, among many other things, a gender-reversed retelling of the love story at the center of “Mrs. Dalloway”: like Clarissa, Nate chooses the lover who can’t know him over the lover who’s determined to. (He does this, in part, so that he can continue to surprise himself—that is, continue to create.) Meanwhile, on Tumblr and Facebook, we seek out the same private sociality that Woolf described. Usually, we think of social media as a forum for exhibitionism. But, inevitably, the extroverted cataloguing of everyday minutiae—meals, workouts, thoughts about politics, books, and music—reaches its own limits; it ends up emphasizing what can’t be shared. Talking so freely about your life helps you to know the weight of those feelings which are too vague, or too spiritual, to express—left unspoken and unexplored, they throw your own private existence into relief. “Sharing” is, in fact, the opposite of what we do: like one of Woolf’s hostesses, we rehearse a limited openness so that we can feel the solidity of our own private selves.

Every now and then, too, you come across some artwork that expresses Woolf’s sensibility in an altogether different idiom, refreshing it. Since I first stumbled across it a few years ago, I’ve watched Lucinda Williams’s 1989 performance of “Side of the Road” hundreds of times. The song is built around a simple metaphor: Williams is driving down the road with a loved one, and happy to be driving. Still, she wants to pull over to the side of the road and stand there by herself. “I want to know you’re there, but I want to be alone,” she sings.

If only for a minute or two, I want to see what it feels like to be without you.
I want to know the touch of my own skin
Against the sun, against the wind.


I walked out in a field, the grass was high, it brushed against my legs.
I just stood and looked out at the open space, and a farmhouse out a ways.
And I wondered about the people who lived in it,
And I wondered if they were happy and content.
Were there children, and a man and a wife?
Did she love him and take her hair down at night?


If I stray away too far from you, don’t go and try to find me.
It doesn’t mean I don’t love you, it doesn’t mean I
won’t come back and stay beside you.
It only means I need a little time
To follow that unbroken line,
To a place where the wild things grow,
To a place where I used to always go.

From an entirely different angle, Williams has captured the same idea that we find in Woolf’s novels: that there is no final, satisfying way to balance our need to be known with our need to be alone. The balance is always uncertain and provisional; it’s always a matter of dissatisfaction, give-and-take, and sacrifice. Because an artist’s privacy is a state of mind, rather than a matter of law, there are no rules to help us master it. It’s up to each of us to balance the risks and rewards—to trade, in right proportion, loneliness for freedom, explicability for mystery, and the knowable for the unknown within ourselves.
[772 words]

Source: The New Yorker
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/joshuarothman/2014/07/virginia-woolf-idea-of-privacy.html

本帖子中包含更多资源

您需要 登录 才可以下载或查看,没有帐号?立即注册

x
发表于 2014-7-20 07:45:15 | 显示全部楼层
thx~~~~很喜欢今天的越障~

Search enine such as Google face problems--personal data published by third party and searched through them.Request to remove these data.
Google's response--may already leads to problems.
1 remove the data--only remove them in the search part,people can still find them using other ways.
2 alert for searchers--only alert,but allow further search.
3 alert for publishers--upset journalists.
________________________
Google's response--cause potent censorship.
1 create more sensorship.
2 alert--let people feel more censorship.
3 alert--put journalists into the raw of undermining the ruling.
Google insists that this only aims to the European rule.
_______________________
Problem--
name O,the only individual name in the article--be censored.
other names in the comments of the article--still not be censored.
Solution--more approporiate version to be forgotten.
_____________________
Case
police should give warning before check the cell phone of people they arrest.
cell phone is different from old style items.it contains lots of personal data and information that should not be checked by others without permission.
____________________
The court should do investigation to find out how important cell phone privacy is for people,before making any decisions.
Details to support this conclusion--experiences of the author.
_____________________
Privacy topic.Use a story to express.
Specific feeling and experience of privacy.People feel privacy,even to their close friends and family.
Self-protection.Contrast beweetn outside world and inner selves.
Importance to let others remain privacy:
1 learn to appreciate the inner selve
2 learn to regard yourself abstractly
Today,people may not know themselves as good as before.Social tools.Other people more know you better than yourself.
Sharing in social tools--limited openness and we reserve some places for personal privacy.
No final and satisfying way to balance our privacy.It's up to each of us to balance the risk and rewards of ourselves.
发表于 2014-7-20 07:59:01 | 显示全部楼层
39-09
time2
European ruled that search enginen like Google should be responsible for the personal data provided by the thirds parties or searched from the website

Then Google received a lot of requests of deleting information
Google responded to the problem in three points
Time3
The experience of two journalist fail to category in google
Then the explain the reason -censorship and rewriting of history
Time4
Google reversed its decision on two journalist and thought about the balance of privacy and freedom

A well executed form, with a better written,more appropriate version of the right to be forgotten is the solution
time5
How Super Court deal with the new technology?
3 examples-- police can not access the phone without obtaining a warrant
Transmatting the television program through internet violate the copyright of the broadcast company
The judger can not judge because he did not know how molecular biology works

Obstacle:
Different way of thinking if privacy
An artist sense of privacy-- inner privacy
Cost and benefits to keep privacy-

发表于 2014-7-20 09:24:18 | 显示全部楼层
GET IT ,keep calm and carry on
发表于 2014-7-20 09:59:17 | 显示全部楼层
2:55 G will provide workable solution or undermine the ruling? Three responses to a VALID request: particular name, European version of G and send out notification to publisher.
3:22 G is trying to undermine the ruling by making it looks like censorship.
4:07 Privacy and freedom of expression-G undertakes the censor
3:44 How SC faces privacy issues which are brought out by advanced tech-Smart Phone?
4:22 How SC decides privacy interests? The SC should do investigation before making decision.

伍尔夫直接快睡着了,晚些时候再看。
发表于 2014-7-20 10:07:06 | 显示全部楼层
The google company was required to remove the private information for people. Now, google is taking initiatives to demand people's request.
1.remove only the research results.--other searching method of the result still possible.
2.the compaign would onliy be limited to Europe --the alert of the page does not mean the impossibility of finding the final result.
3. sending cancelling notification to the publisher has upset some journalist.
-----------------------------------------------------------
many journalist writing stories felt upset about the initiatives. They thought it clumsy.
1. they are erroring on the side of people wishing for canceling information. -They did create more censorship.
2. alerting makes people feel more censored.
3.make jornalist feel censored.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Google indicates that they are still working on this issue.---- Anyway, google is working under the law.
Google is also striving to keep the balance between protecting personal information as well as the expressing rights.
people still expecting google's responds in the future.
The ultimate censor is google---google is actually working on their technology of dealing this peoblem--the ideal way of dealing this problem can benefit all the people

----------------------------------------------
发表于 2014-7-20 10:14:54 | 显示全部楼层
speed 其实没有看懂啥意思,尤其是第一篇谷歌的那个
障碍的有点抽象,看到后面才有点明白啥意思
[Time2] 399 words 2.28
没读懂它在讲什么啊
research result will be removed
Google request people in three ways:1. only search result will be removed  2. there will be a title at the bottom of the page
3. if you are blocked, you may receive a notification.
[Time3] 378 words 2.54
two j.one was blocked caz google said what he wrote is irrevent and not in public interest. But to another person, google broke its 3 rules.
[time4]415 words 2.47
google is act as a censor
[time 5] 2.51 465 words
people use hi-tech.there is a question that can police find the criminal through checking the tech which seems to be belif of a privacy insterest?
[time 6] 2.48 429 words
the court get confused. caz the tech develop so fast that they cannot catch up with them in their jobs. And they cannot use the accurate test to determine whether they should exaim the smart phone.

Obstacle 13.10  1705words
artiest privacy
W use a story tell us what is his idea about the privacy
the privacy is a gift about your own inner heart, a space you cannot share with others.
there are both cost and benefits of the privacy
cost: when you has a privacy, you may have a dignity to prevent youself from doing what you want, such as saying i love you
benefits: it allows you to appreciate and cultivate the coldness, seeing you in a abstract way.

喜欢最后:She didn’t know their names, but friends she knew they were, friends without names, songs without words, always the best. That’s the power of artist’s privacy. It preserves the melodies otherwise drowned out by words, stories, information.
发表于 2014-7-20 10:15:15 | 显示全部楼层
今天的越障有点偏文艺和矫情啊,不过还是写的蛮好的
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-3-29 12:46
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部