【Native Speaker每日综合训练—39系列】【39-09】文史哲 Privacy

neverland1021

谢谢兔子分享~
three reasons:

2'29 Google makes the sencorship for itself, not the court.

3'15 Discuss whether the police has the right to flip through a personal smart phone to convict someone guilty.

2'50 What kind of degree to privacy is blurry in the legitation.

10'12 privacy in a noval, the cognition of the innerness

JimmyCruz

T2 3:11 (399)
T3 3:23 (378)
T4 2:39 (417)
回忆：谷歌西班牙被法院判定需要删除个人信息之后，他迅速处理了相关搜索。但此又导致很多记者没办法做资料搜索。谷歌到底是有意藏信息还是无意？文章对谷歌与被遗忘权之间进行了讨论。
Memo
google spain base was sued because of individual information was released by some third parties.
Europe court ruled that Google should remove all these info immediately. Google started to process the ruling.
The author mentioned that the response of google would be critical and initial signs of the reaction were somehow awkward.
First, google removed all those links to individual information.
Second, in european version of google, when you search a name that do not have a public figure sharing the same name, there would be a notification: the result you searching is been removed under the data protection of Europe.
Third, these notification would absolutely upset those journalists who delve in to certain area to dig out or follow up with some figures for feature report.
The reply action of Google have triggered some journalists because they were on the track of writing report for certain people who is not a public figure but might be notorious or be of public’s interest.
And then the author asked: Did google react deliberately or was it just a clumsy move? The author think the possibility that google react to these ruling is on purpose.
By removing these information, they seem to create more censership. Not only to individual, but also to journalists.
Google is complying with the court of Europe, but in a worse way. It should actively and positively engage in the production of Data Protection Regime.

However, I don’t think the writer has solid base to argue. I think the intent is clear that he want google to act in accordance to the court while do not interfere with the journalists rights to write reports. However, why should there be a hierachy that journalists could have the right to collect certain information they eager to have while individuals do not want the information be exposed? I think he doesnot make himself out of the circle of person of interest.

JimmyCruz

T4 4:09(465)
T5 3:17(429)
回忆：今日文章探讨最高法院是否知道隐私有多重要？文章从Riley案引入，阐述法院并不知道某些科技现在的信息量。原来的警察可以搜身搜本子，现在能不能破解手机查信息？法官Roberts说手机不同往日，内容太过丰富。作者建议法院指定这些搜查程度的时候能感同身受，别总是以自己视角看这些东西。
Memo：
Does the supreme court know the importance of privacy interest? Or can they still follow up with the disruptive technology? In the case of Riley, the court ruled that the police cannot check the cell phone before they get a warrant. In the case of another, the court decided that the system transmitting signal of television over the internet violated the broadcasters’ rights.
Last year, a justice wrote an opinion to express his ignorance of the genetic test. But he did not say that he agree with the discussion of the majority that the evidence was fine.
Fortunately, in Riley’s case, his smartphone was defined as a cell phone with a broad range of functions.
Established opinion is that when police arrest any suspect, they can search through his pocket, collect any evidence available to convict him a crime. Why can’t they get the cell phone and read all the stuff within and put them on the court as evidences?
A justice wrote that cell phone is not the same stuff like diary. There are gigabytes of private information of someone including addresses, cards, contacts, photos, sexts, naked-selfies.(he did not mention the latter two) the author also stored her records of running, heart rates and her chess performance in her phone.
So how does the supreme court know the importance of privacy information? Many people do not care about their privacy, others do. Those who do not care might have already encrypted or put their information somewhere else.
The author thinks that justices might cannot empathize the feeling of those who care much about their privacy. The author think a massive number of tests, focus groups or any stuff take before a hearing should be applied to know how public think about the issue of intruding privacy.

Olivia_L

T2 2:05
T3 2:04
T4 2:43
T5 2:50
T6 2:23

鱼丸要考700

1分钟
谷歌遭受法庭裁决，违法信息保护法，正在处理不同人要求移除他们信息的要求，然而解决方案 都不彻底 也有弊端。
3分钟
谷歌遭受到英国两个报刊记者的质疑，他们认为处理方式导致了censorship 所以可以undermine 西班牙法庭的判决。
所以是阐述谷歌为什么有独裁，是因为他们决定了人们能够看到什么，和看不到什么，如果这个case 能够快点过去，他们将可以有好的freedom。（但其实并没有读懂这篇文章的逻辑？）

所以要再研究一下。。。

obstale：
越障的风格有点适应不来，太文学化了。。

blackmelody369

Time2【399 words】2"15.45
Time3【378 words】2"00.37
Time4【341 words】2"30.63

Time5【465 words】3"41.22
Time6【429 words】3"13.27

Obstacle【1705 words】9"23.43
The Rest【772 words】5"01.44