★英語(yǔ)聽(tīng)力頻道為大家整理的英語(yǔ)聽(tīng)力練習(xí)mp3：網(wǎng)絡(luò)隱私與執(zhí)法，供大家參考。更多閱讀請(qǐng)查看本站英語(yǔ)聽(tīng)力頻道。
網(wǎng)絡(luò)隱私與執(zhí)法
Unwarranted
毫無(wú)道理
Why Microsoft is resisting an official demand to hand over data
為什么微軟要抵制官方要求拒不交出數(shù)據(jù)
LAWYERS for Microsoft and the American government are due to face each other in a court inNew Yorkon July 31st. The two sides have been arguing for months about a warrant, served on Microsoft in December, which requires the company to hand over e-mails stored at data centres inIreland. Microsoft has already challenged the warrant once, but the judge who issued it upheld it.
微軟與美國(guó)政府的雙方律師預(yù)訂于7月31日在紐約的一個(gè)法庭上碰面。雙方對(duì)于在12月送達(dá)微軟的搜查令的爭(zhēng)論已持續(xù)數(shù)月，這一搜查令要求微軟交出存儲(chǔ)在愛(ài)爾蘭數(shù)據(jù)中心的電子郵件。微軟曾對(duì)此搜查令提出過(guò)質(zhì)疑，但是發(fā)出這一搜查令的法官堅(jiān)持要搜查。
Microsoft has two main objections to the warrant, which law-enforcement officers sought during an investigation into drug-trafficking. First, it says, an American warrant cannot be used to seize evidence held abroad. Second, it claims that the warrant breaks the constitution's Fourth Amendment, which forbids “unreasonable searches and seizures”,by not specifying where the evidence is to be taken from. The warrant refers only to “information…stored at premises owned, maintained, controlled or operated by Microsoft”. The company says the government should get the information by approaching the Irish authorities, using a bilateral treaty.
這一搜查令的執(zhí)法人員在調(diào)查過(guò)程中追查毒品交易，而微軟對(duì)此搜查令主要有兩項(xiàng)反對(duì)。首先，美國(guó)的搜查令不能用于沒(méi)收保存在國(guó)外的證據(jù)。其次，微軟聲稱，這一搜查令違反了憲法第四修正案，而這一修正案禁止不指明證據(jù)去向的不合理的搜查與扣押。搜查令僅涉及儲(chǔ)存在由微軟所擁有、維護(hù)、控制或管理的場(chǎng)所的那些信息。微軟表示，政府應(yīng)該使用一項(xiàng)雙邊條例，通過(guò)愛(ài)爾蘭*得到那些信息。
The government calls this absurd. If Microsoft's argument stands, it believes, criminals could put electronic evidence beyond the long arm of the law simply by claiming to live outside theUnited States.The government also says using treaties to seek information can be slow.
政府稱這很荒謬。它認(rèn)為，如果微軟的說(shuō)法站得住腳，犯罪分子就能聲稱居住在美國(guó)境外，輕易的把電子證據(jù)儲(chǔ)存在法律臂長(zhǎng)不及的地方。政府也稱，使用跨國(guó)條例來(lái)查找信息，進(jìn)度緩慢。
What is more, it argues, Microsoft is defining a warrant too narrowly. This matters because the authorities need a warrant, which requires no prior notice of seizure, to get hold of unopened e-mails less than six months old. For older or opened e-mails, they need only a subpoena, a notice demanding that certain items be presented in court. The original judge agreed, saying that a warrant under the relevant law—the Stored Communications Act (SCA)—was a “hybrid” of a search warrant and a subpoena. In that case, Microsoft retorts, why did Congress bother to distinguish between a warrant and a subpoena when it drew up the law?
政府認(rèn)為，更重要的是，微軟對(duì)搜查令的定義太過(guò)狹隘。這很重要，因?yàn)檎枰顾巡榱顭o(wú)需事先通知就能沒(méi)收證據(jù)，以得到六個(gè)月內(nèi)還未閱讀的電子郵件。而要獲取超過(guò)6個(gè)月的或已閱的電子郵件，他們僅需要發(fā)出一張傳票—一個(gè)要求將相關(guān)條目呈上法庭的通知。原告法官認(rèn)同說(shuō)，涉及相關(guān)法律—存儲(chǔ)通訊法的搜查令，是一種搜查令和傳票的混合體。在這種情況下，微軟反駁說(shuō)，在制定法律的時(shí)候，為什么國(guó)會(huì)要如此麻煩的區(qū)分搜查令和傳票?
Commerce as well as principle explains Microsoft's nitpicking—and the supporting briefs that other American tech firms have filed in the case. If foreigners fear their data are not safe from Uncle Sam's prying eyes in an American-owned data centre, they may turn to domestic providers, at American companies' expense. Such worries have grown since Edward Snowden's leaks of American spooks' activities last year. The tech firms may also hope a long court battle will prompt Congress to update the SCA. The law dates from 1986, when few imagined the internet's borderless realm.
商業(yè)以及原則解釋了微軟的找茬和對(duì)于其他美國(guó)科技公司牽扯進(jìn)此案的簡(jiǎn)短的擁護(hù)聲明。如果國(guó)外用戶擔(dān)心他們儲(chǔ)存在美國(guó)所屬的數(shù)據(jù)中心的數(shù)據(jù)，在美國(guó)政府的窺探下不安全，他們也許會(huì)轉(zhuǎn)向本國(guó)的供應(yīng)商而讓美國(guó)公司付出代價(jià)。自從愛(ài)德華.斯諾登去年泄露了美國(guó)的間諜活動(dòng)，這樣的擔(dān)心就日漸增長(zhǎng)。高科技公司也許同樣會(huì)希望一場(chǎng)法庭上持久戰(zhàn)將會(huì)促使國(guó)會(huì)改進(jìn)存儲(chǔ)通訊法案。這一法案可追溯到1986年，那時(shí)沒(méi)有人會(huì)想象到互聯(lián)網(wǎng)會(huì)發(fā)展到無(wú)國(guó)界的境界。
網(wǎng)絡(luò)隱私與執(zhí)法
Unwarranted
毫無(wú)道理
Why Microsoft is resisting an official demand to hand over data
為什么微軟要抵制官方要求拒不交出數(shù)據(jù)
LAWYERS for Microsoft and the American government are due to face each other in a court inNew Yorkon July 31st. The two sides have been arguing for months about a warrant, served on Microsoft in December, which requires the company to hand over e-mails stored at data centres inIreland. Microsoft has already challenged the warrant once, but the judge who issued it upheld it.
微軟與美國(guó)政府的雙方律師預(yù)訂于7月31日在紐約的一個(gè)法庭上碰面。雙方對(duì)于在12月送達(dá)微軟的搜查令的爭(zhēng)論已持續(xù)數(shù)月，這一搜查令要求微軟交出存儲(chǔ)在愛(ài)爾蘭數(shù)據(jù)中心的電子郵件。微軟曾對(duì)此搜查令提出過(guò)質(zhì)疑，但是發(fā)出這一搜查令的法官堅(jiān)持要搜查。
Microsoft has two main objections to the warrant, which law-enforcement officers sought during an investigation into drug-trafficking. First, it says, an American warrant cannot be used to seize evidence held abroad. Second, it claims that the warrant breaks the constitution's Fourth Amendment, which forbids “unreasonable searches and seizures”,by not specifying where the evidence is to be taken from. The warrant refers only to “information…stored at premises owned, maintained, controlled or operated by Microsoft”. The company says the government should get the information by approaching the Irish authorities, using a bilateral treaty.
這一搜查令的執(zhí)法人員在調(diào)查過(guò)程中追查毒品交易，而微軟對(duì)此搜查令主要有兩項(xiàng)反對(duì)。首先，美國(guó)的搜查令不能用于沒(méi)收保存在國(guó)外的證據(jù)。其次，微軟聲稱，這一搜查令違反了憲法第四修正案，而這一修正案禁止不指明證據(jù)去向的不合理的搜查與扣押。搜查令僅涉及儲(chǔ)存在由微軟所擁有、維護(hù)、控制或管理的場(chǎng)所的那些信息。微軟表示，政府應(yīng)該使用一項(xiàng)雙邊條例，通過(guò)愛(ài)爾蘭*得到那些信息。
The government calls this absurd. If Microsoft's argument stands, it believes, criminals could put electronic evidence beyond the long arm of the law simply by claiming to live outside theUnited States.The government also says using treaties to seek information can be slow.
政府稱這很荒謬。它認(rèn)為，如果微軟的說(shuō)法站得住腳，犯罪分子就能聲稱居住在美國(guó)境外，輕易的把電子證據(jù)儲(chǔ)存在法律臂長(zhǎng)不及的地方。政府也稱，使用跨國(guó)條例來(lái)查找信息，進(jìn)度緩慢。
What is more, it argues, Microsoft is defining a warrant too narrowly. This matters because the authorities need a warrant, which requires no prior notice of seizure, to get hold of unopened e-mails less than six months old. For older or opened e-mails, they need only a subpoena, a notice demanding that certain items be presented in court. The original judge agreed, saying that a warrant under the relevant law—the Stored Communications Act (SCA)—was a “hybrid” of a search warrant and a subpoena. In that case, Microsoft retorts, why did Congress bother to distinguish between a warrant and a subpoena when it drew up the law?
政府認(rèn)為，更重要的是，微軟對(duì)搜查令的定義太過(guò)狹隘。這很重要，因?yàn)檎枰顾巡榱顭o(wú)需事先通知就能沒(méi)收證據(jù)，以得到六個(gè)月內(nèi)還未閱讀的電子郵件。而要獲取超過(guò)6個(gè)月的或已閱的電子郵件，他們僅需要發(fā)出一張傳票—一個(gè)要求將相關(guān)條目呈上法庭的通知。原告法官認(rèn)同說(shuō)，涉及相關(guān)法律—存儲(chǔ)通訊法的搜查令，是一種搜查令和傳票的混合體。在這種情況下，微軟反駁說(shuō)，在制定法律的時(shí)候，為什么國(guó)會(huì)要如此麻煩的區(qū)分搜查令和傳票?
Commerce as well as principle explains Microsoft's nitpicking—and the supporting briefs that other American tech firms have filed in the case. If foreigners fear their data are not safe from Uncle Sam's prying eyes in an American-owned data centre, they may turn to domestic providers, at American companies' expense. Such worries have grown since Edward Snowden's leaks of American spooks' activities last year. The tech firms may also hope a long court battle will prompt Congress to update the SCA. The law dates from 1986, when few imagined the internet's borderless realm.
商業(yè)以及原則解釋了微軟的找茬和對(duì)于其他美國(guó)科技公司牽扯進(jìn)此案的簡(jiǎn)短的擁護(hù)聲明。如果國(guó)外用戶擔(dān)心他們儲(chǔ)存在美國(guó)所屬的數(shù)據(jù)中心的數(shù)據(jù)，在美國(guó)政府的窺探下不安全，他們也許會(huì)轉(zhuǎn)向本國(guó)的供應(yīng)商而讓美國(guó)公司付出代價(jià)。自從愛(ài)德華.斯諾登去年泄露了美國(guó)的間諜活動(dòng)，這樣的擔(dān)心就日漸增長(zhǎng)。高科技公司也許同樣會(huì)希望一場(chǎng)法庭上持久戰(zhàn)將會(huì)促使國(guó)會(huì)改進(jìn)存儲(chǔ)通訊法案。這一法案可追溯到1986年，那時(shí)沒(méi)有人會(huì)想象到互聯(lián)網(wǎng)會(huì)發(fā)展到無(wú)國(guó)界的境界。