3 . The teenage years of an individual is marked by evaluating one's values,experiencing a shift in outlooks,and a tendency to act rebellious. It can also be a time when someone becomes extremely____ to negative influences,and is drawn towards dangerous situations. On the other hand,for parents, the period of their children's adolescence means regularly worrying about their safety and formation as a citizen. Thus, a method of _____teenagers' security is needed, and curfews(宵禁)are often seen as such a measure，since they have proved their ______the same time, certain peculiarities exist about establishing curfews for children.

The issue of teenage curfews is widely debated in the United States, where this method is still rather _____, and in European democracies, where this measure is yet not so widely used .The first and foremost reason for establishing curfews is children's security. ____curfews require teenagers under 17 years to stay out of streets starting from 11p.m.or midnight. This is believed to protect them from crimes committed after nightfall,as well as from breaking the law, and there exists serious evidence _____this belief. For example, when New Orleans enabled a dusk-til-dawn curfew in 1994, the rates of juvenile crime were reported to fall more than 20 percent.Even more impressive _______were recorded in Dallas, which reported a 30-percent decrease in violent juvenile crime,and a 21-percent decrease in the overall rates of crimes committed by young people (The New York Times).

On the other hand, curfews can be seen as a preventive measure that rob young people of their rights,____ their freedom. This opinion is _____ supported by the fact that curfew violations(违规) and the respective charges are among the most often committed juvenile crimes in the United States. _______, there were reports claiming that police arrested more non-white teenagers for curfew violations.All this can cause a teenager to believe they have crossed a psychological line dividing them as criminals; thus,such teenagers may start to see themselves as outlaws, which can _____ committing more serious crimes than a curfew offense.

What is important for a parent to remember when establishing a curfew for their children is that a teenager's misjudged view of certain______may cause them to misbehave in some other way; this is proved by research conducted by the University of Minnesota, according to which teens tend to protest against what they see as _______. Considering this,parents should ______the authoritarian style of establishing curfews; instead, they should have a conversation with their teenager that would be aimed at finding ideal conditions for a curfew that would ______both sides.

4 . Progressives often support diversity missions as a path to equality and a way to level the playing field. But all too often such policies are an insincere form of virtue-signaling that benefits only the most privileged and does little to help average people.

A pair of bills sponsored by Massachusetts state Senator Jason Lewis and House Speaker Pro Tempore Patricia Haddad, to ensure "gender equality" on boards and commissions, provide a case in point.

Haddad and Lewis are concerned that more than half the state-government board are less than 40 percent female. In order to ensure that elite women have more such opportunities, they have proposed imposing government quotas（配额）. If the bills become law, state boards and commissions will be required to set aside 50 percent of board seats for women by 2022.

The bills are similar to a measure recently adopted in California, which last year became the first state to require gender quotas for private companies. In signing the measure, California Governor Jerry Brown admitted that the law, which clearly classifies people on the basis of sex, is probably unconstitutional.

The US Supreme Court frowns on sex-based classifications unless they are designed to address an "important" policy interest. Because the California law applies to all boards, even where there is no history of prior discrimination, courts are likely to rule that the law violates the constitutional guarantee of "equal protection".

But are such government mandates even necessary? Female participation on corporate boards may not currently mirror the percentage of women in the general population, but so what?

The number of women on corporate boards has been steadily increasing without government interference. According to a study by Catalyst, between 2010 and 2015 the share of women on the boards of global corporations increased by 54 percent.

Requiring companies to make gender the primary qualification for board membership will inevitably lead to less experienced private sector boards. That is exactly what happened when Norway adopted a nationwide corporate gender quota.

Writing in The New Republic, Alice Lee notes that increasing the number of opportunities for board membership without increasing the pool of qualified women to serve on such boards has led to a "golden skirt "phenomenon, where the same elite women occupy multiple seats on a variety of boards.

Next time somebody pushes corporate quotas as a way to promote gender equity, remember that such policies are largely self-serving measures that make their sponsors feel good but do little to help average women.

6 . This month, Germany’s transport minister, Alexander Dobrindt , proposed the first set of rules for autonomous vehicles(自主驾驶车辆）.They would define the driver’s role in such cars and govern how such cars perform in crashes where lives might be lost.

The proposal attempts to deal with what some call the “death valley” of autonomous vehicles: the grey area between semi-autonomous and fully driverless cars that could delay the driverless future.

Dobrindt wants three things: that a car always chooses property(财产）damage over personal injury; that it never distinguishes between humans based on age or race; and that if a human removes his or her hands from the driving wheel — to check email, say — the car’s maker is responsible if there is a crash.

“The change to the road traffic law will permit fully automatic driving,” says Dobrindt. It will put fully driverless cars on an equal legal footing to human drivers, he says.

Who is responsible for the operation of such vehicles is not clear among car makers, consumers and lawyers. “The liability(法律责任）issue is the biggest one of them all,” says Natasha Merat at the University of Leeds, UK.

An assumption behind UK insurance for driverless cars, introduced earlier this year, insists that a human “ be watchful and monitoring the road” at every moment.

But that is not what many people have in mind when thinking of driverless cars. “When you say ‘driverless cars”, people expect driverless cars.” Merat says “You know — no driver.”

Because of the confusion, Merat thinks some car makers will wait until vehicles can be fully automated without operation.

Driverless cars may end up being a form of public transport rather than vehicles you own, says Ryan Calo at Stanford University, California. That is happening in the UK and Singapore, where government-provided driverless vehicles are being launched.

That would go down poorly in the US, however. “The idea that the government would take over driverless cars and treat them as a public good would get absolutely nowhere here,” says Calo.

7 . Communities across the world are starting to ban facial recognition technologies. The efforts are well intentioned, but banning facial recognition is the wrong way to fight against modern surveillance （监 视）.Generally, modern mass surveillance has three broad components: identification, correlation and discrimination.

Facial recognition is a technology that can be used to identify people without their consent. Once we are identified, the data about who we are and what we are doing can be correlated with other data. This might be movement data, which can be used to "follow” us as we move throughout our day. It can be purchasing data, Internet browsing data, or data about who we talk to via email or text. It might be data about our income, ethnicity, lifestyle, profession and interests. There is an entire industry of data brokers who make a living by selling our data without our consent.

It's not just that they know who we are; it's that they correlate what they know about us to create profiles about who we are and what our interests are. The whole purpose of this process is for companies to treat individuals differently. We are shown different ads on the Internet and receive different offers for credit cards. In the future, we might be treated differently when we walk into a store, just as we currently are when we visit websites.

It doesn't matter which technology is used to identify people. What's important is that we can be consistently identified over time. We might be completely anonymous （匿名的）in a system that uses unique cookies to track us as we browse the Internet, but the same process of correlation and discrimination still occurs.

Regulating this system means addressing all three steps of the process. A ban on facial recognition won't make any difference. The problem is that we are being identified without our knowledge or consent, and society needs rules about when that is permissible.

Similarly, we need rules about how our data can be combined with other data, and then bought and sold without our knowledge or consent. The data broker industry is almost entirely unregulated now. Reasonable laws would prevent the worst of their abuses.

Finally, we need better rules about when and how it is permissible for companies to discriminate. Discrimination based on protected characteristics like race and gender is already illegal, but those rules are ineffectual against the current technologies of surveillance and control. When people can be identified and their data correlated at a speed and scale previously unseen, we need new rules.

Today, facial recognition technologies are receiving the force of the tech backlash （抵制），but focusing on them misses the point. We need to have a serious conversation about all the technologies of identification, correlation and discrimination, and decide how much we want to be spied on and what sorts of influence we want them to have over our lives.

8 . The purpose of the American court system is to protect the rights of the people. According to American law, if someone is accused of a crime, he or she is considered innocent until the court proves that the person is guilty. In other words, it is the responsibility of the court to prove that a person is guilty. It is not the responsibility of the person to prove that he or she is innocent.

In order to arrest a person, the police have to be reasonable sure that a crime has been committed. The police must give the suspect the reasons why they are arresting him and tell him his rights under the law. Then the police take the suspect to the police station to “book” him. “Booking means that the name of the person and the charges against him are formally listed at the police station.

The next step is for the suspect to go before a judge. The judge decides whether the suspect should be kept in jail or released. If the suspect has no previous criminal record and the judge feels that he will return to court rather than run away -- for example, because he owns a house and has a family -- he can go free. Otherwise, the suspect must put up bail（保释金）. At this time, too, the judge will appoint a court layer to defend the suspect if he can’t afford one.

The suspect returns to court a week or two later. A lawyer from the district attorney’s office presents a case against the suspect. This is called a hearing. The attorney may present evidence as well as witnesses. The judge at the hearing then decides whether there is enough reason to hold a trial. If the judge decides that there is sufficient evidence to call for a trial, he or she sets a date for the suspect to appear in court to formally plead guilty（认罪）or not guilty.

At the trial, a jury of 12 people listens to the evidence from both attorneys and hears the testimony of the witnesses. Then the jury goes into a private room to consider the evidence and decide whether the defendant is guilty of the crime. If the jury decides that the defendant is innocent, he goes free. However, if he is convicted, the judge sets a date for the defendant to appear in court again for sentencing. At this time, the judge tells the convicted（宣判有罪的）person what his punishment will be. The judge may sentence him to prison, order him to pay a fine, or place him on probation（缓刑）.

The American justice system is very complex and sometimes operates slowly. However, every step is designed to protect the rights of the people. These individual rights are the basis, or foundation, of the American government.

It is a common sight on campus or in the streets: a young person rides by on an electric scooter, traveling quickly and proudly. But Beijing’s traffic authorities have said that starting on Sept.5, people who are caught riding electric scooters on public roads or bicycle lanes will be fined 10 yuan. They will also be given a warning not to use the vehicles on public roads again.

The announcement was made after traffic police in Shanghai started a campaign to get electric scooters off public roads, with police officers stopping riders because the scooters could cause traffic problems.

The Beijing Consumer Association said it had tested more than 20 electric scooters of different brands recently and found that most had substandard brakes. It added that 16 of the tested scooters could go faster than the maximum 20 km per hour set for electric bikes. According to the traffic police, people who ride electric scooters at certain speeds can easily bump into the vehicles in the vehicle lane and hurt people who walk in the bicycle lanes.

But seeing the benefits that electric scooters have brought to young people, experts are worried that the ban may take effect slowly.

Electric scooters are a great answer to the ‘last mile problem’ of getting from a public transport station to one’s home. They’re light enough to throw over your shoulder. They’re easy to ride just about anywhere and don’t need a lot of physical effort. The scooter can travel 25 km on one charge. It’s convenient and easy to control.

They are also good for environment. Unlike cars and buses, electric scooters produce no carbon dioxide, need no fuel and make almost no noise.

For many young people, they use them to copy cool celebrities they have seen in videos.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

10 . Have you ever heard a rumor spread around by students at your school? Rumors, like fake news, can often misinform individuals and lead them to believe false information.

In an attempt to settle this problem, the country of Singapore has passed a bill that bans companies and individuals from publishing false information online.

This law, known as The Protection From Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill, has caused a public outcry (强烈的抗议), as the government has been given the power to remove content that it considers inaccurate or against the public’s interest.

Since Singapore’s citizens are part of different racial and religious groups, the government fears that rumors or fake news can increase tensions within an already small country.

With the new law coming into effect, Singapore’s government now has the authority to monitor news sites, social media platforms, and other databases of information to determine whether the content is falsified. The government can order for the removal of fake news, and publishers of this information can receive prison time and fines up to one million Singapore dollars!

Critics fear that the bill threatens their freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Since national issues and world news are generally discussed on online platforms, many are concerned that this new bill will prevent individuals from talking freely and having healthy conversations.

Several companies, including Google, Facebook, and Twitter, have offices situated in Singapore, meaning that the new law will affect their company operations. Social media companies in Singapore could face a decline in activity, as users may fear posting their opinions and being punished by the government.

Others are concerned that the law does not clearly state what a “false statement” is. Such an ambiguity might allow the government to misuse their power, even though the intention is to curtail the mow of false information and rumors throughout Singapore.

This law does give rise to several concerns related to freedom and privacy and it will be interesting to see what Singapore’s government will do to deal with this problem.