1 . LONDON—England will join the growing list of places that don’t allow smoking in public buildings, taxis and other places that includes even Buckingham Palace with a strong law.
Pubs, clubs and restaurants will all be smoke-free places. Taxi drivers have been warned that they could be fined(罚款) 50 pounds, or about $100, if they are caught lighting up inside work taxis.
Experts say the bans have become unchangeable because of increasing health costs and public worry over second-hand smoke. Some of the strictest smoking bans are in some of the United States’ states, such as New York and Florida, which include bars and restaurants as smoke-free places.
Spain, Italy, Iran, Norway, Sweden, Singapore, South Africa, Uruguay and New Zealand have made laws to limit smoking. France banned smoking in many public places in February and cafes and restaurants will become non-smoking places next year. Finland will introduce a ban, too.
Bans are spreading among countries, and the World Health Organization supports them, but it said that by 2030 there will be “at least another two billion smokers in the world” and an expected decrease in male smokers “will be offset(抵消) by an increase in female smoking rates, especially in developing countries.”
In advance of the English ban, anti-smoking ads have coated bus stops and the government prepares to pay some money to help people give up smoking. The rest of Britain—Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—already have smoking bans ready.
1. England does the following to ban smoking EXCEPT________.| A．introduce a ban | B．pay some money |
| C．reduce the health costs | D．put up anti-smoking ads |
| A．More places in Britain forbid smoking. |
| B．Taxis are smoking-free places in England. |
| C．People will be fined for smoking in public places. |
| D．A smoking ban must be put into use in England. |
| A．the smoking situation is still serious around the world |
| B．the number of smokers in Finland is not large at all |
| C．ads didn’t appear in England until the ban was started |
| D．Scotland will be one of the strictest anti-smoking places |
| A．doubtful | B．supportive |
| C．negative | D．indifferent (漠不关心的) |
2 . In the USA, youth curfews (宵禁) are traditionally issued by a parent in the interest of safety. This type of curfew is personal, and rightfully so. However, to stop teenagers committing crimes, some officials have turned youth curfews from family decisions into public laws.
The idea may have been thought to have good intentions. In practice, however, these policies have been shown to be unfair and unconstitutional, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). In the town of Sumner, Washington, a father allowed his fourteen-year-old son to go to a convenience store after 11:00 p.m. Sumner had adopted a curfew law that prohibited people under the age of eighteen from being in public places past that hour. The father was fined, and then he pursued a legal challenge against the town. The ACLU, which filed the case on behalf of the father, claimed the curfew laws had violated (侵犯) parents' rights. In the end, Sumner's curfew laws were struck down.
But isn't it irresponsible not to enforce a curfew on teenagers? Curfew laws supporters argue that officials should provide a curfew to ensure teens are home by a reasonable hour. The risk of a serious accident is three times as high for drivers aged sixteen to nineteen as for drivers over twenty. And dangers only increase at night. This indicates to some that a law keeping teens off the road late at night is a positive safety measure. Still, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) says that the best ways for drivers to increase safety are by obeying the speed limit, wearing a seat belt, and paying attention. The NHTSA makes no mention of youth curfews making driving safer.
In cities, curfew enforcement has been ineffective or even had a negative impact on communities. Most crimes committed by teens actually happen around 3：00 p.m. , right after school. On non-school days, that time shifts to between 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. The curfew hours, usually between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. , occur at a time of day when teenage crime is at its lowest. Meanwhile, violent crime rates peak around 10:00 p.m. for adults. When law enforcement performs the teen curfew sweep, policemen are distracted from the more serious violent crimes being committed by adults at that time. Also troubling is the racial discrimination in cities with curfews. For example, recent data have found that in Minneapolis, Minnesota, 56% of youths charged with breaking curfews were African American. Other law enforcement department reports show similar problems. Curfew laws are criticized because they are enforced in a racially discriminatory way.
The ACLU has succeeded in striking down at least one curfew law because of concerns over parental rights. Along with other community and civil rights groups, it continues to pursue other cases, arguing that curfew law enforcement can only increase tension and crime. To arrest teens for driving home from the movies, playing basketball in the park, or simply walking their dog is to punish them for being outside their homes—a policy inconsistent with the individual rights established in the U. S. Constitution.
1. What is the authors attitude towards legal curfews for teenagers?| A．Disapproving. | B．Supportive. |
| C．Uncertain. | D．Indifferent. |
| A．Reasonable curfew hours for teenagers. |
| B．The necessity of enforcing youth curfews. |
| C．Unwanted consequences of youth curfews. |
| D．The impact of youth curfews on adult crimes. |
| A．It helps people defend their individual rights. |
| B．It is in favour of enforcing a curfew on teenagers. |
| C．It stresses the responsibilities of parents to their children. |
| D．It believes youth curfews are highly related to road safety. |
| A．teenagers in the United States love their independence |
| B．enforcing youth curfews will lead to distrust of the policemen |
| C．legal curfews should exist only when parents are irresponsible |
| D．legal curfews violate individual liberties and may be cancelled |
Rules help us live together in a community. At my local park, there is a sign that reads, “Keep off the grass.” Because our community has a need for a nice green space
4 . 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.
1. According to Para. 2, with facial recognition _______.| A．one’s lifestyle changes greatly |
| B．one's email content is disclosed |
| C．one's profiles are updated in time |
| D．one's personal information is released |
| A．discrimination based on new tech surveillance is illegal |
| B．different browsing data bring in different advertisements |
| C．using mobiles anonymously keeps us from being correlated |
| D．data brokers control the current technologies of surveillance |
| A．people's concern over their safety |
| B．the nature of the surveillance society |
| C．proper regulation of mass surveillance |
| D．the importance of identification technology |
| A．call for banning facial recognition technologies |
| B．advocate the urgent need for changes in related laws |
| C．inform readers of the disadvantages of facial recognition |
| D．evaluate three broad components in modem mass surveillance |
5 . Hold your smartphone, smile at the front camera, and click! You get a selfie. There is no doubt that this photo is yours. But if a monkey takes a selfie, does the camera owner have the right to decide how to use it?
Recently, this question has caused a problem between Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization, and British wildlife photographer David J. Slater.
In 2011, Slater was visiting a park in Indonesia when a macaque(猕猴) got hold of one of his cameras. “They were quite naughty, jumping all over my equipment,” Slater told The Telegraph, “and it looked like they were already posing for the camera when one hit the button.” The result was hundreds of monkey selfies. The best of images was a female macaque grinning toothily into the lens.
This week, the grinning monkey selfie returned to the news when Wikimedia refused Slater’s request to take the photos down from Wikimedia Commons, a website that is run by the organization and offers free images. 5
According to Wikimedia, anyone who downloads the monkey selfie, or any of the millions of images on the site, can “copy and use any works here freely as long as they follow what the author says.” The question that arose here was whether Slater, who had not held the camera, set up the shot, or pressed the shutter(快门) button, could be considered the photographer of the monkey selfie. Wikimedia’s position on this was clear: as the work of a non-human animal, this photo has no human author who owns the copyright.”
Only authors of creative works, like a piece of writing or a song, own copyrights. In terms of photos, US copyright law says whoever pushes the button on the camera owns the copyright to the image produced, which means that if tourists ask you to take a photo of them, and you happen to hit the shutter button at the exact moment that Justin Bieber, a Canadian singer, made faces behind them. You, as the photographer, would have the photo’s copyright and sell it. The tourists, who own the camera on which the photo was taken and asked you to take the photo don’t get the right to use it without you allowing them to. All this has been complicated by the appearance of surveillance cameras(监控摄像头), smart phones, and large-scale photography projects for which assistants often press the shutter button to produce works whose copyrights belong to their boss.
Slater seems to be thinking along these lines. He says that buying the cameras, spending thousands of pounds to transport himself to Indonesia, and allowing the monkeys to “steal” his cameras makes him the author of the image, regardless of who pushed the button. “In law, if I have an assistant then I still own the copyright,” he told the “Today” Show. “I believe in this case, the monkey was my assistant.”
If that seems unfair, think about this. If a person left her laptop in a café, and a poet picked it up, opened up a word-processing program, and typed out a poem which turned out to be the best poem of this generation, could she ask for much more than her laptop back?
1. Why did Wikidmedia refuse to take down the monkey selfie?| A．According to Wikidmedia, David J. Slater is not the author and thus has no copyright of the selfie. |
| B．Wikidmedia believes any human owns the copyright of the monkey copyright. |
| C．It aims to make profits by posting the selfie on the site. |
| D．Wikidmedia had got Slater’s permission in advance. |
| A．To raise an example of exception against the US copyright law |
| B．To prove that the owner of the camera has the copyright |
| C．To explain what the US copyright between different parties |
| D．To reveal the argument of the copyright between different parties. |
| A．supportive |
| B．doubtful |
| C．approving |
| D．indifferent |
| A．Wikidmedia’s position on copyrights |
| B．Who owns the copyright of a Monkey Selfie? |
| C．A female macaque grinning toothily |
| D．On the copyrights of selfies |
