(Question)
The U.S. Supreme Court signaled Wednesday it may be open to new limits on the government's ability to track someone's movements by accessing data on that person's cellphone. A case before the high court could result in a landmark decision in the ongoing debate over civil liberties protections in an era of rapid technological change. At issue is whether law enforcement will be able to access cellphone data that can reveal a person's whereabouts without having to first obtain a court-issued search warrant. The case stems from the conviction of Timothy Carpenter for a series of robberies back in 2010 and 2011. Prosecutors were able to obtain cellphone records that indicated his location over a period of months, information that proved crucial to his conviction. On Wednesday, lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union argued that law enforcement should be required to obtain a court-ordered search warrant before obtaining such information. They also argued that allowing law enforcement to access the cellphone data without a warrant would violate the prohibition on unreasonable search and seizures contained in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. "It is impossible to go about our daily lives without leaving a trail of digital breadcrumbs that reveal where we have been over time, what we have done, who we spent time with," said ACLU attorney Nathan Freed Wessler, who spoke to reporters outside the Supreme Court following oral arguments. "It is time for the court, we think, to update Fourth Amendment doctrine to provide reasonable protections today." Some of the justices also raised concerns about privacy in the digital age. "Most Americans, I think, still want to avoid Big Brother," Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who often sides with the liberal wing of the court, said. Chief Justice John Roberts, who often sides with conservatives on the court, said the central question was whether the cellphone information should be accessible to the government "without a warrant." According to the above context, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: Why did people argue that accessing a cellphone without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment? Options: A. not enough information B. it would be a case of unreasonable search and seizure C. it would be a case of lacking freedom of speech D. it would be a case of hacking
(Answer)
B

(Question)
Recently the subject of discrimination has been something I have been thinking a lot about. It was the subject of some meetings with ubuntu-women, something I have discussed with my friend Sulamita in a Brazilian bar at 4.30am and the subject of various ad-hoc discussions at the Ubuntu Developer Summit. As the wider Open Source community grows, it becomes more of an issue every day, and something we all need to be aware of. While in Brazil I made a promise to Sulamita that I would be blogging about the issue of discrimination against women, and I have been holding off writing an entry until I had some real, practical, implementable steps that I can advise people to take to help make the situation better. Although I will never fully understand how some women are made to feel at the hands of such discrimination, I have been hoping my contribution could be to help contribute to an awareness of the issue, and for that to happen I felt I needed to construct some doable steps that people can execute. Solving social problems is hard though, which ain't all that surprising, so I had held off on a blog post until I had some such action points. I have since discovered that there is really one key step that we all need take don't accept or allow discrimination in your community. In my mind all discrimination is bad. Every day people get up and are discriminated due to gender, age, race, mobility, technical knowledge and more. The issues of discrimination, while different in the specifics (e.g. women are discriminated in different ways to age discrimination), the underlying issue is very similar mistreating people because of a grouping they are part of. We have all suffered this in different ways, from serious racial hatred to someone not taking you seriously because you have long hair and an Iron Maiden t-shirt. According to the above context, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: At the end of this story, the writer's friend is probably Options: A. Happy with her friend's post B. Unhappy with her friend's post C. Grateful for her friend's post D. not enough information
(Answer)
A

(Question)
WHITE HOUSE "The United States will not be a migrant camp and it will not be a refugee holding facility," President Donald Trump vowed Monday amid growing outrage over his administration forcibly separating children from parents at the U.S. border with Mexico. Trump, speaking in the White House East Room during a National Space Council meeting, warned that "what's happening in Europe we can't allow that to happen to the United States not on my watch." Earlier in the day, on the Twitter social media platform, the president inaccurately linked migration in Germany to a rising crime rate. In actuality, the latest German government statistics show reported crimes at the lowest level in 30 years. Tough border enforcement in the U.S. has led to the family breakups, with nearly 2,000 children being sent to mass detention centers or foster care from mid-April to the end of May, according to government officials. The regular White House briefing was delayed several times Monday amid the furor as officials huddled with Trump in the West Wing. Press Secretary Sarah Sanders finally introduced Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen after 5 p.m., and she defended the administration's "zero-tolerance" policy that is breaking up families at the southwestern U.S. border. Nielsen forcefully pushed back at the negative media coverage, asserting that what U.S. authorities are doing is properly enforcing the law. "What has changed is that we no longer exempt entire classes of people who break the law," she said. Asked about critics accusing the administration of using children as "pawns" to demand legislative actions from Congress, the DHS secretary replied, "I say that is a very cowardly response," adding it is clearly within Congress' power "to make the laws and change the laws. They should do so." Trump's Republican party controls both chambers in Congress, and the family border policies were set by his administration. In a tweet displaying photographs of a detention facility, showing children... According to the above context, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: Why did Kristjen Nielson push back at negative media coverage? Options: A. because she asserts that US authorities are simply doing their jobs B. not enough information C. because she thinks Sarah Sanders is unprofessional D. because she doesn't like liberal media
(Answer)
A