SHE moved through the crowded streets like she owned the place. Hell, if things went as planned in the coming months, she might in fact own the place. Or some other place if that's what she wanted. If things went as planned, there was no limit to what she could have. She smiled to herself as a crowd of sunburned, middle-aged men broke ranks to let her pass on her way toward Mallory Square. They had no idea who she was, but she liked to think that they could sense her strength and that it intimidated them. Not enough to stop them from staring openly at her chest of course, but what did she expect? They were still men. Duval Street, Key West's main tourist drag, buzzed with early evening activity. The sun had set less than an hour ago, and the throngs moving up from the nightly sunset ritual in Mallory Square now wandered about, trying to choose between the dozens of bars and restaurants vying for their attention. She moved against the general flow and seemed to know exactly where she was going. She knew these streets well and had planned out her route ahead of time. But something bothered her. That nagging feeling in the back of her brain that she'd long ago learned to heed even though it was wrong as often as it was right. You couldn't survive in her world without learning to pay attention to such feelings, and she'd more than survived - she'd prospered beyond the dreams of any young hacker or con artist. Heeding the subliminal warning, she changed plans and stepped out into the crawling Duval Street traffic. A purple taxi honked angrily but she just smiled as she strode across the street and stared intently at a display of cheap, tasteless T-shirts in a storefront window. Question: Why she changed her plan? Options: - She spotted a taxi. - The streets were too crowded with pedestrians. - She felt something wasn't right. - not enough information === The correct answer is
She felt something wasn't right.

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." Question: Why did people argue that accessing a cellphone without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment? Options: - not enough information - it would be a case of unreasonable search and seizure - it would be a case of lacking freedom of speech - it would be a case of hacking === The correct answer is
it would be a case of unreasonable search and seizure

Americans may become accustomed to the political turmoil swirling around President Donald Trump, but it remains an open question whether that turmoil will ultimately help or hurt Trump and his Republican allies, especially in an election year. Last week, it was Trump's firing of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and an apparent Democratic victory in a special congressional election in Pennsylvania a sign of a possible wave in the November midterm elections. This week, it was a series of presidential tweets criticizing the Russia probe, followed by a controversial Trump statement of congratulations for newly re-elected Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump also added former U.S. attorney Joseph diGenova to his legal team. DiGenova has alleged that elements of the FBI and the Department of Justice have been out to frame Trump in connection with the Russia probe. Trump ignored shouted questions Tuesday from reporters at the White House who asked whether he wanted to fire special counsel Robert Mueller, who is leading the Russia probe. Earlier, House Speaker Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican, told reporters at the Capitol that he had received "assurances" that firing Mueller was "not even under consideration." The latest back and forth over the Mueller investigation came after several days of presidential tweets complaining about the probe, including one blasting it as a "total WITCH HUNT with massive conflicts of interest." The tweets sparked new fears that Trump might try to have Mueller fired. Some Republicans warned that an attempt to fire Mueller could put Trump's presidency in jeopardy. "I think anything directed at firing Mr. Mueller blows up the whole town, and that becomes the end of governing and the presidency as we know it," cautioned Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. The renewed focus on the Russia probe came in the wake of last week's firing of Tillerson. That, in turn, raised the prospect of more administration changes. Question: How long did it take Trump to make the tweet criticizing the Russian probe? Options: - 2 days - not enough information - a few minutes - 3 days === The correct answer is
a few minutes