新东方在线网络课堂 六级 新东方在线 > 六级 > 英语六级真题 > 正文

2017年12月六级阅读真题及答案(第三套)

2017-12-22 17:52:17 来源:网络六级资料下载

英语六级资料大全下载英语六级资料大全下载

六级关注: 六级阅读常见逻辑考点盘点 六级听力场景高频单词 六级重点语法知识讲解

备考指导: 六级真题高频词汇带音标 英语六级核心词汇汇总 六级仔细阅读练习题库

热点推荐: 英语六级单词表乱序版 英语六级口语单词复习汇总 六级词汇看图记忆汇总

六级必过: 六级口语自我介绍模板盘点 六级语法常考知识点讲解 六级口语讨论练习盘点

Apple’s Stance Highlights a More Confrontational Teach Industry

  A) The battle between Apple and law enforcement officials over unlocking a terrorist’s smartphone is the culmination of a slow turning of the tables between the technology industry and the United States government.

  B) After revelations by the former National Security Agency contractor Edward J. Snowden in 2013 that the government both cozied up to (讨好) certain tech companies and hacked into others to gain access to private data on an enormous scale, tech giants began to recognize the United States government as a hostile actor. But if the confrontation has crystallized in this latest battle, it may already be heading toward a predictable conclusion: In the long run, the tech companies are destined to emerge victorious.

  C) It may not seem that way at the moment. On the one side, you have the United States government’s mighty legal and security apparatus fighting for data of the most sympathetic sort: the secrets buried in a dead mass murderer’s phone. The action stems from a federal court order issued on Tuesday requiring Apple to help the Federal Bureau of Investigation (F.B.I) to unlock an iPhone used by one of the two attackers who killed 14 people in San Bernardino, California, in December.

  D) In the other corner is the world’s most valuable company, whose chief executive, Timothy D. Cook, has said he will appeal the court’s order. Apple argues that it is fighting to preserve a principle that most of us who are addicted to our smartphones can defend: Weaken a single iPhone so that its contents can be viewed by the American government and you risk weakening all iPhones for any government intruder, anywhere.

  E) There will probably be months of legal tussling, and it is not at all clear which side will prevail in court, nor in the battle for public opinion and legislative favor. Yet underlying all of this is a simple dynamic: Apple, Google, Facebook and other companies hold most of the cards in this confrontation. They have our data, and their businesses depend on the global public’s collective belief that they will do everything they can to protect that data.

  F) Any crack in that front could be fatal for tech companies that must operate worldwide. If Apple is forced to open up an iPhone for an American law enforcement investigation, what is to prevent it from doing so for a request from the Chinese or the Iranians? If Apple is forced to write code that lets the F.B.I. get into the Phone 5c used by Syed Rizwan Farook, the male attacker in the San Bernardino attack, who would be responsible if some hacker got hold of that code and broke into its other devices?

  G) Apple’s stance on these issues emerged post-Snowden, when the company started putting in place a series of technologies that, by default, make use of encryption to limit access to people’s data. More than that, Apple - and, in different ways, other tech companies, including Google, Facebook, Twitter and Microsoft - have made their opposition to the government’s claims a point of corporate pride.

  H) Appl’s emerging global brand is privacy; it has staked its corporate reputation, not to mention the investment of considerable technical and financial resources, on limiting the sort of mass surveillance that was uncovered by Mr. Snowden. So now, for many cases involving governmental intrusions into data, once-lonely privacy advocates find themselves fighting alongside the most powerful company in the world.

  I) “A comparison point is in the 1990s battles over encryption,” said Kurt Opsahl, general counsel of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a privacy watchdog group. “Then you had a few companies involved, but not one of the largest companies in the world coming out with a lengthy and impassioned post, like we saw yesterday from Tim Cook. The profile has really been raised.”

  J) Apple and other tech companies hold another ace: the technical means to keep making their devices more and more inaccessible. Note that Apple’s public opposition to the government’s request is itself a hindrance to mass government intrusion. And to get at the contents of a single iPhone, the government says it needs a court order and Apple’s help to write new code; in earlier versions of the iPhone, ones that were created before Apple found religion on (热衷于) privacy, the F.B.I. may have been able to break into the device by itself.

  K) You can expect that noose (束缚) to continue to tighten. Experts said that whether or not Apple loses this specific case, measures that it could put into place in the future will almost certainly be able to further limit the government’s reach.

  L) That’s not to say that the outcome of the San Bernardino case is insignificant. As Apple and several security experts have argued, an order compelling Apple to write software that gives the F.B.I. access to the iPhone in question would establish an unsettling precedent. The order essentially asks Apple to hack its own devices, and once it is in place, the precedent could be used to justify law enforcement efforts to get around encryption technologies in other investigations far removed from national security threats.

  M) Once armed with a method for gaining access to iPhones, the government could ask to use it proactively (先发制人地), before a suspected terrorist attack - leaving Apple in a bind as to whether to comply or risk an attack and suffer a public-relations nightmare. “This is a brand-new salvo in the war against encryption,” Mr. Opsahl said. “We’ve had plenty of debates in Congress and the media over whether the government should have a backdoor, and this is an end run around that - here they come with an order to create that backdoor.”

  N) Yet it’s worth noting that even if Apple ultimately loses this case, it has plenty of technical means to close a backdoor over time. “If they’re anywhere near worth their salt as engineers, I bet they’re rethinking their threat model as we speak,” said Jonathan Zdziarski, a digital forensic expert who studies the iPhone and its vulnerabilities.

  O) One relatively simple fix, Mr. Zdziarski said, would be for Apple to modify future versions of the iPhone to require a user to enter a passcode before the phone will accept the sort of modified operating system that the F.B.I. wants Apple to create. That way, Apple could not unilaterally introduce a code that weakens the iPhone — a user would have to consent to it.

  P) “Nothing is 100 percent hacker-proof,” Mr. Zdziarski said, but he pointed out that the judge’s order in this case required Apple to provide “reasonable security assistance” to unlock Mr. Farook’s phone. If Apple alters the security model of future iPhones so that even its own engineers’ “reasonable assistance” will not be able to crack a given device when compelled by the government, a precedent set in this case might lose its lasting force. In other words, even if the F.B.I. wins this case, in the long run, it loses.

  36. It is a popular belief that tech companies are committed to protecting their customers’ private data.

  流行观点认为,科技公司承诺去保护客人的私人信息。

  [E] They have our data, and their businesses depend on the global public’s collective belief that they will do everything they can to protect that data.

  E段,他们有我们的数据,他们的经营依赖于全球集体信念,他们将为保护数据付出一切。

  37. The US government believes that its access to people’s iPhones could be used to prevent terrorist attacks.

  美国政府相信接触iphone数据能够阻止恐怖袭击。

  [M] Once armed with a method for gaining access to iPhones, the government could ask to use it proactively (先发制人地), before a suspected terrorist attack

  M段,一旦被装备上能够接近iphone的方法,政府能够先发制人地使用它,在一个疑似恐袭之前。

  38. A federal court asked Apple to help the FBI access data in a terrorist’s iPhone.

  一个联邦法庭要求苹果公司帮助FBI获取恐怖分子手机的数据。

  [C] The action stems from a federal court order issued on Tuesday requiring Apple to help the Federal Bureau of Investigation (F.B.I) to unlock an iPhone used by one of the two attackers who killed 14 people in San Bernardino, California, in December.

  C段,这个行为来自于周二一个联邦法庭要求苹果公司帮助FBI解锁其中一个袭击者的手机,这两个袭击者12月在加州杀了14个人。

  39. Privacy advocates now have Apple fighting alongside them against government access to personal data.

  隐私拥护者现在有着苹果公司和他们在同一战线,去反对政府获取私人数据。

  [H] So now, for many cases involving governmental intrusions into data, once-lonely privacy advocates find themselves fighting alongside the most powerful company in the world.

  H段,所以现在,对于很多牵涉政府入侵手机的案例,曾经独自战斗的隐私拥护者们发现现在有了世界上最有力的公司和他们在同一战线。

  40. Snowden revealed that the American government had tried hard to access private data in massive scale.

  S揭露美国政府曾经十分努力去大规模获取私人数据。

  [B] After revelations by the former National Security Agency contractor Edward J. Snowden in 2013 that the government both cozied up to (讨好) certain tech companies and hacked into others to gain access to private data on an enormous scale,

  B段,2013年前FNSA合作人S揭露政府讨好某些科技公司并且入侵进其他公司去大规模获取私人数据。

  41. The FBI might have been able to access private data in earlier iPhones without Apple’s help.

  FBI可能不需要苹果公司的帮助就能获取私人数据,对于早期iphone。

  [J] in earlier versions of the iPhone, ones that were created before Apple found religion on (热衷于) privacy, the F.B.I. may have been able to break into the device by itself.

  J段,在早期版本的iphone,在苹果热衷于隐私问题之前,FBI自己就能够破解那个设备。

  42. After the Snowden incident, Apple made clear its position to counter government intrusion into personal data by means of encryption.

  在S的事故之后,苹果清晰定位自己要反对政府干预私人数据通过解密方式。

  [G] Apple’s stance on these issues emerged post-Snowden, when the company started putting in place a series of technologies that, by default, make use of encryption to limit access to people’s data. More than that, Apple - and, in different ways, other tech companies, including Google, Facebook, Twitter and Microsoft - have made their opposition to the government’s claims a point of corporate pride.

  G段,S之后,苹果立场明确了,当这个公司开始将它的技术默认设置为限制解密去获取人们数据。很多别的公司,包括谷歌,脸书,T和微软等等,一起清楚说明反对政府做这些事.

  43. According to one digital expert, no iPhone can be entirely free from hacking.

  根据一个数字专家,没有iphone是完全可以免除入侵的。

  [P] “Nothing is 100 percent hacker-proof,” Mr. Zdziarski said,

  P段,没有100%防入侵的东西存在。

  44. Timothy Cook’s long web post has helped enhance Apple’s image.

  TC的长网页声明帮助加强苹果的形象。

  [I] Then you had a few companies involved, but not one of the largest companies in the world coming out with a lengthy and impassioned post, like we saw yesterday from Tim Cook.

  I段,然后你有着几家公司参与了,但不是其中一个全球最大的公司,站出来,用很长且令人印象深刻的帖子,就像昨天TC做的那样。

  45. Apple’s CEO has decided to appeal the federal court’s order to unlock a user’s iPhone.

  苹果公司CEO决定上诉,对于联邦法庭命令解锁用户iphone这个事。

  [D] In the other corner is the world’s most valuable company, whose chief executive, Timothy D. Cook, has said he will appeal the court’s order.

  D段,另一方面,世界上最有价值的公司的首席执行官TDC说,他将会对于法庭的命令上诉。

本文关键字: 六级阅读真题 六级阅读答案

分享到:

课程试听换一换

  • 六级通关全程春季4班【2018年6月】

    ¥175.12

  • 六级寒假词汇特训班

    ¥99

  • 六级寒假词汇特训试听课

    ¥9.9

  • 四六级寒假听力精讲班

    ¥129

  • 四六级寒假口语进阶班

    ¥119

  • 大学英语六级通关全程1班【2018年6月】

    ¥199

  • 大学英语六级VIP密训班【2018年6月】

    ¥1280

相关推荐

六级实用•工具

四六级交流•下载

六级课程排行榜本周本月

六级公开课更多>>

新东方在线老师唐迟解析2017年12月六级阅读真题 w 34分48秒
1 新东方在线老师唐迟解析2017年12月六级阅读真题
新东方在线老师李旭解析2017年12月六级听力真题 w 24分33秒
2 新东方在线老师李旭解析2017年12月六级听力真题
新东方在线老师吴欣蔚解析2017年12月六级写作真题 w 22分02秒
3 新东方在线老师吴欣蔚解析2017年12月六级写作真题
新东方在线老师罗宇解析2017年12月六级翻译真题 w 25分59秒
4 新东方在线老师罗宇解析2017年12月六级翻译真题
新东方在线吴欣蔚:2017年6月大学英语六级真题解析 w 22分28秒
5 新东方在线吴欣蔚:2017年6月大学英语六级真题解析

微博直播更多>>

推荐阅读