Задание
Прочитайте текст и выполните задания 12–18. В каждом задании отметьте цифру 1, 2, 3 или 4, соответствующую выбранному Вами варианту ответа.
Don't blame technology for threatening our privacy: it's the way the institutions choose to use it. The most depressing moment of my day is first thing in the morning when I download my overnight batch of emails. Without fail, it will contain dozens of messages from people who, knowing my interest in the subject, write to me describing violations of their personal privacy. Throughout the day, the stream continues each message in my inbox warning of yet another nail in the coffin of personal privacy. In other centuries, such invasions of liberty would have arisen from religious persecution or the activities of tax collectors. Nowadays, invasions take place through the use of information technology.
So, when those of us who value personal privacy are asked for their view, we will invariably speak in disparaging terms about such technologies. In an effort to stem the speed and force of the invasion, we will sometimes argue that the technologies themselves should simply be banned. 'Just stop using the cursed technology,' we cry, 'then there won't be any privacy issue.' Of course, things are not so simple. Even the strongest advocate of privacy recognises that technology can offer enormous benefits to individuals and to society. To prohibit a technology on the grounds that it is being used to invade privacy would also be to deny society the benefits of that innovation.
The sensible perspective is that technology does not necessarily have to invade privacy. The reality is that it invariably does. Companies may well argue that customers are prepared to 'trade-off a little privacy in return for better service or a cooler and more sophisticated product. They say that this is a matter of free choice. I doubt that there is any genuine free choice in the matter. Whether I go with Orange or Vodaphone is indeed a free choice. But I have no choice over whether my communications data will or will not be stored by my communications provider. They know the location of my mobile and the numbers from which I received calls, and the emails I send are routinely stored by all providers, whether I like it or not.
CCTV also gives me no free choice. Its purpose may be to keep me secure, but I have no alternative but to accept it. Visual surveillance is becoming a fixed component in the design of modern urban centres, new housing areas, public buildings and even, in Britain at least, throughout the road system. Soon, people will expect spy cameras to be part of all forms of architecture and design. Of course, there is another side to the coin, many technologies have brought benefits to the consumer with little or no cost to privacy. Encryption is one that springs to mind. Many of the most valuable innovations in banking and communications could never have been deployed without this technique.
The problem with privacy is not technology, but the institutions which make use of it. Governments are hungry for data and will use their powers to force companies to collect, retain and yield personal information on their customers. In recent years, governments have managed to incorporate surveillance into almost every aspect of our finances, communication and lifestyle. While acknowledging the importance of privacy as a fundamental right, they argue that surveillance is needed to maintain law and order and create economic efficiency. The right to privacy, it is always claimed, should not be allowed to stand in the way of the wider public interest. This argument is sound in principle, but there seems a little intellectual or analytical basis for its universal and unquestioned application. When the UK government introduced the RIP legislation in 2000, it originally intended to allow an unprecedented degree of communications interception on the grounds that the dangers of crime on the Internet warranted increased surveillance. At no time did anyone produce much evidence for this crime wave, however, nor did anyone in government seem to think any was required. It was left to an eleventh-hour campaign by civil rights activists to block the more offensive elements of the legislation from a personal privacy point of view. Such lack of prior justification is a common feature of privacy invasion for law enforcement and national security purposes.
As I've said, technology does not have to be the enemy of privacy. But while governments insist on requiring surveillance, and while companies insist on amassing personal information about their customers, technology will continue to be seen as the enemy of privacy.
12. From the first paragraph, we understand that the writer
1) resents receiving such distressing emails from people.
2) is surprised that people should contact him about privacy.
3) finds it hard to cope with the tone of the emails he receives.
4) is resigned to the fact that invasions of privacy are on the increase.
13. What view does the writer put forward in the second paragraph?
1) People should be willing to do without certain forms of technology.
2) It is a mistake to criticise people for the way they use technology.
3) It is unrealistic to deny people the benefits that technology can bring.
4) People shouldn't be allowed to use technologies that threaten privacy.
14. The writer feels that some companies
1) do not really give customers a say in issues related to privacy.
2) fail to recognise that their products may invade people's privacy.
3) underestimate the strength of their customers' feelings about privacy.
4) refuse to make compromises with customers concerned about privacy.
15. What point does the writer make about CCTV?
1) People no longer question how necessary it is.
2) People feel more secure the more widely it is used.
3) It ought to be a feature of all new building projects.
4) it would be difficult for society to function without it.
16. The writer gives encryption as an example of a technology which
1) brings only questionable benefits to society in general.
2) poses much less of a threat to privacy than others.
3) actually helps us to protect personal privacy.
4) is worth losing some personal privacy for.
17. In the fifth paragraph, the writer suggests that governments are
1) justified in denying the right of privacy to criminals.
2) mistaken in their view that surveillance prevents crime.
3) wrong to dismiss the individual's right to privacy so lightly.
4) unreasonable in their attitude towards civil rights campaigners.
18. What is the writer's main criticism of the RIP legislation in the UK?
1) Changes were made to it at the last moment.
2) It contained elements that had to be removed.
3) There was no proof that it was really needed.
4) Civil rights groups were not consulted about it.