Google
Câu hỏi: Read the following passage and mark the lener A, B, C, or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct answer to each of the questions.
In this modern world where closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras are everywhere and smartphones are in every pocket, the routine filming of everyday life is becoming pervasive. A number of countries are rolling out body cams for police officers; other public-facing agencies such as schools, councils and hospitals are also experimenting with cameras for their employees. Private citizens are getting in on the act too: cyclists increasingly wear headcams as a deterrent to aggressive drivers. As camera technology gets smaller and cheaper, it isn' to envisage a future where we're all filming everything all the time, in every direction.
Would that be a good thing? There are some obvious potential upsides. If people know they are on camera, especially when at work or using public services, they are surely less likely to misbehave. The available evidence suggests that it discourages behaviours such as vandalism. Another upside is that it would be harder to get away with crimes or to evade blame for accidents.
But a world on camera could have subtle negative effects. The deluge of data we pour into the hands of Google, Facebook and others has already proved a mixed blessing. Those companies would no doubt be willing to upload and curate our body-cam data for free, but at what cost to privacy and freedom of choice?
Body-cam data could also create a legal minefield. Disputes over the veracity and interpretation of police footage have already surfaced. Eventually, events not caught on camera could be treated as if they didn't happen. Alternatively, footage could be faked or doctored to dodge blame or incriminate others.
Of course, there’s always the argument that if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. But most people have done something embarrassing, or even illegal, that they regret and would prefer they hadn’t been caught on film. People already censor their social media feeds - or avoid doing anything incriminating in public - for fear of damaging their reputation. Would ubiquitous body cams have a further chilling effect on our freedom?
The always-on-camera world could even threaten some of the attributes that make us human. We are natural gossips and backbiters, and while those might not be desirable behaviours, they oil the wheels of our social interactions. Once people assume they are being filmed, they are likely to clam up.
The argument in relation to body-cam ownership is a bit like that for guns: once you go past a critical threshold, almost everyone will feel they need one as an insurance policy. We are nowhere near that point yet but we should think hard about whether we really want to say "lights, body cam, action."
What does the author imply in paragraph 3?
A. Body-cam ownership could eventually give rise to information overload, which, in turn, raises public concern.
B. Social networks provide their users with greater freedom of choice while depriving them of their privacy and anonymity.
C. Companies like Facebook may have their own intentions behind their willingness to take care of their users' body-cam data.
D. Google and similar enterprises tend to refrain from harvesting their customers' data for illicit purposes.
In this modern world where closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras are everywhere and smartphones are in every pocket, the routine filming of everyday life is becoming pervasive. A number of countries are rolling out body cams for police officers; other public-facing agencies such as schools, councils and hospitals are also experimenting with cameras for their employees. Private citizens are getting in on the act too: cyclists increasingly wear headcams as a deterrent to aggressive drivers. As camera technology gets smaller and cheaper, it isn' to envisage a future where we're all filming everything all the time, in every direction.
Would that be a good thing? There are some obvious potential upsides. If people know they are on camera, especially when at work or using public services, they are surely less likely to misbehave. The available evidence suggests that it discourages behaviours such as vandalism. Another upside is that it would be harder to get away with crimes or to evade blame for accidents.
But a world on camera could have subtle negative effects. The deluge of data we pour into the hands of Google, Facebook and others has already proved a mixed blessing. Those companies would no doubt be willing to upload and curate our body-cam data for free, but at what cost to privacy and freedom of choice?
Body-cam data could also create a legal minefield. Disputes over the veracity and interpretation of police footage have already surfaced. Eventually, events not caught on camera could be treated as if they didn't happen. Alternatively, footage could be faked or doctored to dodge blame or incriminate others.
Of course, there’s always the argument that if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. But most people have done something embarrassing, or even illegal, that they regret and would prefer they hadn’t been caught on film. People already censor their social media feeds - or avoid doing anything incriminating in public - for fear of damaging their reputation. Would ubiquitous body cams have a further chilling effect on our freedom?
The always-on-camera world could even threaten some of the attributes that make us human. We are natural gossips and backbiters, and while those might not be desirable behaviours, they oil the wheels of our social interactions. Once people assume they are being filmed, they are likely to clam up.
The argument in relation to body-cam ownership is a bit like that for guns: once you go past a critical threshold, almost everyone will feel they need one as an insurance policy. We are nowhere near that point yet but we should think hard about whether we really want to say "lights, body cam, action."
What does the author imply in paragraph 3?
A. Body-cam ownership could eventually give rise to information overload, which, in turn, raises public concern.
B. Social networks provide their users with greater freedom of choice while depriving them of their privacy and anonymity.
C. Companies like Facebook may have their own intentions behind their willingness to take care of their users' body-cam data.
D. Google and similar enterprises tend to refrain from harvesting their customers' data for illicit purposes.
Kiến thức: Đọc – chi tiết
Giải thích:
Tác giả có ngụ ý gì trong đoạn 3?
A. Sự sở hữu bodycam có thể làm phát sinh tình trạng quá tải thông tin, từ đó làm dấy lên sự lo ngại từ công chúng.
B. Mạng xã hội cung cấp cho người dùng sự tự do lựa chọn trong khi đồng thời tước đi quyền riêng tư và ẩn danh của họ.
C. Những công ty như Facebook có thể có ý định riêng đằng sau sự sẵn sàng quản lý những dữ liệu bodycam của người dùng.
D. Google và những công ty tương tự thường thu thập dữ liệu của khách hàng cho những mục đích bất hợp pháp.
Thông tin: The deluge of data we pour into the hands of Google, Facebook and others has already proved a mixed blessing. Those companies would no doubt be willing to upload and curate our body-cam data for free, but at what cost to privacy and freedom of choice?
Tạm dịch: Khối lượng dữ liệu mà chúng ta đổ vào tay của Google, Facebook và những thứ khác đã cho thấy cả ưu và nhược điểm. Những công ty này chắc chắn sẵn sàng đăng tải và quản lý dữ liệu từ bodycam của chúng ta miễn phí, nhưng cái giá của sự riêng tư và tự do lựa chọn thì sao?
Giải thích:
Tác giả có ngụ ý gì trong đoạn 3?
A. Sự sở hữu bodycam có thể làm phát sinh tình trạng quá tải thông tin, từ đó làm dấy lên sự lo ngại từ công chúng.
B. Mạng xã hội cung cấp cho người dùng sự tự do lựa chọn trong khi đồng thời tước đi quyền riêng tư và ẩn danh của họ.
C. Những công ty như Facebook có thể có ý định riêng đằng sau sự sẵn sàng quản lý những dữ liệu bodycam của người dùng.
D. Google và những công ty tương tự thường thu thập dữ liệu của khách hàng cho những mục đích bất hợp pháp.
Thông tin: The deluge of data we pour into the hands of Google, Facebook and others has already proved a mixed blessing. Those companies would no doubt be willing to upload and curate our body-cam data for free, but at what cost to privacy and freedom of choice?
Tạm dịch: Khối lượng dữ liệu mà chúng ta đổ vào tay của Google, Facebook và những thứ khác đã cho thấy cả ưu và nhược điểm. Những công ty này chắc chắn sẵn sàng đăng tải và quản lý dữ liệu từ bodycam của chúng ta miễn phí, nhưng cái giá của sự riêng tư và tự do lựa chọn thì sao?
Đáp án C.