新东方解析2010年9.12高口阅读第二篇

2010-09-13 00:00:00来源：网络

　　凌凌教你学口语：每日一句系列
　　备战口译：原创双语时事汇总

　　新东方解析2010年9.12高口阅读第二篇

　　2010秋9.12口译考试题目与解析，新东方第一时间放送——

　　第二篇961字，作为以保护隐私为主题的一篇社会类文章，其实在课堂上大家已经非常熟悉了，07年9月的第三篇和08年9月的第一篇都是以privacy为主题的，相信大家都不陌生。

　　Not so long ago I found myself in characteristically pugnacious discussion with a senior human rights figure. The issue was privacy. Her view was that there was an innate and largely unchanging human need for privacy. My view was that privacy was a culturally determined concept. Think of those open multiseated Roman latrines in Pompeii, and imagine having one installed at work. The specific point was whether there was a generational difference in attitudes towards privacy, partly as a consequence of internet social networking. I thought that there was. As a teenager I told my parents absolutely nothing and the world little more. Some girls of that era might be photographed bare-breasted at a rock festival, and some guys might be pictured smoking dope but, on the whole, once we left through the front door, we disappeared from sight.

　　第一段上来就是作者和某个名人曾展开一次激烈讨论，看来这篇文章不会是单纯的说明性文章，作者应该会表明自己的立场。而随后第二句即点明了探讨的主旨privacy。之后的几个具体的事件考生可以略读。

　　My children — Generation Y, rather than the Generation X-ers who make most of the current fuss about privacy — seem unworried by their mother’s capacity to track them and their social lives through Facebook. In fact, they seem unworried by anybody’s capacity to see what they’re up to — until, of course, it goes wrong. They seem to want to be in sight, and much effort goes into creating the public identity that they want others to see. Facebook now acts as a vast market place for ideas, preferences, suggestions and actings-out, extending far beyond the capacity of conventional institutions to influence. And the privacy issues it raises have little to do with the conventional obsessions such as CCTV or government data-mining.
　
　　第二段通过讲述作者的孩子，更年轻的一代对于privacy的看法，以及列举facebook网站的性质来表明时代变化对于privacy这个问题的看法其实是有影响的。

　　At a conference at the weekend I heard that some US colleges have taken to looking at the Facebook sites of applicants before they think to alter them before an interview. This may turn out to be apocryphal, but such a thing certainly could be done. In this era of supplementing exam grades with personal statements and character assessments, what could be more useful than an unguarded record of a student’s true enthusiasms? My daughter’s college friends, she says, are “pretty chilled” about it. There are the odd occasions when a vinous clinch is snapped on a mobile phone and makes the social rounds to the embarrassment of the clinchers, but whatever will be will be.

　　第三段依然如上一段一样列举大量具体性的陈述，都是在围绕privacy进行申发。

　　An EU survey two years ago suggested that this is the pattern more generally. The researchers discovered what seemed to be a paradox: although half of their young respondents were confident in their own ability to protect their online privacy, only a fifth thought it a practical idea to give users in general “more control over their own identity data”. Meanwhile, their elders try to get them concerned about issues such as internet data harvesting by private companies. A US news report last week concerned the work done to create “privacy nudges” — software that reminds users at certain moments that the information they are about to divulge has implications for privacy.
　
　　第四段主旨依然没有发生改变，还是在针对保护隐私的话题进行阐述。

　　I have to say, as someone who often elects to receive online mailshots from companies operating in areas in which I’m interested, that this seems to me to miss the main problem. As long as you have the right to say “no” to a company’s blandishments, I don’t see a huge problem. That’s why the now notorious Italian bullying video seems much more relevant. At the end of last week three Google employees were sentenced in absentia for breaching the privacy of a handicapped boy, whose horrid treatment at the hands of his Turin schoolmates had been posted on Google Video. This clip spent several months in circulation before being taken down. Almost everyone agrees that the sentence was wrong, perverse and a kick in the teeth for free speech, with implications that could (but won’t) undermine the internet. And they are quite right. But look at it, for a moment, from the point of view of the boy’s parent, or the boy himself. They must have felt powerless and damaged. So how much control or ownership can one have over one’s own image and reputation? The second great question, then, raised with regard to the net is what might be called “reputation management”. What is it that you want people to know about you, and can you have control over it?

　　第五段援引Google Video等例子也是在围绕话题进行，可略去。

　　Last weekend I was alerted to two new phenomena, both of which caused me to miss a heartbeat. The first was the possibility of using a program, or employing someone, to “suicide” you online. Recently a company in Rotterdam used its Facebook presence to advertise its “web 2.0 suicide machine”, which would act as “a digital Dr Kevorkian [and] delete your online presence” not just on your own sites but on everyone else’s — leaving just a few “last words”. Unfortunately Facebook chucked the suicide machine off its premises, so it then suicided itself, ending with the words “no flowers, no speeches”. As a journalist I was horrified by the implications of online suiciding. In the first place it means the erasure of documentary history. And second it raises the possibility of routine doctoring of material on the internet to render it more palatable to the offended.

　　第六段开头指出现在出现的两个新现象已经吸引了作者的注意，底下开始举出网络自杀机器的例子，最后表明作者意图，in the first place和second已经解释了这一现象带来的负面效果。

　　The second phenomenon was worse. It was that some people, many perhaps, might seek to undermine any informational authority on the web by flooding it with false information, thus obliquely protecting their own identities. As an occasional target of such misinformation, playfully or maliciously, I know it can play merry hell with everyone’s sense of reality. In other words it seemed to me that there was a threat much worse than that to privacy, and that was of privacy- induced attempts to bend or erase the truth that is essential to the value of the internet. Lack of privacy may be uncomfortable. Lack of truth is fatal.

　　最后一段开头指出，第二个现象更加糟糕，false information虚假信息，这是一个比侵犯隐私要更加可怕的威胁。最后一句表明最终立场，没有隐私可能让我们不舒服，但是如果网络上充斥着虚假，没有真实的画面那就是致命的了。所以，这篇文章尽管字数很多，但是可看的主旨重点其实是放在最后两段的。这篇文章属于一个例外，主旨是在最后部分升华上来的，所以从一开头的privacy入手，作者实际上想要表达的是保护真实性比保护隐私更加重要。

　　本文选自新东方口译名师邱政政的blog,blog链接地址：http://blog.hjenglish.com/qiuzhengzheng