2004年6月六级试题及答案_第3页

　　When we worry about who might be spying on our private lives, we usually think about the Federal agents. But the private sector outdoes the government every time. It's Linda Tripp, not the FBI, who is facing charges under Maryland's laws against secret telephone taping. It's our banks, not the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), that pass our private financial data to telemarketing fin'ms.Consumer activists are pressing Congress for better privacy laws without much result so far.

　　The legislators lean toward letting business people track our financial habits virtually at will.As an example of what's going on, consider U.S. Bancorp, which was recently sued for deceptive practices by the state of Minnesota. According to the lawsuit, the bank supplied a telemarketer called MemberWorks with sensitive customer data such as names,, ph'one numbers, bank-account and credit-card numbers, Social Security numbers, account balances and credit limits.With these customer lists in hand, MemberWorks started dialing for dollars - selling dental plans, videogames, computer software and other products and services.

　　Customers who accepted a "free trial offer" had, 30 days to cancel. If the deadline passed, they were charged automatically through their bank or credit-card accounts. U.S. Bancorp collected a share of the revenu——es_ ……Customers were doubly deceived, the lawsuit claims. They. didn't know that the bank was giving account numbers to MemberWorks. And if customers asked, they were led to think the answer was no.

　　The state sued MemberWorks separately for deceptive selling. Thecompany de'hies that it did anything wrong. For its part, U.S. Bancorp settled without admitting any mistakes. But it agreed to stop exposing its customers to nonfinancial products sold by outside firms. A few top banks decided to do the same. Many other banks will still do business with MemberWorks and similar firms.And banks will still be mining data from your account in order to sell you financial products, including things of little value, such as credit insurance and credit-card protection plans.

　　You have almost no protection from businesses that use your personal accounts for profit. For example, no federal law shields "transaction and experience" information - mainly the details of your bank and credit-card accounts. Social Security numbers are for sale by private fa'ms. They've generally agreed not to sell to the public. But to businesses, the numbers are an open book. Selfregulation doesn't work. A firm might publish a privacy-protection policy, but who enforces it?

　　Take U.S. Bancorp again. Customers were told, in writing, that "all personal information you supply to us will be considered confidential." Then it sold your data to MemberWorks. The bank even claims that it doesn't "sell" your data at all. It merely "shares" it and reaps a profit. Now you know.

　　33. When the "free trial" deadline is over, you'll be charged without notice for a product or service if

　　A) you fail to cancel it within the specified period

　　B) you happen to reveal your credit card number

　　C) you find the product or service unsatisfactory

　　D) you fail to apply for extension of the deadline

　　34. Businesses do not regard information concerning personal bank accounts as private because

　　A) its revelation will do no harm to consumers under the current protection policy

　　B) it is considered "transaction and experience" information unprotected by law

　　C) it has always been considered an open secret by the general public

　　D) its sale can be brought under control through self-regulation

　　35. We can infer from the passage that

　　A) banks will have to change their ways of doing business

　　B) privacy protection laws will soon be enforced

　　C) consumers' privacy will continue to be invaded

　　D) "free trial" practice will eventually be banned

　　Passage Four Questions 36 to 40 are based on the following passage.

　　It's hardly news that the immigration system is a mess. Foreign nationals have long been slipping across the border with fake papers, and visitors who arrive in the U.S. legitimately often overstay their legal welcome without being punished. But since Sept. 11, it's become clear that terrorists have been shrewdly factoring the weaknesses of our system into their plans. In addition to their mastery of forging passports, at least three of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers (劫机者) were here on expired visas.

　　That's been a safe bet until now. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) (移民归化局) lacks the resources, and apparently the inclination, to keep track of the estimated 2 million foreigners who have intentionally overstayed their welcome.But this laxness (马虎) toward immigration fraud may be about to change.

　　Congress has already taken some modest steps. The U.S.A. Patriot Act, passed in the wake of the Sept. 11 tragedy, requires the FBI, the Justice Department, the State Department and the INS to share more data, which will make it easier to stop watch-listed terrorists at the border.

　　But what's really needed, critics say, is even tougher laws and more resources aimed at tightening up border security. Reformers are calling for a rollback of rules that hinder law enforcement.They also want the INS to hire hundreds more border patrol agents and investigators to keep illegal immigrants out and to track them down once they're here. Reformers also want to see the INS set up a database to monitor whether visa holders actually leave the country when they are required to.

　　All these proposed changes were part of a new border-security bill that passed the House of Representatives but died in the Senate last week. Before Sept. 11, legislation of this kind had been blocked by two powerful lobbies: universities, which rely on tuition from foreign students who could be kept out by the new law, and business, which relies on foreigners for cheap labor.

　　Since the attacks, they've backed off. The bill would have passed this time but for congressional maneuverings and is expected to be reintroduced and to pass next year.Also on the agenda for next year: a proposal, backed by some influential law-makers, to split the INS into two agencies - a good cop that would tend to service functions like processing citizenship papers and a bad cop that would concentrate on border inspections, deportation and other functions.

　　One reason for the division, supporters say, is that the INS has in recent years become too focused on serving tourists and immigrants. After the Sept. l 1 tragedy, the INS should pay more attention to serving the millions of ordinary Americans who rely on the nation's border security to protect them from terrorist attacks.

　　36. Terrorists have obviously taken advantage of

　　A) the legal privileges granted to foreigners

　　B) the excessive hospitality of the American people

　　C) the irresponsibility of the officials at border checkpoints

　　D) the low efficiency of the Immigration and Naturalization Service

　　37. We learn from the passage that coordinated efforts will be made by various U.S. government agencies to

　　A) refuse the renewing of expired visas

　　B) ward off terrorist suspects at the border

　　C) prevent the forgery of immigration papers

　　D). limit the number Of immigrants to the U.S.

　　38. It can be inferred from the passage that before Sept. 11, aliens with expired visas

　　A) might have them extended without trouble

　　B) would be closely watched by FBI agents

　　C) might stay on for as long as [hey wished

　　D) would live in constant fear of deportation

　　39. It is believed by many that all these years the INS

　　A) has been serving two contradictory functions '

　　B) has been too liberal in granting visas to tourists and immigrants indiscriminately

　　C) has over-emphasized its service functions at the expense of the nation's security

　　D) has ignored the pleas of the two powerful lobbies

　　40. Before Sept. 11, the U.S. Congress had been unable to pass stricter immigration laws because

　　A) they might have kept away foreign students and cheap labor

　　B) it was difficult to coordinate the efforts of the congressmen

　　C) education and business circles cared little about national security

　　D) resources were not available for their enforcement