2. 外语
  3. When we worry about who might be spying on our private lives, we usually think about the Federal agents. But the private sector

When we worry about who might be spying on our private lives, we usually think about the Federal agents. But the private sector

admin2017-02-01  6
问题     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 firms.
    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, phone 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 revenues.
    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. The company denies 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 firms. They’ve generally agreed not to sell to the public. But to businesses, the numbers are an open book. Self-regulation 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.
We know from the passage that _____.
选项 A、legislators are acting to pass a law to provide better privacy protection
B、most states are turning a blind eye to the deceptive practices of private businesses
C、the state of Minnesota is considering drawing up laws to protect private information
D、lawmakers are inclined to give a free hand to businesses to inquire into customers’ buying habits
答案D
解析 第2段最后一句讲到，立法者实际上倾向于让商人随心所欲地跟踪我们的消费习惯，选项D是该句子的同义转述。文中仅提到consumer activists给国会施压，以出台保护隐私的法律，但迄今仍没有结果，A表述与原文不符；B所说的“很多州视而不见”与原文不符，第3段就讲到明尼苏达州指控U．S．Bancorp对消费者的欺骗行为；C项文中未提及。
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/27mFFFFM
0

大学英语六级

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)