This is the VOA Special English Technology Report.
这里是美国之音慢速英语科技报道。
The satellite-based Global Positioning System is a great way to locate places -- or people. But, last week the United States Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement officials must get approval from a judge before placing a GPS device on a vehicle.
基于卫星的全球定位系统（GPS）是寻找某个地点或人物的一种绝佳办法。但上周美国最高法院裁定，执法人员在车辆上安置GPS设备前必须获得法官批准。
The case involved a suspected drug dealer in Washington. Police put a GPS device on his car and tracked his movements for almost a month. That led them to a house with nearly one hundred kilograms of cocaine and eight hundred fifty thousand dollars in cash.
该案件涉及了一位毒贩嫌疑人。警方在他汽车上安放GPS设备对他进行了近一个月的跟踪。这把他们带到了一所藏有近百公斤可卡因和85万美元现金的房子。
Antoine Jones was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison. He appealed his case all the way to the Supreme Court.
安托万·琼斯（Antoine Jones）被认定有罪并判处终身监禁。他一直上诉到了美国最高法院。
Law professor Christopher Slobogin at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, takes the story from there.
田纳西州纳什维尔市范德堡大学（Vanderbilt University）的法学教授克里斯托弗·斯洛博金（Christopher Slobogin）讲述了这一故事。
CHRISTOPHER SLOBOGIN: "Mr. Jones' argued that evidence was obtained illegally because the police did not have a warrant. And his argument was in essence that use of the tracking device was an unconstitutional search under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which provides that the government may not engage in unreasonable searches and seizures. Mr. Jones claimed that the absence of a warrant made this search unreasonable."
斯洛博金：“琼斯先生辩称那些证据是非法取得的，因为警方并没获得搜查令。他的理由大体上是，根据美国宪法第四修正案规定，政府不得从事不合理的搜查和扣押，所以使用跟踪设备是违法宪法的搜查行为。琼斯先生声称，缺少搜查令使得这次搜查不合法。”
And, says Professor Slobogin, the high court agreed.
斯洛博金表示，最高法院对此表示认可。
CHRISTOPHER SLOBOGIN: "All nine members of the court, conservative members as well as liberal members, decided that the Fourth Amendment was violated in this case."
斯洛博金：“法院所有9位成员，包括保守派成员与自由派成员认定该案件侵犯了第四修正案。”
But the ruling only dealt with the physical act of placing the GPS device on the vehicle and tracking Mr. Jones. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion. Justice Scalia said the case did not require the court to decide if electronic monitoring without trespassing onto someone's property is also a violation of privacy.
但判决只针对放置GPS设备跟踪琼斯先生的这一实际行动。安东宁·斯卡利亚（Antonin Scalia）撰写了主要观点。斯卡利亚表示，这一案件并不需要法院裁决在不侵入他人财产的情况下进行电子监控是否也是侵犯隐私。
Law professor Renee Hutchins at the University of Maryland says that is a big question that remains to be answered. We spoke with her on Skype.
马里兰大学法学教授蕾妮··哈钦斯（Renee Hutchins）称这是一个有待解决的大问题。我们在skype上与她进行了对话。
RENEE HUTCHINS: "Most people have smartphones. A lot of people have cars that have GPS pre-installed. So the government doesn't have to do the installation. The installation, which was the hook for Justice Scalia, is already accomplished. We do it voluntarily."
哈钦斯：“大多数人都有智能手机，很多人的汽车也预装了GPS，所以政府并不需要安装。斯卡利亚法官认为安装行为是个陷阱。但我们自愿安装了它。”
Justice Sonya Sotomayor suggested that modern technology may soon force us to reconsider expectations of privacy. Professor Hutchins explains.
索尼娅·索托马约尔（Sonya Sotomayor）法官认为现代科技可能很快迫使我们重新考虑对隐私的预期。哈钦斯教授对此做出了解释。
RENEE HUTCHINS: "Justice Sotomayor, actually in talking about the modern society that we live in, said, you know, we really have to perhaps rethink what it means for things to be private in a world where we voluntarily give up so much information. In a world where there's Facebook and GPS on your cell phone and GPS in your car, how should the court be thinking about constitutional protections in a world like that?"
哈钦斯：“索托马约尔法官实质上是在说我们生活的现代社会。也许我们真的必须重新考虑，在我们自愿放弃如此多信息的这样一个世界里隐私到底意味着什么。在这样一个世界里，你手机上有Facebook和GPS，你车上有GPS，法院该如何思考像这种世界里的宪法保护？”
Four other justices, led by Samuel Alito, questioned the wisdom of limiting the ruling only to a trespass of private property. They said the more important issue is the use of GPS for the purpose of long-term tracking.
以塞缪尔·阿利托为首的另外四名法官质疑将该裁决仅限制于侵犯私有财产的情况下是否足够聪明。他们表示，更重要的是将GPS用于长期跟踪的这一争端。
(51VOA.COM对本文翻译享有全部权利，未经授权请勿转载，违者必究！)