Just how much does the Constitution protect your digital data? The Supreme Court will now consider whether police can search the contents of a mobile phone without a warrant(执行令)if the phone is on or around a person during an arrest.

California has asked the justices to restore the practice that the police may search through the possessions of suspects at the time of their arrest. It is hard, the state argues, for judges to assess the implications of new and rapidly changing technologies.

The court would be careless if it followed California's advice. Enough of the implications are recognizable, even obvious, so that the justice can and should provide updated guidelines to police, lawyers and defendants.

They should start by casting away California's lame argument that exploring the contents of a smartphone-- a vast storehouse of digital information is similar to say, going through a suspect's purse .The court has ruled that police don't violate the Fourth Amendment when they go through the wallet or pocketbook, of an arrestee without a warrant. But exploring one's smartphone is more like entering his or her home. A smartphone may contain an arrestee's reading history, financial history, medical history and comprehensive records of recent correspondence. The development of “cloud computing,” meanwhile, has made that exploration so much the easier.

Americans should take steps to protect their digital privacy. But keeping sensitive information on these devices is increasingly a requirement of normal life. Citizens still have a right to expect private documents to remain private and protected by the Constitution’s prohibition on unreasonable searches.

As so often is the case, stating that principle doesn’t ease the challenge of line-drawing. In many cases, it would not be very difficult for authorities to obtain a warrant to search through phone contents. They could still ignore Fourth Amendment protections when facing severe, urgent circumstances, and they could take reasonable measures to ensure that phone data are not erased or altered while a warrant is pending. The court, though, may want to allow room for police to cite situations where they are entitled to more freedom.

But the justices should not swallow California's argument whole. New, destructive technology sometimes demands novel applications of the Constitution's protections. Orin Kerr, a law professor, compares the explosion and accessibility of digital information in the 21st century with the establishment of automobile use as a virtual necessity of life in the 20th: The justices had to specify novel rules for the new personal domain of cars; similarly, they must sort out how the Fourth Amendment applies to digital information now.

To answer a suit(诉讼)against its “no outside food and drink ”policy, Shanghai Disneyland said on Monday that the policy is similar to that of many other theme parks across China and that guests are welcome to enjoy their own food and drink outside the park.

The suit was brought by a law school student in Shanghai. She was told by park workers to either throw away the snacks she had brought in her backpack or finish them. In order to get into the park, she gave up the snacks, which were worth 46.3 yuan. What’s more, she failed to call the police and the municipal(市政的)official complaint hotlines.

The student, surnamed Wang, was a junior from East China University of Political Science and Law. She made the trip to the park in late January and brought the case(案件)to the People’s Court(法院)of Pudong New Area where the theme park is located. She called for the park’s rule to be changed and for the park to pay for her loss. The case was heard on April 23 and the decision is pending(待定).

Since a number of Chinese media reported the case over the weekend, the case has caused lots of discussions. They wonder whether it is reasonable for the world’s second largest Walt Disney park not to allow visitors to bring their own food. Most agree that the food and drinks sold in the park are too expensive, making the purpose of making money behind the policy appear too proud.

This is not the first time that Shanghai Disneyland has got sued(起诉)over the policy. In June 2018, a lawyer from Suzhou, Jiangsu Province, tried to take the theme park to court by the same reason. But the court turned down his appeal.

A Samoan airline says that it is the world’s first carrier to charge passengers by their weight. Samoa Air, which opened in 2012, asks passengers to give their personal weight during booking, which is then charged according to the length of a flight. The customers will also be weighed just before they board the plane.

"It is believed that all people throughout the world are the same size," Samoa Air CEO Chris Langton said. "Airplanes always run on weight, not seats."

"There is no doubt in my mind that this is the concept of the future. This is the fairest way of your travelling with your family or yourself."

Though the airline introduced the plan last November, it caught people's attention last week when the carrier began international flights to neighboring American Samoa.

Almost at the same time, a Norwegian economist, Bharat Bhatta, published a report suggesting that airlines should charge obese passengers more.

The Pacific Islands contain some of the world’s most common countries for obesity, many ranking in the top 10, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). Samoa is ranked number four, with 59.6 percent of the population considered obese, said the most recent WHO report.

According to Samoa Air's latest schedule, the airline charges up to $0.57 per kg for flights in Samoa and $1.03 per kg for its only international flight to American Samoa, around 250 miles.

Children under 12 are charged 75 percent of the adult rate, with fares also based on weight. Any overweight baggage is calculated at the same rate as the passenger's personal weight.

The plan could actually prove cheaper in some cases, such as for families travelling with small children, and Langton said customer reaction has mainly been "amazingly positive".

The idea of charging passengers by weight has been hotly discussed before, and in the US some airlines require those who do not fit into a seat comfortably to buy a second seat.