单项选择题

Google recently introduced a new service that adds social-networking features to its popular Gmail system. The service is called Buzz, and within hours of its release, people were howling about privacy issues—because, in its original form, Buzz showed everyone the list of people you e-mail most frequently. Even people who weren’t cheating on their spouses or secretly applying for new jobs found this a little unnerving.
Google backtracked and changed the software, and apologized for the misstep, claiming that, it just never occurred to us that people might get upset. "The public reaction was something we did not anticipate. But we’ve reacted very quickly to people’s unhappiness," says Bradley Horowitz, vice president for product management at Google.
Same goes for Facebook. In December, Facebook rolled out a new set of privacy settings. A spokesman says the move was intended to "empower people" by giving them more "granular (颗粒)" control over their personal information. But many viewed the changes as a sneaky attempt to push members to expose more information about themselves—partly because its default settings had lots of data, like your photo, city, gender, and information about your family and relationships, set up to be shared with everyone on the Internet. (Sure, you could change those settings, but it was still creepy.) Facebook’s spokesman says the open settings reflect "shifting social norms around privacy." Five years after Facebook was founded, he says, "we’ve noticed that people are not only sharing more information but also are becoming more comfortable about sharing more information with more people." Nevertheless, the changes prompted 10 consumer groups to file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission.
What’s happening is that our privacy has become a kind of currency. It’s what we use to pay for online services. Google charges nothing for Gmail; instead, it reads your e-mail and sends you advertisements based on keywords in your private messages.
The genius of Google, Facebook, and others is that they’ve created services that are so useful or entertaining that people will give up some privacy in order to use them. Now the trick is to get people to give up more—in effect, to keep raising the price of the service.
These companies will never stop trying to chip away at our information. Their entire business model is based on the notion of "monetizing" our privacy. To succeed they must slowly change the notion of privacy itself—the "social norm," as Facebook puts it—so that what we’re giving up doesn’t seem so valuable. Then they must gain our trust. Thus each new erosion of privacy comes delivered, paradoxically, with rhetoric (华丽的词藻)about how Company X really cares about privacy. I’m not sure whether Orwell would be appalled or impressed. And who knew Big Brother would be not a big government agency, but a bunch of kids in Silicon Valley
According to the passage, the ultimate goal of Google, Facebook and others is to ______.

A.upgrade their service to adapt to customers’ needs
B.ask customers to pay more for their service
C.provide more entertainments for online users
D.persuade users to give up rights on privacy
热门 试题

单项选择题
What does Caroline Brewer say about gun ownership A.It seems more important to women than to men. B.It requires strict gun training from law enforcement officers. C.It gives rise to more paranoid mentality in America. D.It puts more people in danger than expected.
A growing number of people—many of them women—are acquiring guns for self-protection, says Don Cates, a retired professor at the Saint Louis University School of Law who has studied the issue of gun control extensively.
Cares says increased interest from women is a significant factor. "Women used to be told that owning a gun is a man’s thing." Cates says. "That is not the case anymore because women are being told that they should be able to defend themselves."
The issue of gun rights has jumped back into the spotlight after two recent mass shootings—the July 20 assault on an Aurora. Colo., movie theater that killed 12 and Sunday’s attack on a Sikh temple in Wisconsin that left 7 dead, including the gunman.
To accommodate the increased number of students attending gun classes, the National Rifle Association has certified 5,000 additional instructors since April 2011, adding to the almost 150,000 instructors already working.
Greg Block, a law enforcement instructor for city, county, state and federal agencies, says he has noticed a "dramatic" increase in class attendance since 2008. He says he now instructs about 100 individuals per month.
Last November, Wisconsin became the 49th state to allow people to carry concealed weapons, leaving Illinois the only state to forbid the practice, says Bill Brassard. director of communications at the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
Caroline Brewer, spokeswoman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, says carrying guns in public endangers more lives than it saves.
"No matter how much gun training an average American might have, it pales in comparison to the rigorous gun training that we demand of law enforcement officers, and thousands of innocent Americans die every year because of the paranoid (偏执) mentality and lack of meaningful training," she says.
Patrick Egan, an assistant professor of politics at New York University, says the USA is actually at an all-time low for per-capita gun ownership. In the 1970s, one in two households had a gun; now it’s about one in three.
"Our attention is drawn to violence and gun ownership in the wake of these big shootings," he says. "But it shouldn’t lead us to lose sight of the fact that we’re also in a time when gun violence is at 40-year lows."
Massacres such as the ones in Colorado and Wisconsin "tend to be followed by a legitimate surge in fear of gun violence and a surge of interest in guns and gun safety—and probably gun ownership," Egan says. Such increases tend to disappear in the face of long-term gun-ownership trends.