should eavesdropping be allowed under prevailing circumstances ?

Answer 1

" If you have nothing to hide, you will have nothing to fear from the Gestapo." Hermann Glockenstein 1936

Answer 2

No. The hallmark of American jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence absent compelling evidence otherwise. Current circumstances are in fact nowhere nearly as compelling a threat to security as have been past circumstances, and even then, eavesdropping was permitted only when the authorities possesed clear evidence of that threat.

Do you want government going snooping through every aspect of your life, from your financial records to your health records to your business records? Shall we investigate with whom you've ever had a romantic relationship and then tell your pastor, your spouse and all your neighbors as well? Everyone has his dark little secret, what's yours?

And if you give up all rights to privacy in hopes of security, you'll have no privacy nor security, and so craven a response deserves niether. Life entails risk. Life thrives on risk.

The right to be let alone is what makes America unique in all history. It is also what makes us so strong, individually and collectively. The h e l l with unfettered domestic spying! When that is accepted, there no longer is an America worth fighting for.

Answer 3

the govt has provisions for quickly getting court orders based on evidence to eavesdrop. there is no reason for the govt to committ the crime of just eavesdropping on everyone.

it's quite possible that the media has been so complicit in bush's crimes because prominent people in the media have been blackmailed by what was learned from illegal wiretapping.

remember, ben franklin said that anyone who would give up liberty for security would have neither and deserve neither.

Answer 4

Of course eavesdropping should be allowed.

Let me ask all of you who replied, "No", one simple question:

If the city or town that you live in was decimated by a terrorist bombing and one of your loved ones died, wouldn't you have been happier to have had our government eavesdropping on that terrorist plot and have thwarted it?

Think about that, while I beat the rap.

Answer 5

A grown guy can use the interest "cute" if he's gay or if he's the two speaking some new child under the age of 6 or something that new child under the age of 6 did or he's speaking some dogs, cat, pup or kitten.

Answer 6

no!!! there is never a circumstance that should allow invasion of ones privacy...they did wire tapping during hoover...remember?
because they thought we were being invaded by nazi's...
dont give in to government stupidity..when you take away our right to privacy whats next? a mothers right to abort?
we're gettin outta hand with these conspiracy laws...quit giving up rights our fore fathers fought & died for

Answer 7

yes. they should. if you need to eaves drop to save a life or protect something then yes eavesdroping is ok as long as u don't get caught.

Answer 8

Well...That question is really hard to answer without knowing what kind of circumstances.

In the workforce it is ALLOWED if you sign a policy

Answer 9

in Russia or U.S.S.A.? of coarse if it's to save lives,not the context that some consider dying it might be apropriate,technicaly the U.S. is at war and i don't know the rights of civilians against soldiers,but wisdom is justified by all her children

Answer 10

Benjamin Franklin answered that question long ago.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"