Should the government be able to spy into your private life?

Answer 1

Not without a warrant

Answer 2

No, they shouldn't. But I'm curious to know what you consider 'spying'. If you use certain services (such as the internet)-then there is a possiblilty of government spying...but in general, if you are an American citizen-you have a right to privacy. If you are in the States on visa-you should still have a general right to privacy, but perhaps not to the extent of citizens...and the extent, in my opinion, could be measured by which region from which you are visiting. It's not fair and it sucks, but certain regions do pose more of a threat through 'visitors' (though they are few and far between) than others and we should recognize that.

So that's my 2 cents (or 3 or 4...)

Answer 3

If they have a warrant, then yes.

If you are a suspect in a crime or are a suspected terrorist, and a judge reviews the probable cause, then you can consider your privacy suspended until you are cleared of the charges.

How else would you capture mass murderers or rapists or drug smugglers or mobsters or terrorists? Wait until they strike again, and then do nothing?

If you seriously don't understand how a free society goes about capturing criminals, then go to China or Iran, where they just kill you if you start to pose a threat or speak out against them.

No one said this system is perfect. But as long as people are corrupt and commit crimes, there will never be such a thing as a perfect system. Just be glad the people who are spying on you (if they have reason to) are your fellow american patriots, who are looking out for your safety so that you won't die from a suitcase nuclear weapon, or get raped by a serial rapist, or slain by the mob.

Answer 4

Sorry to say, FREEDOM ISNT FREE.

A society exists because individuals want protection from things they cant have alone. For that to occur, some freedoms need to be violated. For our safety, it needs to be done.

Whether or not this spying should be permanant is another question. I think that in time of crisis, we do have to sacrifice some freedoms but it shouldnt be a permanant thing (ie, bush trying to make it a permanant law)

Side note: why are ppl so negative about the government instead of adding constructive criticism. 1. their education, the highway, the money that goes around, the cops that protect the streets shouldnt be taken for granted. 2nd, the fact that you're allowed to speak on the internet is freedom is speech. Just try logging on Chinese internet and search up how to make a bomb, ud be arrested in a second.

So unless you have something constructive to say about the government/country that you live in, dont speak. Meaningless name calling the country doesn't do anything.

Answer 5

I prefer to look at it this way: Should the government be able to spy into a *terrorist's* private life? We're probably--hopefully--agreed that it should. Since the government has no terrorist crystal ball, they need to be able to look into *anyone's* communications, to determine which of us might be terrorists.

How else would they know? I could be plotting a terrorist act right now, for all anyone knows. But unless I intend to go it alone, and I have no superior to answer to, I'll need to be in touch with other terrorists. Since timing is critical, I doubt I'll be using the Postal Service, or a private courier -- hence, electronic communication.

For the record, I'm an American, and I assume the questioner is, also. But the issue is applicable anywhere.

It's easy to take the "democratic" or "popular" view on this subject; it would win me plenty of pats on the back. But integrity forbids saying something just to get the approval of the masses. In my mind, the *survival* of the masses should come ahead of that -- or of any perceived loss of freedom or privacy.

Let's be real...I'm not in love with the idea of my phone calls or e-mails being monitored. Nor am I in love with this president -- as he may know, from my e-mails! I value my privacy very much. But I will gladly trade any minimal and controlled breach of that privacy for my safety... under whomever is president.

I may have answered differently ten years ago. But the world has changed in that time. There are serious lunatics out there, equipped with terror weapons and resources they didn't have, once. Lunatics whose communications can and do help reveal their plots, a la the recent arrests in London. If "spying" or monitoring domestic communications helps keep me safe from these very dangerous people, I'm for it.

And I really can't imagine what I have to fear from the government more than I do from people who have the means and motive to kill me and my loved ones. Based on some of my e-mails, IMs, and phone calls, they may think I'm a little weird, but I have nothing to hide. Nor have I felt or experienced any loss of liberty. (You can bet, if I do, that I will join the protests.)

But there's no question that we could (I'm not a fear monger, but a realist) face unspeakable devastation at the hands of just one or two terrorists with a small nuclear weapon, or biochemical agent. *That* is loss of liberty, and life, and lifestyle... I believe there's a better chance of preventing that with government monitoring.

In a perfect world -- or at least a safer one, such as the one in which Benjamin Franklin lived (and could make his famous quote about freedom) -- I would err on the side of freedom if even the *idea* of government invasion suggested it could be lost at some future point. But it is not that world, anymore. Nor does anyone have proof that there would be succeeding steps of lost privacy or freedoms once we give up one. If it did happen, we would have as much right and power as we do now, to say, "no... this is where I draw the line."

I'm afraid many people want and expect the benefits of government--including protection--but are unwilling to lift a finger to do their part. As an example of the short-sightedness some citizens have -- look at airport security. It was super tight after 9/11. Several months ago I read something about some sharp object -- scissors, maybe, or clippers -- possibly being allowed on flights again. I'm not saying they shouldn't be -- but can't people see the stupidity of this situation?? If it was a good idea before, why has it ceased to be one?? Just because there hasn't been an attack in a few years?? That's just the kind of short-term memory the terrorists laugh at, I'm sure. All they have to do is sit back and wait for a public that slowly forgets the resolve and anger they felt, until they lower their defenses -- then the terrorists will strike again.

Whose privacy is being protected by a ruling that warrantless wiretapping is illegal? Yours and mine? OK, maybe. The terrorists'? Certainly. Aren't we kind, to give them that?

I have listened, intently, to both sides of this debate, and will continue to do so. I've heard good arguments on both sides, and have given it a lot of thought... more than some people have, who have quick and easy answers.

Maybe the judge, in the recent ruling about this, is right. Maybe it is unconstitutional.

And maybe the constitution needs an amendment, because I imagine the ruling is making the terrorists quite happy with the freedoms *they're* being granted.

Answer 6

Personally, I think not. But if it TRUTHFULLY is in the interest of reducing one freedom to protect more freedoms and freedoms of others I suppose it's ok. There really is a VERY VERY fine line between this. I like my privacy and independance but we all know that that allows for violence. Violence on such a scale where one person could kill thousands. I'm not really sure how I feel on the matter. Maybe I'm moderate on it. No idea. I understand both sides.

Answer 7

The government is not "spying into your life"!
They really don't care about you, your stupid love life, if you have cheated on someone or if you are republican or democrat. They really don't have time to think about the most people
Now, if you are talking to people in Saudi Arabia on a regular basis, cheating on your income tax, making bombs in your basement, or cooking meth or stockpiling plutonium, it's a very different story.
Get real people!

Answer 8

Anyone see the last episode of Star Wars?

"So that is how Liberty dies, with thunderous applause"

My answer is no. But some people are openly willing to give up their freedoms for the false sense of security. Patrick Henry had it right in 1775, 'Give me liberty or give me death'.

Answer 9

what do you mean should ,
they have been doing that for 30 years already .
everything you say anywhere on the internet is also available to them
and yahoo answers is a giant information and profile building machine,both for the Government and for market research
so its is a little late considdering all that.

Answer 10

Absolutely not. We are either a free people, or we are owned by the government.
Whether anyone has anything 'to hide' or not is NOT the point. We as citizen are owed the respect of our servants, the govt employees. WE pay their outrageous salaries, and for them to take advantage by abusing our privacy it totally unacceptable.
Anyone behaving in that manner should be immediately and summarily fired!!! And I don't care whether he conned or paid his way into the job of President.

Answer 11

No, no and NO!
Of course freedom isn't free. But that's still one of the dumbest statements I've ever heard. We pay the price of freedom by having to listen to stupid, meaningless dreck like "Freedom isn't free", "America, love it or leave it" and "My country, right or wrong".
This country came into being because people wanted to be left alone, to practice their own religion, live their lives the way they choose and even to make mistakes.
Stay out of the BUSHES!