2006-09-24 06:20:28 · 8 answers · asked by The internal demon 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Good point. I think it has never been effective (enough)
2006-09-24 06:21:31 · answer #1 · answered by Avatar13 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Apparently you are not aware of the Soviet regime with the various spy mechanisms. It was effective, as well as the German system. The Chinese used a different method and it was like the Germans where sons and daughters reported on back-sliding by parents or relatives. In China, it successfully stopped black-marketeering, and corruption. So how can you say that it is not effective technique. The CIA , NSA and the FBI use domestic spying to pry into your communications but now most communications are electronic and therefore more easily monitored.
2006-09-24 06:31:31 · answer #2 · answered by Frank 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
the problem with domestic spying is the government lets a little more info out every day .god only knows how far domestic spying really is !!
2006-09-24 06:25:01 · answer #3 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I worked fine in both of those countries. They caught a lot of people who were hostile towards the government.
The question is whether it's ethically correct and whether it can be justified with National Security. I'm sure you wouldn't mind if Osama's phone is being tapped.
2006-09-24 06:24:31 · answer #4 · answered by Ivan 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It worked quite effectively in former communist countries so not sure where you picked up your information. Secondly, in which way has your little life changed since our government began measures to protect us? Exactly, it hasn't changed one bit. So turn off CNN, tune out Hillary, and open your brain alittle.
2006-09-24 06:24:32 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Who is doing any domestic spying? You are being deceived by the liberal media.
2006-09-24 06:22:28 · answer #6 · answered by Random Precision 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
How do you know it didn't. Their gulags are/were kept alfully full.
Welcome to your new home state, the state of stupid.
2006-09-24 06:23:02 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
uh, it was an is.
2006-09-24 06:22:48 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋