Hypothetically speaking, IF it could work why would it work and in what ways do u it would work best? Give me some reasons and examples.
2007-10-26 08:20:30 · 9 answers · asked by melissa 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Civic Participation
Telephone or internet communication for example. If the FBI can secretly tap into a conversation or dialogue and glean facts about an upcoming terrorist attack, then they can act on preventing it.
However, if the FBI must get a warrant or has other legal obstacles to such a wiretap, they might miss out on important information.
It's really that simple.
2007-10-26 08:29:33 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
http://www.truthnews.us/?p=498
ay, October 26, 2007
A new bill that recently passed the House and is headed for Senate approval has online activists worried that the vague definitions used for defining the Internet’s contribution to radicalization of potential terrorists could lead to a government crackdown on talk radio, free speech and the 9/11 truth movement.
2007-10-26 13:35:23 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hypothetically indeed. You've lost no rights to privacy because of the war on terror or any of the statutes which have passed in reaction to the attack on America.
But, surveillance and the gathering of intelligence are key elements in preventing future attacks. Closed circuit TV cameras in public places and on public thoroughfares do not invade one's privacy because there is no implied right to privacy in those settings. Carrying out electronic surveillance to ascertain whether someone is engaging in activities meant to bring about a new attack is not an invasion of privacy because cellular phone technology is tantamount to broadcasting on a radio. The internet is merely a computerized cyber version of that.
When the unexpected knock comes on your door after dark and a police official is standing on the other side demanding that you open that door in the absence of a warrant, then you have to worry about invasion of privacy and undue application of internal security measures. Until then, there is no concern.
2007-10-26 09:48:27 · answer #3 · answered by desertviking_00 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
do you mean like all the cameras that are going up now ...where i live they are, adn supposedly it is for national security..which it has some good sides, but then again has some bad. its another way for the government to be in total control and really, yes, invade our privacy.Plus, what if there are perverts that are watching the cams(which this has happened), basically we are trusting that everyone behind those cams are good guys..kinda a scary thought:( but then again, what if someone you loved went missing, and they were able to track down the something on camera.. or a terrorist could perhaps be caught this way
2007-10-26 08:30:48 · answer #4 · answered by blakesgal 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Airport risk-free practices is a competent occasion. We enable ourselves to be searched with no warrant, or lifelike reason, simply by fact it makes specific that noone is bringing weapons directly to airplane. We additionally enable the federal government some leeway on eavesdropping on inner maximum conversations as a manner to earnings preknowledge of accessible terrorist assaults. the actual difficulty is that the 9/11 assaults have been performed in spite of airport risk-free practices, for in basic terms one occasion and permitting our rights to be suspended surely makes terrorism rather greater effectual. In different words, terrorists have controlled to create terror.
2016-10-14 03:05:40 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It cannot if the terrorism is AL-QAIDA based. Al-Qaida purports to believe in Allah which means no one can arrest Allah physically or even find Allah. The only thing a person could do is convict Allah as a pretext fot attacks and warfare.Same with God.
2007-10-26 14:20:47 · answer #6 · answered by darren m 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I can only IMAGINE how taking off my shoes, dumping out my perfectly good coffee and otherwise surrending my privacy has made our airports safer. GIVE ME A BREAK!!
I agree that we need security but some of these bozos who work this job are little more than power hungry individuals.
In the past, how did we ever manage to maintain our privacy AND prevent terrorism?
The focus has once again been shifted from the perpetrators of terrorism to its victims. Will this maddening cycle ever stop?????????????
2007-10-26 08:41:14 · answer #7 · answered by Barbara A 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Sorry, you'll have to provide some specifics about what you mean.
2007-10-26 09:45:00 · answer #8 · answered by Mark A 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What rights have we given up? I am not aware of any.
2007-10-26 08:25:00 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋