Try the political quiz
+

Filter by author

Narrow down the conversation to these participants:

Political party:

60 Replies

 @9TCC7H2answered…4mos4MO

Yes, as long as they use it to keep people safe. not take away freedoms, or use it as a form of control people.

 @9ZT3VDNLiberalanswered…1mo1MO

Yes, but only through the Australian Signals Directorate and ADF, in dire cases of National Security due to terrorism.

 @9GGG49ZGreenanswered…1yr1Y

Yes, but only to the extent that the individual expresses fanatical tendencies. Terrorism is it often used as excuse to increase surveillance.

 @94952CLanswered…2yrs2Y

they should monitor possible terrorist threats as the person or persons could be a threat to national security

 @93FDTV9answered…3yrs3Y

Only if they are a wanted criminal and the phone call could help the arrest of other people

 @9354PC9Greenanswered…3yrs3Y

Only under extreme circumstances where there is extensive evidence suggesting malicious intent through a previous action

 @934V78CCentre Allianceanswered…3yrs3Y

No, and enact legislation preventing government surveillance of citizen communications unless they are convicted of serious crimes.

 @92WKVQKanswered…3yrs3Y

 @92VKWTVanswered…3yrs3Y

 @92TRHJRanswered…3yrs3Y

No, government surveillance of general citizen communication is outrageous. However, if it is court ordered it should be allowed.

 @92RDLCBanswered…3yrs3Y

Yes, for previous reasons, however, the monitoring should be conducted with well trained and precise AI relevant for 1) Suicide Prevention and anti-bullying 2) Counter Terrorism 3) Corruption

 @92GK5YQanswered…3yrs3Y

Yes, but they should only be able to be used in court if a warrant has been obtained.

 @929WK6Vanswered…3yrs3Y

Only for suspected terrorists and terrorist activity or serious criminal activity, but not for everyday citizens.

 @8ZPJRZJLaboranswered…3yrs3Y

No, this feels like an invasion of privacy to a civilian but should only be used for intelligence purposes

 @8ZK9WHSAustralian Christiansanswered…3yrs3Y

Yes, but only under specific and strict circumstances for the protection of others.

 @8ZF9MT4answered…3yrs3Y

Only for those being investigated for crimes/ or those with criminal backgrounds

 @8Z56F7Ranswered…3yrs3Y

Yes, but there must be laws and boundaries to it. Such as only via a court order or if it is strongly believed and can be backed up that the person/s being monitored are a threat in some way.

 @8YMHRYNLaboranswered…3yrs3Y

Yes, but only for certain individuals who need to be kept at bay (Corrupt Politicians, Criminals etc.)

 @8YKD4S8Liberalanswered…3yrs3Y

Yes, but strictly in a prevention of terrorism situation with legal oversight

 @8Y7BS49answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, but only by court order if the court is held accountable by penalty for a misjudgement if the order application is proved fraudulent as has happened in the US with the corrupted FISA court.
To give up personal liberties we need insurance against malfeasance by corrupted security services.

 @PatWavesHelloLaboranswered…3yrs3Y

No, and enact legislation preventing government surveillance of citizen communications, unless reasonably ordered by a court

 @8TK8FQQanswered…3yrs3Y

 @8LLKYV2Greenanswered…4yrs4Y

Only if necessary, such as monitoring suspected/ known terrorist network, criminals etc.

 @99Q35JZanswered…2yrs2Y

 @99JJJ2Ganswered…2yrs2Y

Yes, but only for those with suspicion of or known to be committing a criminal act.

 @92SPHG9answered…3yrs3Y

Only when suspicious of terrorism or criminal activity and the invasion of privacy is for the greater good. Monitoring of the average citizen is inappropriate.

 @8WKLGFRGreenanswered…3yrs3Y

Yes, under strict legalisation for court orders only to be used when absolutely necessary

 @9CH93R9Greenanswered…2yrs2Y

It depends on the circumstances and being allowed to do this could lead to issues if the government has ill intentions. However, the reasoning behind it is decent enough and therefore it is understandable as to why they wish to monitor phone calls and emails however it could be abused easily. So tl;dr, its a 'yes'.

 @93423QJanswered…3yrs3Y

Yes, but only with sound intelligence of a current threat or attack in order to achieve actionable prevention

 @933Q8KLanswered…3yrs3Y

No, and enact legislation preventing government surveillance of citizen communications, unless it is by court order.

 @MoraleKilleranswered…3yrs3Y

Yes, But only by court order and the person undergoing surveillance must be notified

 @8G3TXHVanswered…4yrs4Y

Yes, but only if there is reasonable belief that there is a risk to public health and safety.

 @ISIDEWITHasked…1yr1Y

Does the thought of being watched or listened to by someone you don't know make you uncomfortable, and why?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…1yr1Y

If your safety was at stake, would you be willing to give up some privacy, and where do you draw the line?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…1yr1Y

Imagine your life as an open book; how would that change the way you communicate online?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…1yr1Y

What would you do if you found out your personal messages were being monitored to prevent potential crimes?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…1yr1Y

Would you accept more government surveillance if it significantly decreased acts of terror?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…1yr1Y

How does the possibility of having your digital footprint monitored affect your sense of freedom and trust in the government?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…1yr1Y

In a digital age filled with threats, should privacy still be considered an unalienable right?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…1yr1Y

Have you ever felt like your privacy was compromised, and if so, what should be the limits of that invasion?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…1yr1Y

How would you feel if your personal conversations were listened to without your consent for national security?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…1yr1Y

When, if ever, do you believe the benefits of surveillance outweigh the right to privacy?

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...