In 2014 the Australian government passed the National Security Amendment bill which granted new surveillance powers to Australia's spy agency, ASIO. Under the legislation, which passed the lower house with support from the main opposition Labor Party, anyone disclosing information about "special intelligence operations" could face a decade in prison.
Only for legal reasons such as looking for evidence
Yes, but only to the extent that the individual expresses fanatical tendencies. Terrorism is it often used as excuse to increase surveillance.
@9DF9CQ6One Nation8mos8MO
Depends if they are suspicious of any major crimes
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'.
@93423QJ2yrs2Y
Yes, but only with sound intelligence of a current threat or attack in order to achieve actionable prevention
@933Q8KL2yrs2Y
No, and enact legislation preventing government surveillance of citizen communications, unless it is by court order.
@MoraleKiller2yrs2Y
Yes, But only by court order and the person undergoing surveillance must be notified
@92WKVQK2yrs2Y
Only by court order and for those with criminal backgrounds
@92VKWTV2yrs2Y
Only by court order or people who have as criminal background
@92JVW8V2yrs2Y
Yes, but act only in case of finding a crime
@92GK5YQ2yrs2Y
Yes, but they should only be able to be used in court if a warrant has been obtained.
@8XXWG5FUnited Australia2yrs2Y
Yes, but only by court order and/or during wartime.
@PatWavesHelloLabor3yrs3Y
No, and enact legislation preventing government surveillance of citizen communications, unless reasonably ordered by a court
@99Q35JZ1yr1Y
No. I believe everyone needs privacy especially from the government.
@99JJJ2G1yr1Y
Yes, but only for those with suspicion of or known to be committing a criminal act.
Yes, only if it is necessary to combat terrorism
@96246FF2yrs2Y
Yes if there is a very good reason to be
@94952CL2yrs2Y
they should monitor possible terrorist threats as the person or persons could be a threat to national security
@93FDTV92yrs2Y
Only if they are a wanted criminal and the phone call could help the arrest of other people
Only under extreme circumstances where there is extensive evidence suggesting malicious intent through a previous action
@934V78CCentre Alliance2yrs2Y
No, and enact legislation preventing government surveillance of citizen communications unless they are convicted of serious crimes.
@92TRHJR2yrs2Y
No, government surveillance of general citizen communication is outrageous. However, if it is court ordered it should be allowed.
@92SPHG92yrs2Y
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.
@92RDLCB2yrs2Y
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
@92BKBGS2yrs2Y
Yes. By court order or to combat terrorism
@929WK6V2yrs2Y
Only for suspected terrorists and terrorist activity or serious criminal activity, but not for everyday citizens.
@8ZPYQRT2yrs2Y
No you don't wanna see what i search
No, this feels like an invasion of privacy to a civilian but should only be used for intelligence purposes
Yes, but only under specific and strict circumstances for the protection of others.
No unless it is relating to combatting terrorism
@8ZF9MT42yrs2Y
Only for those being investigated for crimes/ or those with criminal backgrounds
@8Z56F7R2yrs2Y
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.
yes but only if it is something threatening the country
Yes, but only for certain individuals who need to be kept at bay (Corrupt Politicians, Criminals etc.)
Yes, but strictly in a prevention of terrorism situation with legal oversight
@8Y7BS492yrs2Y
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.
@8FL8DQF4yrs4Y
Yes, this is necessary to ensure our national security
@8TK8FQQ3yrs3Y
Yes, but only to prevent terrorism and crimes against the government
@8THSFT73yrs3Y
Yes but Only if suspected of serious crimes
@8TB8X9C3yrs3Y
Only when a warrant is granted.
Only if necessary, such as monitoring suspected/ known terrorist network, criminals etc.
Yes if someone is in danger and is a preventative measure.
No but they already do.
Yes, under strict legalisation for court orders only to be used when absolutely necessary
@8G3TXHV4yrs4Y
Yes, but only if there is reasonable belief that there is a risk to public health and safety.
@ISIDEWITH5mos5MO
@ISIDEWITH5mos5MO
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
