- Understanding the Human Mind Is Everything: 9 Super Effective Email Marketing Strategies You Can Start Using Right Now
- Three common mistakes you can make when installing a home theatre
- Revamp Your FOH: The 6 Best Restaurant Reservation Systems
- Google Hummingbird – What you need to know
- The Battle of the games is on for Festive Top Spot
It is inevitable, but Modern Technologies have made it easier in a lot of ways for Law enforcement to do their job. We can now catch mobile phone thieves [for example] by tracking down individuals to a precise location and we now have the ability to intercept conversations, which are then filtered by intelligence systems and personnel. This level of security is often scrutinised as individuals can feel that their privacy can at times feel compromised. However at the same time it has never been more important for security measures to widen their intelligence effort with the nature of threats available such as that of terrorism
Tracking technologies allow us to recover laptops and unmask that nuisance caller, but from a legal perspective, it is often worth thinking about and weighing up privacy and security.
Individuals are entitled to a private and family life constitutionally, and the freedom and liberty of the person are enshrined values. Natural Law holds this to be true. However, governments also have a responsibility to protect their people from harm. In instances this is the primary function of most governments and authorities would be expected to take measures to keep their populations safe.
There lies a very interesting dilemma. Do authorities sacrifice some individual freedom and privacy for the security gains of stopping more crimes?
Legal experts have been fascinated with this issue, especially with the revelations about the Prism surveillance program and the ultimate fate of whistle-blower Edward Snowden still to be determined, it looks like the issue may remain at the forefront of legal discussion for some time to come.
The reality is that both Privacy and Security are legitimate aims for lawmakers to pursue. But this does not mean that the decision as to when and how to trade one for the other is an enviable one.