Most of the worlds leading historians and political analysts agree that western society faces an eminent threat of terrorism . Is wiretapping an immoral way to deal with that problem, even following the recent attempts to terrorize the UK?
Every dilettante knows this : free soceities ensure certain freedoms for their citizens and sometimes those freedoms clash.
In the post-9/11/7/7 world and in a world that faces the dangers of murderous terrorism daily , we must rely on the authorities to deal with this threat that we, ordinary civilians, have no daily impact on and no real ability to deal with.
The personal freedoms at stake here are obvious and the benefits of wiretapping are obvious as well.
What should we do to make wiretapping a helpful resource in the fight against terrorism and no a harassment apparatus against ordinary citizens?
Firstly , we must ensure that wiretapping is used only against suspects in terrorist activity and not against ordinary citizens , even if these citizens are suspects of criminal activity. To be able to do that we must issue a clear definition of terrorism by law and make it clear to the authorities - you can't call anything you don't like terrorism. We must make sure that wiretappings that do not fit the definition of legal wiretapping would not be admissible in court.
Secondly - the time factor. Requiring judge-approval for every wiretap is simply illogical and in some cases may result in the loss of vital information or even lives.
The authorities should EDUCATE their people, to where and when a wiretap is legal or not.
Thirdly - Cooperation and the distribution of information.
This is probably the most problematic issue. To remain effective, authorities must SHARE the intelligence they gather. Who shares/gets this information? the FBI , CIA , NSA? the local police departments? and where does it end?
Should the local residents recieve information about one of their neighbours , who happens to be a fanatic? should city hall know? or an employer?
Your thoughts.