Should the government be able to monitor phone calls and emails?

Yes but only if they are a person of interest for terror or criminal reasons, and a legal search warrant has been obtained. General, anonymized screening for problem words like "bomb" should be allowed, e.g. monitored by AI, and it it comes up x no. of times, maybe with other red flags a human can be flagged to assess and then alert the police (if threat seems imminent) or set the search warrant request in train.

The legs seats if reelected candidate for united COVID with Boris Johnson and former US president Donald Trump hoping leaders independent contractor

I believe the government should concentrate on making out country way better than it is rather than surveillance of its people.

This happens already and so it should be used very discreetly and for select and discreet purposes to avoid serious criminal activity.

To an extent to combat terrorism. Not completely but enough to be able to get a handle of situations but more for suspicious people or random checks.

Under statute / law govt can monitor where there is a legal interest and authority to do so - ie: under warrant applied for and given where criteria are met.

Yes, if they get legally issued warrant to do so.

Yes if necessary / suspected, to combat crime and terrorism

Yes if there is a possible threat

Yes, but i expect you to do it behind my back. Not legally admissible.

Yes, but only by public court order and only with reasonable cause.

Yes, but only when a certain high threshold of evidence has been met to provide cause to do so.

Yes, but only by court order and in extreme cases

Yes but only when a threat is detected, i.e links to terrorist groups

No, as this will mostly be used against members of the public instead of where the attention should be being directed. Access to phone calls and emails could be possible, where someone gives reason to need to be investigated, however continuous monitoring is a step too far

No they shouldnt but they do

Yes, but only if the person poses a potential risk of endangering people

Yes and they and our Five Eyers partners already do

Yes but only for organised crime and terrorism

Only by court order and the subject should be informed that they were surveilled and why once the operation is over. That decision should then be open to challenge with the opportunity to have records deleted.

Yes but only those that they suspect of criminal and/or terrorist activity or those who have a record of such activity

To ensure saftey

Only every 5 years, so only every 5 years and in that year they monitar phone calls just incase someone is gonna do something or cause danger. Basically plotting something? Idk that's what I think.

What are we? 1984? NO!

Only for immagrints ands ex convicts.

Only for the FBI or very important police to catch criminals.

Depends on the situation. If that person needed mental help and maybe had sucidal thoughts, then yes.

Thise who see what's out there is more ethics definitely device legally mean is use for checking whats out thier

Yea if there is sufficient evidence a person maybe a part of illegal activities

Yes, but only by court order provided that the court is publicly accountable

Only in the case of proven security or criminal cases

Strictly to avoid things like genuine terrorism and the spread of child porn.

Ban the media Facebook gaming android is phone scammed with other ipad touch without inc

decrease more phone calling but leaders of opportunity paryys as the ban rdue phone calling scams which under internet systems it computers can tracked by survvilines with footages record reported by new zealand police and privates policies online emergencies use excuse stop ban turn off expire is bad scammed

No, if there is a current investigation it should be carried out by police, with a court order, and government should only be treated as any other New Zealander would be to make a police complaint, which could result in an investigation, and court order.

Get lost cuz Im trying to watch the bloody "HUB" I dont want the government to see what catagorie I like. Except when it comes to criminology and finding bad guys then it is aceptable

yes, but only in certain situations.

Yes but only for suspects for terrorism, criminal activity

if they have a reason to suspect of someone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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