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

No, they should have to gain appropriate legal authority to do so

Yes, but only for the purposes of preventing terrorism or other acts for the preservation of public safety

This is a very complex issue. In most cases, no, but there will be exceptional circumstances and there needs to be a discussion on how a truly independent process to set this would work.

Yes but only for legitimate serious criminal investigations where a proper warrant has been obtained

Yes for those with criminal background plus on the general public to flag up key words which may bring to light new criminal activity

Yes, if a person is identified as posing a risk to national security and for preventing and detecting Terrorism

Yes, but only by court order and and enact legislation preventing government surveillance of citizen communications

The government has no right to survey civilian communication unless they are suspected of criminal activity

Yes, but the government should only be able to monitor British citizens by court order, or if three (brief) court orders have previously been approved, or an existing court order has been extended twice.

Provided it can only be used as a further conviction in court, and not a case for initial arrest, so long as the phrasing is subject to contextual analysis of the statements made.

Yes, but only after multiple levels of scrutiny, a court order, and objective evidence it is essential for national security purposes.

Yes but only if it’s a criminal, terrorist or correct facts showing they need to be monitored to save lives and the UK

On grounds of a court issues warrant where substantial evidence to support the need to do so.

theoretically, yes to help monitor terrorist activities, but realistically, no because it will end up monitoring people who are uninvolved whether accidentally or deliberately

No as people want their privacy and don’t want the whole government listening to their phone calls that could be confidential

Yes but only to combat terrorism threats and to monitor people that are involved with criminal organizations

Yes but only for individuals they already have reason to suspect are involved in terrorism, not the general population

The government should not be able to, only the people in law enforcement and police, not party members. It should be on a strict need to know/access basis.

Only in the case of suspected criminal activity and this should be monitored carefully. Not for the general public.

I believe it can prevent crime & terrorism however could also take away the privacy of innocent citizens

Yes, but with certain degrees of importance and or need, which should be fully explained to agencies. Clear boundaries which all should be aware off.

Yes, but only there is a solid reason for doing so, I.e. the person is suspected of serious criminal offences including terrrorism.

Police and Security Services overseen by the Government should be able to request access to surveillance under strict rules and regulation if terrorism or cyber attack appears to be a threat - evidence.

Yes, but only for those with criminal backgrounds pertaining to child abuse, terrorism and extremism.

Police / counter terror should be allowed to monitor phone calls and emails by court order only (The Government should not be involved)

If there is a solid reason for doing so, I.e. the person is suspected of serious criminal offences including terrrorism.

Only in circumstances where there are proven links with terrorism or organised crime. A threshold which must be passed before any interference is allowed and the actions themselves must be monitored for proportionality and fairness.

Yes but only for those who are at risk or suspected risk ie terrorism, fraud, violence, certain criminal backgrounds, criminal groups or organisations, missing persons etc.

Yes, but the data gathered should be audited. It’s too easy for the government to ‘look’ for terrorism but to use this data from ordinary people for other things.

Only MI5 should be allowed to do so, and only after a secret meeting with 5 Supreme Court judges where they show just cause and get approval, if approval is rejected it is a crime. No politician, foreign nation or press organisation can find out. The Monarch however shall be informed. If War is declared none of the above restrictions apply for the duration of the war.

In certain circumstances, absolutely! I.e, people who have been sent to prison for terrorist acts etc

Yes, but only for the prevention of crime, or if they suspect someone is going to cause harm or damage to people or property.

Yes but only for the prevention of crime, or if they suspect someone is going to cause harm or damage to people or property.

No unless it is suspect of terrorism/lives are at risk. There must be proper documentation of this and a valid reason.

Yes, but only when necessary to combat terrorism and serious crime - and the permissions are not abused under a tenuous link to monitor people organisations for nefarious political, professional or personal reasons.

Yes but only with evidence that the person / people have / are likely to cause harm to people or property.

yes, but only for those currently under criminal investigation with prior proof of illegal activity being found.

It is necessary to combat all crime, especially terrorism. Those with criminal backgrounds monitored more closely and increase overall surveillance.

only for those on government watch lists and potential links to terrorist groups

No, It Is A Violation Of Human And Privacy

Yes, but only where deemed necessary by order of the court as part of a criminal investigation. All instances of surveillance should be publicly declared following closure of the investigation and misuse of this power should result in harsh criminal sentences for those implicated.

Yes, only for those that have been identified as domestic threats

Only whet absolutely necessary and this should be court approved.

Only for those who raise suspicions. There should be more detectives who investigate potential insurgents.

Yes, nothing to hide, nothing to fear. Impose some accountability and relevance to ensure this isn't used inappropriately and there is a proven need.

I think as citizens we should have privacy instead of the government knowing a lot of people’s secrets

Only in matters of national security.

For extreme criminals I.e terrorists, murderers, pedophiles and those suspected, not the general public

The people must rise up!

While I agree National security is important, and that certain individuals could be dangerous, some incident people could get targeted.

Only where absolutely essential to prevent serious crime. Not to check for 'wrongthink'.

Yes, but only for prevention of terrorism and most serious harm offences and it should be done so in an accountable and honest way. Once it is determined that the content is not subject to above, monitoring should cease immediately

Only in the case of terrorists and for major crimes (i.e. paedophilia)

Only where a judge accepts the law permits

Yes, but only for terrorism or serious crimes

Those with strong affiliation to terrorism and in tandem with court order should have light surveillance i.e no hacking or breaking into property without the dire need to stop an incident and only being allowed to surveil in a way normal citizens can.

Yes but only for those deemed to be a risk to national security. Set up a dedicated signals intelligence agency.

No we have a right to privicy

Yes, if all other avenues have been exhausted.

Yes, but only if the appropriate warrant is obtained first.

Yes, but only by court order and in extreme circumstances were national security is at risk.

Those who are under current police surveillance for suspicious activity or people who are going to be under surveillance should have calls and emails logged in a system created by the phone or broadband provider that is only accessible to police or government agencies that survey suspicious activity to prevent any terror or violent attacks or things such as drug or human trafficking ect.

Yes, in certain occasions for intelligence

No and enact legislation preventing government surveillance of citizen communications unless by court order

Yes only to combat terrorism and enact legislation preventing government surveillance of citizen communications.

Only for certain criminals such as Sex offenders.

Yes but only if your activities have sparked concern on the watch list

no, only if a it could prevent a dangerous act

Yes, but only by court order else enact legislation preventing government surveillance of citizen communications

Yes but only for those suspended of terrorist activity

No, but recipients of phone calls and emails who suspect terrorism should speak out as soon as possible.

only for kids

Only they’re a known terror threat

If they already know they might be a terrorist

Only when there is previous known issues with terrorism to that individual

Yes but only for those with criminal backgrounds or suspected terrorists

Yes, but only in exceptional circumstances with clear and transparent process

only if there's is enough evidence to prove there is criminal activity going on

The question will be debated, asked and voted on via Liquid Democracy.

No, my phone calls and emails are none of the government’s business!

yes but only for the necessary safety of those in immediate and foreseen danger

Only if you are suspected of terror offences or are suspected as a threat to public safety. There should be legislation to protect the private information of everyone else.

Yes, but only if absolute necessary and to combat crime, in particular terrorism, and only to a proportionate extent

No and enact legislation preventing government surveillance of citizen communication unless their is a court order to do so

only where illicit activity is suspected

The government should not - perhaps the police should

Only when under criminal investigation with concrete suspicion/ reason to do so

Only if they think that doing so will save a lot of people from harm

Abolish the state

The government shouldn't be legally aloud to to minister mobile devices, unless specifically given permission by the court

Only in extreme cases where the security service have genuine, reasonable, non-political, evidence-based grounds for believing that doing so may prevent terrorism or other serious crimes.

No, it should only be used for individuals they consider dangerous and a threat

Not by government but by publicly funded independent institution.

Yes, to combat terrorism AND for those with criminal backgrounds

Only security services

It would make things safer. But it's also sounds scary.

Yes but there would also need to be a permanent independent review of how the information as being obtained and handled to prevent injustice

In fact, the government must monitor every thing

Yes providing they have prior evidence or information on the subjects