[Wolfman]

This is partly an extension of an earlier thread that I geuss I didn't explain well enough.

Lets say that you know with 100% certainty that there will be a terrorist attack. You know that there will be thousands of causulties. Tens of thousands will be seriously injured. However, you don't know when or where the attack will occure. You know that the leaders of the attack, and you can bug there phone. However, if you were to try to get a wire tap warrant through legitimate methods, it could easily take too long. So, you can tap them illegally, or not. Would you? What if you only knew with 90% certainty. What about 80% certainty?

At point in your certainty would you not use wire taps in the situation above?

[Dr House]

At any point, because my name is Dave

Which reminds me, I should update my profile pic. I got myself this stunning new cape...

[Wolfman]

So, you admit you're a puppet account?

[Dr House]

It could just be that Dave and I share the same name.

[Wolfman]

Uh hu. Sure. You share a name.

Remind, what breed of dog are you again?

[Dr House]

rottweiler

[Wolfman]

We always knew Dave liked Germans

[Varilion]

10% is enough
... but from what i know police (and not only police) puts bug for much much less than a possible terroristic attack with thousands of causalities.

[Wolfman]

It's about placing bugs without a warrant (ie, illegally)

[Icon]

Other

If you have enough information about a potential threat that you can estimate the probability of it occurring and the potential loss of human life from it, you can take legal steps to prevent it.

Also, if you have evidence that an attack will occur (even if you aren't fully certain), and you know who the people responsible parties would be (and their current location, which would be necessary for a phone tap), you can just detain them.

[Wolfman]

It's a hypothetical about the point where security overrides individual rights Icon. No reason to get overly critical.

[Varilion]

It's about placing bugs without a warrant (ie, illegally)

I know

[ingliz]

Other - Warrants from sympathetic judges are only a phone call away and silly hypotheticals don't make good polls.

[The Immortal Goon]

Other: At any point, because my name is ingliz

[Average Voter]

You have to specify the demographic because you are using a poll which generalizes peoples perceptions of rights which will give useless results. You have those who believe rights from or to government, rights from or to other people, positive rights, negative rights, individual rights, and group rights. You may have one who wants protection from government, but not government protection(from an ordinary citizen tapping). Anyway because my role in that scenerio would be a law abiding citizen, I would not illegally tap the wires.

[Thunderhawk]

Under what circumstance can I know who the leaders of the attack are yet not have the warrant to tap their phone?

[ingliz]

A better hypothetical:

You are head of the state security service.

Lets say that you have know no certainty that there will be a terrorist attack, you just don't know, but there has been 'chatter' and you think you may be attacked sometime, somewhere, in the near future.

You don't know who the leaders of an attack will be but you do know people who disagree with government policy and their phone numbers.

You can bug any phone.

You do know that if you were to try to get a warrant to go on a 'fishing expedition' you may not get it. You can tap them illegally: Would you?

But my first post still stands whatever the hypothetical.

[Onomautopia]

So long as all such wiretapping is immediately put to and end upon the threat subsiding, 10% or more.

However, in the event of an emergency, there should be legal means through which intelligence services can do what they need - they should never have to do anything illegally.

[JohnRawls]

At any point because my name is John Rawls

Liberties are important but they are human creations , i value other lives higher than liberties .

[XogGyux]

Kind of pointless poll.
If you are a 100% sure, it means that you have solid prove, certainly enough to guarantee a warrant. If someone is 100% without solid prove, then that guy is a moron.
There is no way to quantify certainty, as to quantify anything you need variables which are not available, and they are usually not available when it comes to human issues.
Anything over 0% certainty implies you have some kind of prove (unlike the one needed to guarantee a 100% certainty, this one can be circumstantial) but for sure you cannot quantify it, nor you can use "stereotypes" as a method for quantify certainty.
Anyhow I vote other.