August 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3

4

5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            

Editor Login


Convener in chief:


David Lazer
(Methodology, Networked Governance)

Editors:


Stanley Wasserman
(Current Trends, Methodology, Social Networks)

Allan Friedman
(Simulations)

Nathan Eagle
(Technology, Social Computing, Powerlaws, Current Trends)

Ben Waber
(Technology, Social Computing)
Thomas Langenberg
(Technology, Social Computing, Social Networks, Current Trends)

Ines Mergel
(Knowledge Sharing, Social Computing, Social Software, Current Trends)

Brian Rubineau
(Social Dynamics, Societal Networks, Simulations)

Maria Binz-Scharf
(Qualitative Methodology, Knowledge Sharing, eGovernment)

Jeff Boase
(Technology, Societal networks)

Alexander Schellong
(Admin, eGovernment, Citizen Relationship Management)

Categories

Archives

Recent Entries

Recent Comments

Notification


« NSA data mining—what patterns to look for: expansive scenario (II) | Main | Excerpts from Spy Agency Data After Sept. 11 Led F.B.I. to Dead Ends »

10 January 2006

ABC/Washington Post survey on privacy

A bit of a digression from social network analysis, but following from the recent items on the NSA, some results from Washington Post/ABC survey on surveillance/domestic spying.

7. In investigating terrorism, do you think federal agencies are or are not intruding on some Americans' privacy rights?

Are Are not No opinion
1/8/06 64 32 4

8. (IF FEDERAL AGENCIES ARE INTRUDING, Q7) Do you think those intrusions are justified or not justified?

Justified Not justified No opinion
1/8/06 49 46 5


Q7/8 NET:

------ Intrusion -------- Not an No
NET Just. Not just. DK intrusion opin.
1/8/06 64 31 30 4 32 4

Compare to:
In investigating terrorism, do you think the federal agencies like the FBI are or are not intruding on some Americans' privacy rights?

-----Intrusion------- Not an No
NET Just. Not just. intrusion opin.
9/7/03 58 36 17 33 8

9. Which worries you more: (that Bush will not go far enough to investigate terrorism because of concerns about constitutional rights), or (that Bush will go too far in compromising constitutional rights in order to investigate terrorism)?

Will not go Will go Neither No
far enough too far (vol.) opinion
1/8/06 48 44 6 2

10. According to recent news reports, the National Security Agency has been investigating people suspected of involvement with terrorism by secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails between some people in the United States and other countries, without first getting court approval to do so. How closely have you been following this story - very closely, somewhat closely, not too closely or not closely at all?

------Closely------ ------Not Closely------ No
NET Very Somewhat NET Not too Not at all opinion
1/8/06 66 20 46 34 21 13 *

11. Would you consider this wiretapping of telephone calls and e-mails without court approval as an acceptable or unacceptable way for the federal government to investigate terrorism? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?

------Acceptable------ ------Unacceptable------ No
NET Strongly Somewhat NET Somewhat Strongly opin.
1/8/06 51 35 15 47 14 33 2

Posted by David Lazer at January 10, 2006 11:06 PM