MENU
Why have MOST European countries developed specific legislation that permits police and security services to monitor communications traffic for specific purposes, such as the detection of crime?
Suggested Answer: B
Get Premium CISMP-V9 Questions
as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF
Real Exam Format
Detailed Explanations
Instant Access
Get Your Practice Test
34 comments · newest first
DE
Deangelo
11 months ago
Good to see laws catching up with tech advancements!
AL
Alva
11 months ago
This feels like a violation of privacy rights.
ST
Starr
11 months ago
Wait, are we sure this is really necessary?
DE
Deja
11 months ago
Totally agree, safety first!
TA
Tamekia
11 months ago
Most European countries have laws for monitoring communications to fight crime.
ME
Melda
12 months ago
I feel like the 1950 Human Rights Convention made surveillance illegal, but I’m not confident if that’s the main reason for the new legislation.
DO
Dominque
12 months ago
I vaguely remember something about police needing lawful authority to intercept communications, but I’m not clear on the specifics of past laws.
LA
Lamar
1 year ago
I think GDPR is a big deal, and it might have forced countries to clarify their laws on monitoring communications, but I can't recall the exact details.
RO
Ronnie
1 year ago
I remember discussing how the European Convention of Human Rights impacts privacy laws, but I'm not sure if that directly relates to why specific legislation was created.
RA
Raina
1 year ago
Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about this one. The options all seem plausible, and I don't have a strong intuition about the right answer. I'll need to review my notes on European privacy laws and security legislation to try to narrow it down. Hopefully I can eliminate a couple options and make an educated guess.
RA
Raylene
1 year ago
Okay, this is a good one. I think the answer is probably C - that police could previously intercept communications without lawful authority, so new laws were needed to regulate that. The question is getting at the balance between security and privacy, which is a common theme in these types of questions.
BE
Bernadine
1 year ago
This question seems straightforward, but I want to make sure I understand the key points before answering. The question is asking about why European countries have developed legislation to allow police and security services to monitor communications traffic. I'll need to carefully consider the options and think about the legal and privacy implications.
ME
Merri
1 year ago
I feel pretty confident about this one. The key is that the question is asking about the reasons behind the development of new legislation, not just the current state of the law. I think the answer is C - the previous ability of police to intercept communications without authority necessitated new laws to provide a legal framework. The other options don't seem to directly address the motivation for the new laws.
SH
Sharen
1 year ago
Okay, I've got a strategy here. Since the question mentions a Docker container, I'm guessing the Cisco IOxClient tool is probably the way to go. That sounds like the best way to package and deploy the app directly on the switch.
RE
Reyes
1 year ago
I'm a bit confused by this question. There are a lot of different anti-diabetic medication classes, and I'm not sure which ones are kidney-specific. I'll have to review my notes to make sure I get this right.
MA
Marg
1 year ago
Option C is the funniest one - can you imagine the police just randomly intercepting everyone's calls and messages before? What a wild west that must have been!
YU
Yuki
1 year ago
C) Police could previously intercept without lawful authority any communications in the course of transmission through a public post or telecoms system.
ST
Stacey
1 year ago
B) GDPR overrides all previous legislation on information handling, so new laws were needed to ensure authorities did not inadvertently break the law.
TU
Tuyet
1 year ago
A) Under the European Convention of Human Rights, the interception of telecommunications represents an interference with the right to privacy.
BR
Broderick
1 year ago
I'm going with A. The right to privacy is a fundamental human right, so any interference by the authorities would need to be explicitly allowed by new legislation.
AR
Arlette
1 year ago
C) Police could previously intercept without lawful authority any communications in the course of transmission through a public post or telecoms system.
MI
Mindy
1 year ago
A) I agree, privacy should be protected by law.
PA
Pa
1 year ago
B) GDPR overrides all previous legislation on information handling, so new laws were needed to ensure authorities did not inadvertently break the law.
SA
Sanda
1 year ago
A) Under the European Convention of Human Rights, the interception of telecommunications represents an interference with the right to privacy.
ON
Onita
1 year ago
Hmm, D seems plausible. If the 1950 Human Rights Convention made surveillance illegal, then new laws would be required to permit it for legitimate purposes like crime detection.
AM
Ammie
1 year ago
B) GDPR overrides all previous legislation on information handling, so new laws were needed to ensure authorities did not inadvertently break the law.
MA
Margery
2 years ago
I think B is the correct answer. The GDPR introduced new data protection rules, so authorities would need updated legislation to ensure their surveillance activities are legally compliant.
LO
Lorrie
1 year ago
B) GDPR overrides all previous legislation on information handling, so new laws were needed to ensure authorities did not inadvertently break the law.
SE
Serita
1 year ago
A) Under the European Convention of Human Rights, the interception of telecommunications represents an interference with the right to privacy.
DO
Douglass
1 year ago
B) GDPR overrides all previous legislation on information handling, so new laws were needed to ensure authorities did not inadvertently break the law.
CA
Carry
1 year ago
A) Under the European Convention of Human Rights, the interception of telecommunications represents an interference with the right to privacy.
CO
Coletta
2 years ago
C) Police could previously intercept without lawful authority any communications in the course of transmission through a public post or telecoms system.
WI
Wilda
2 years ago
Option C seems logical. If the police could intercept communications without any legal authority, then new laws would be needed to regulate this and ensure proper oversight.
DO
Dottie
2 years ago
A) Under the European Convention of Human Rights, the interception of telecommunications represents an interference with the right to privacy.