Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

BCS CISMP-V9 Exam - Topic 1 Question 68 Discussion

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?
B) GDPR overrides all previous legislation on information handling, so new laws were needed to ensure authorities did not inadvertently break the law.
A) Under the European Convention of Human Rights, the interception of telecommunications represents an interference with the right to privacy.
C) Police could previously intercept without lawful authority any communications in the course of transmission through a public post or telecoms system.
D) Surveillance of a conversation or an online message by law enforcement agents was previously illegal due to the 1950 version of the Human Rights Convention.

BCS CISMP-V9 Exam - Topic 1 Question 68 Discussion

Actual exam question for BCS's CISMP-V9 exam
Question #: 68
Topic #: 1
[All CISMP-V9 Questions]

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?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

by Virgie at Feb 12, 2024, 09:33 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium CISMP-V9 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Deangelo
9 months ago
Good to see laws catching up with tech advancements!
upvoted 0 times
...
Alva
9 months ago
This feels like a violation of privacy rights.
upvoted 0 times
...
Starr
10 months ago
Wait, are we sure this is really necessary?
upvoted 0 times
...
Deja
10 months ago
Totally agree, safety first!
upvoted 0 times
...
Tamekia
10 months ago
Most European countries have laws for monitoring communications to fight crime.
upvoted 0 times
...
Melda
10 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.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dominque
10 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.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lamar
10 months 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.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ronnie
11 months 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.
upvoted 0 times
...
Raina
11 months 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.
upvoted 0 times
...
Raylene
11 months 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.
upvoted 0 times
...
Bernadine
11 months 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.
upvoted 0 times
...
Merri
11 months 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.
upvoted 0 times
...
Sharen
11 months 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.
upvoted 0 times
...
Reyes
11 months 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.
upvoted 0 times
...
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!
upvoted 0 times
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.
upvoted 0 times
...
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.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tuyet
1 year ago
A) Under the European Convention of Human Rights, the interception of telecommunications represents an interference with the right to privacy.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
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.
upvoted 0 times
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.
upvoted 0 times
...
Mindy
1 year ago
A) I agree, privacy should be protected by law.
upvoted 0 times
...
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.
upvoted 0 times
...
Sanda
1 year ago
A) Under the European Convention of Human Rights, the interception of telecommunications represents an interference with the right to privacy.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
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.
upvoted 0 times
...
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.
upvoted 0 times
...
Margery
1 year 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.
upvoted 0 times
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.
upvoted 0 times
...
Serita
1 year ago
A) Under the European Convention of Human Rights, the interception of telecommunications represents an interference with the right to privacy.
upvoted 0 times
...
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.
upvoted 0 times
...
Carry
1 year ago
A) Under the European Convention of Human Rights, the interception of telecommunications represents an interference with the right to privacy.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Coletta
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.
upvoted 0 times
...
Wilda
1 year 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.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dottie
1 year ago
A) Under the European Convention of Human Rights, the interception of telecommunications represents an interference with the right to privacy.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel