How could the world be made a safer place without further, unwarranted intrusion into people's lives?
961664
This has been the oldest issue with the man in the civil society. Robinson Crusoe life is no longer possible and also is not desirable. Man is a social being and separated from it tends to be more an animal rather than a human. Now the question is how can we minimize the interference by others in our personal matters. It will depend on how less dependent you are on others including the government sources. So minimize your wants and you have the least scope for interference by others into your life.
1085707
Why not-we have plenty here to do the job. People need protection--fact-there is trouble there. And they will be wittinesses to everything.
484673
We study this subject and others to "never forget" the horrible things people can do to each other and to keep them from happening again.  But alas, in my life time the world has allowed these things to go on over and over again!  Africa - Bosnia - the Middle East!  Other countries don't want to get involved until it affects them in the pocket.  Sadly, most wars through the centuries have been politically motivated rather than for the cause of humanity even though that is what is used as the pretext.\nStudy well, and make a difference!
918144
people do not trust each other,seldom you can find anyone to offer you a place to stay over night,it is our responsibility to provide for ourself,if unable then government,but do not be discourage if facing unkind behavioure from mankind.
116644
It is ironical that we try to give privacy to each citizen at their homes, but choose not to do so for other countries. I believe that unless the country in concern is impacting us or any other country, we should leave them to resolve their internal issues unless they ask us for help.
318271
its not needed all over the world.\njust in those areas where crime is there.
371565
It is not at all dangerous outside the cities. Probably more safer.\n\nWe have crime like every country but I think you would find that most people are decent and friendly.\n\nAs a young woman, I feel very safe in this country.
701168
There is no such  thing as security.  Given that your decisions will not be based on fear.  to seek security is a fool's errand and will never lead to sound policy.
884490
Excellent question. Not many people these days bother to question how to prevent or get to the root causes of problems.  The global economy will drive a global job market which will loosen our nationalistic concepts of borders.  In truth, that sequence is already in full swing and we are beginning to comprehend our problems as global, that everyone of us is connected and what hurts one nation of people ultimately hurts all of us.  A huge issue related to your question that really hasn't emerged yet, but, it will soon, is this:  Since the beginning of human history, we have immigrated for jobs and opportunity, for freedom and safety, to escape religious and political oppression, and to go somewhere fresh and unspoiled, perhaps as pilgrims, to carve out a little kingdom of our own away from lords and masters, away from the decay of failing civilizations.  For the very first time in all of our time on this planet, we no longer have a fresh, unspoiled, truly free place to go because of air travel and phones and satellite communication . . .and intercontinental missles. Civilization can now reach into whatever place we go to start afresh with our own visions.  Immigration has been our species pressure valve, or escape.  And, interesting, those who immigrate are the healthiest of the species in the long run, historically, in that they are usually escaping putrid social, spiritual and political decay.  What will happen to mankind now that there are no more wildernesses in which to start afresh?  What will happen when people who are disgusted with a place and there is no other place left any less disgusting to be?  What will happen when the average man or women no longer has a chance to create and enjoy a NEW society and it remains determined always by a dominate group's definition.  This worries me.
547080
well im sure that if you look up something like how to make a bomb or anthrax or something that you probably get red flagged by the government and moniter you.  if you arent doing anything though whats there to fear.  i would rather sacrifice my privacy if its going to make the US a safer place to live.
631304
Like a security guard? It's to make sure everyone is safe and no one is breaking the law. People can get wild at these places and they are there to make sure no one gets hurt.
122937
The world will never be safe. Countries will still try to dominate and subjugate one another.\n\nMutual destruction only limits Nuclear action.  There are pleanty of ground wars going on.
599482
Yes, It is possible to someday have a "New World Order."  I mean this in the most positive way.  It will take time and some revolutionary type of thinking however.  I have traveled all over the world and I have found that we have more in common with people of the world than we have differences.  People want the same things--good health, happiness, economic opportunity, to raise a family, hope and just governance.  We are closer than many will lead us to believe. It will begin with a vision of common grounds regarding shared values and the continuous denouncing of evil and evil rhetoric.  Certainly, there is going to be hatred and contempt, but we cannot let a small minority of "Terrorists" threaten our very existence.  People are basically good and will choice good over evil once their primal needs are satisfied.  The problem with a world society is one of fairness to all people and sectors of the world.  This becomes a major obstacle to world peace and is probably the one thing that can prevent the evolution of governance to that level.  That notwithstanding--doesn't it sound a lot better to visualize world peace than to live in a world full of hatred and violence?  And a world in which we are united against those who create chaos.  I could envision a day when we are governed by a board of our peers that are responsible for ensuring just and competent governance.
1025776
WE CAN START BY DOING GOOD TO OTHER PEOPLE. and the positive ripples will make this world a safe place to live in.\n\nMAN, IT TAKES A LOT OF FAITH TO BELIEVE THIS, doesn't it?
510803
An act of terrorism can be carried out by one person with a primitave explosive device and a will to do harm.  There is no way that any entity, no matter how good their intelligence is, is going to completely erradicate this.\n\nExplosives can be made out of ordinary chemicals and agents that you might have around your house right now.  All it takes is one person to make a bomb and detonate it.  A few people working together wouldn't necessarily be catchable either if they're smart about how they communicate.\n\nThe idea of terrorists coming from overseas and talking extensively about their plans over the phone and in public is just silly.  It simply isn't necessary for them to do that.
553166
Well first of all no governments can read peoples' thoughts so it's not that big a worry in the real world.\n\nBut if they could do so by electromagnetic radiation (or cause you to think other things) then the only way to protect yourself would be to go into a faraday cage.  If your entire body were covered in tin (more likely aluminium if you use the 'tin foil' that you buy in shops) then you would be in one (a wire mesh will often work fine too due to the radiation 'seeing' a wire mesh with spacing less than half a wavelength as solid).\n\nBut if you just cover your head then you won't actually stop the EM radiation very well (and might end up focusing it towards your brain).
433259
What is your suggestion?  Do we need greater surveillance?  Or will our problems be solved by the meeting of a variety of great thinkers with diverse philosophies?\n\nGreater surveillance impinges on the rights of the many to protect the lives of the few.  We must be careful to consider the long-term consequences of greater surveillance.\n\nThe collaboration of a variety of great thinkers, however, would be valuable as we navigate through these difficult times.  (Hitler does NOT constitute a great philosopher, though!)