How far would you let the government go in examining people's private lives depends on the situation at hand. When it comes to sexual incidents and murder allegations, I think it's appropriate for states to share their crime databases. These are cases that the public should be aware of because it's not every time someone walks out or gets paroled for something and never commits that crime again.
As for other crimes, I see no reason to share this. It can cause problems for the person's self-development. I also think it crosses the line of abusing power to access this information. The concept of trading privacy for security makes sense when used for legitimate purposes, but it's always gone too far and distorts your view of what it means to trade privacy for security.
Know more about privacy here
brainly.com/question/1145825
#SPJ4
Answer:
d) the option premium
Explanation:
if the buyer doesn't exercise his right, he will simply have lost the the premium he paid for the acquiring the option, therefore, his benefit may be unlimited, but his loss is limited to the premium he paid. that is a common behavour when the price of the option is lower, known as the exercise price.
Answer:
The chosen phrase was: "Education is the great equalizer."
Explanation:
"Education is the great equalizer" promotes the common belief that education promotes equality among all people, regardless of their color, race, gender and economic status. While we can agree that education promotes equality in some social settings, we know that it does not happen in reality. In the real world, people are classified by several criteria that promote privileges that go beyond what education promotes. In this case, we know that people with the same level of education will not have equality in their lives, as society usually "facilitates" the situation for male, white, straight and high-income individuals, and those who do not fit into these groups does not have access to equality, regardless of their education.
Answer:
The answer is below
Explanation:
Some of the differences between Feds and Anti-feds which makes up the first two political parties are in the United States of America.
1. Key party leaders of Feds which standederalist are Alexander Hamilton and John Adams while that of anti-feds often referred to as the Democratic-Republican party boosted of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison
2. Federalists favor a favored strong central government while the anti-federalists a weaker central government
3. Feds are in support of Britain an ally, while Anti-Feds believed France to ally the country can get.
A higher literacy rate will bring about economic success and a higher standard of living
