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
It was Juan Ponce de León. I hope this helped!
An example of federalism could be this civil rights act of 1964
The answer is deception. police are allowed to deceive an individual during an interrogation.
Answer:
limited the extent of his communication
Explanation:
Saying unnecessary things sometimes will make you fall into a deeper problem compared to where you initially got.
From the sample above. saying that it the teacher's fault for not giving enough time to study will most likely taken as a personal attack that make Jin seen very unfavorable. He should've limited the extend of his communication and avoid saying personal things like this.