Answer:
A. Mr. And Mrs. Jaden, who want to file their income tax return together
A. Mr. And Mrs. Jaden, who want to file their income tax return together should use the "married filing jointly" tax filing status.
Explanation:
Married filing jointly is a filing status for married couples that have wed before the end of the tax year. Couples filing under married filing jointly status can record their respective incomes, exemptions and deductions on the same tax return. Married filing jointly is best if only one spouse has a significant income. When both spouses work and the income and itemized deductions are large and very unequal, it may be the best to file separately.
Using a married filing jointly status means that your total combined tax liability is often lower than the sum of spouses' individual tax liabilities, compared to if they were filing separately. This so because deduction may be higher, and married filing jointly status may qualify for other tax benefits that don't apply to the other filing status.
What does Kovacs compare digital tracking to in the physical world? How do you feel about this type of tracking and why?
Answer:
Kovacs digital tracking will allow us to see who is tracking us across the Web and following us in what he call the digital wood. He advocated that what we don't know can actually hurt us like those who are tracking our everyday movements. As we leave our footprints in the digital world, the memory in their is forever.Since we are being watched. Using Kovacs digital tracking we can watch our own watchers.
Explanation:
If in the physical world, somebody is following us around with a camera and a notebook and recorded our every movement, we will not just sit around and do nothing. We are going to take action. It may not be good action, but we would take action. Personally I agree with Kovacs idea of knowing who is following us. This will help us prepare fo something that might happen in the future. Who knows somebody has just use your information for something no good?
Which of the following is true about electronic surveillance? Select all that apply.
A. Police must obtain a warrant to monitor telephone calls.
B. Police may place surveillance devices on suspected criminals’ phones
C. Police can plant viruses on smartphones of suspected drug runners.
D. Private citizens can monitor other people’s telephone calls.
E. Private citizens can record their own telephone calls in most states.
Police must obtain a warrant to monitor telephone calls.
Option A
Explanation:
The Supreme Court of America has made and landmark judgements in electronic surveillance like tapping phone calls and accessing the phone records.
It stated that without a proper warrant if the police department carry out electronic surveillance means it amounts to be illegal, it is a breach of privacy of individuals.
So, the top court has issued guidelines before proceeding with the electronic surveillance. This judgement of preserving the right of the individual is considered to be the major policy decision taken by the court.
In the legal context of electronic surveillance, police typically need a warrant to monitor phone calls and can only place surveillance devices with a warrant. Private citizens generally cannot lawfully monitor others' calls, and recording their own calls varies by state law.
Explanation:The aspects of electronic surveillance you've listed differ in their legality and are governed by different laws and guidelines. Here's a breakdown of each option:
A is true. In general, police must obtain a warrant to monitor telephone calls due to the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Such a warrant is obtained through showing probable cause to a judge. B is also true, provided they have obtained a warrant. Without a warrant, this action could infringe on a person's rights to privacy. C is not typically true. Viruses may constitute a form of cybercrime, but law enforcement can use certain types of software tools in their investigations, assuming they comply with the law and proper procedures. D is generally false. In most jurisdictions, it is illegal for private citizens to monitor other people's phone calls without consent. The truth of E depends on the specific state laws. Some states require two-party consent, while others require just a single party's consent to record conversations. Learn more about Electronic Surveillance here:https://brainly.com/question/33487087
#SPJ12