Secondly, in responding to the peril of terrorism against the US, the federal government endorsed legislation that, according to some people, weakened constitutional protections against superfluous electronic communications’ interceptions (Kermit, David, James, Joel & Hull, 2002).
Conventionally, intelligence-gathering processes have been divided into two main categories that are electronic and human (Spinello, 2010). Human intelligence gathering, otherwise known as HUMINT, entails the usage of on the site human function that for instance is responsible for the preparation of maps, observation of enemy troop movements, embezzling documents, recruitment of others to providing information, or physically eavesdropping on discussions (Staples, 2007). HUMINT happens to be an extremely dangerous undertaking. There is a high possibility of the operative getting caught, and forced to disclose information regarding his or her actions and objectives thereby getting imprisoned or executed. This has led to the intelligence agencies heavily relying on electronic intelligence gathering, otherwise known as ELINT (Reynolds, 2011). Spy satellites, together with high-altitude planes like the U2, are capable of providing accurate, and opportune information concerning missile installations or troop deployments, whereas wiretaps and concealed microphones pave the way for interception of communications without placing the operator in danger. ELINT can also be conducted by individuals who have no specified training when it comes to spy craft (tradecraft) from far away locations (Shuman, 2001).
There are two types of ELINT; trespassory and nontrespassory. Trespassory ELINT entails some trespass; the physical premises of the target have to be entered so as to mount a microphone or transmitter. Conversely, non-trespassory ELINT does not necessitate physically invading the target premises (Kermit et al, 2002). During the Cold War and after the World War