Demanding domestic security in times of war invites carelessness in preserving civil liberties and the right of privacy. Frequently the people are only too anxious for their freedoms to be sacrificed on the altar of authoritarianism thought to be necessary to remain safe and secure.
— Ron Paul
Viral Privacy And Security quotations
Big Brother in the form of an increasingly powerful government and in an increasingly powerful private sector will pile the records high with reasons why privacy should give way to national security, to law and order, to efficiency of operation, to scientific advancement and the like.
Privacy is not an option, and it shouldn't be the price we accept for just getting on the Internet.
Privacy and security are those things you give up when you show the world what makes you extraordinary.
This wholesale invasion of Americans’ and foreign citizens’ privacy does not contribute to our security; it puts in danger the very liberties we’re trying to protect.
Ebay was involved and gave up 150 million passwords.
Target was attacked and gave up 40 million credit card numbers. Attacks like these are happening on a regular basis, both in the United States and around the world and the costs in terms of privacy or security in our financial sector are truly extraordinary.
Taking privacy cues from the federal government is - to say the least - ironic, considering today's Orwellian level of surveillance. At virtually any given time outside of one's own home, an American citizen can reasonably assume his movements and actions are being monitored by something, by somebody, somewhere.
I certainly respect privacy and privacy rights.
But on the other hand, the first function of government is to guarantee the security of all the people.
I believe that if you took privacy and you said, I'm willing to give up all of my privacy to be secure. So you weighted it as a zero. My own view is that encryption is a much better, much better world. And I'm not the only person that thinks that.
The American people must be willing to give up a degree of personal privacy in exchange for safety and security.
Solitude and privacy have become more essential to the individual;
but modern enterprise and invention have, through invasions upon his privacy, subjected him to mental pain and distress.
I particularly recognize that reasonable people can disagree as to what that proper balance or blend is between privacy and security and safety.
It is my belief that industry and government around the world should work even more closely to protect the privacy and security of Internet users, and promote the exchange of ideas, while respecting legitimate government considerations.
I really believe that we don't have to make a trade-off between security and privacy. I think technology gives us the ability to have both.
For me, privacy and security are really important.
We think about it in terms of both: You can't have privacy without security.
It is no response to assert that the Patriot Act has been useful;
what you need to explain is how any particular safeguard would have so diluted investigative powers that it would have frustrated an investigation and created a security harm outweighing the benefit to civil liberties. If you'd rather trade scary stories, that's fine too - just let me know so I can buy a bag of marshmallows before our next round.
Recommended additon to the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights: "A right to not have your data rise up and attack you."
But what I want to assure and reassure the public is we are concerned about your safety, your security, and your privacy. Let's work together in partnership to ensure that we can have the best way forward.
First, the security and privacy of sensitive taxpayer information is absolutely essential.
What we want to work with manufacturers on is to figure out how can we accommodate both interests in a sensible way? How can we optimize the privacy, security features of their devices and allow court orders to be complied with?
I would argue that security and liberty, security and privacy are not actually opposing. The only place those can be oppositional is in the realm of rhetoric but not fact.
We do have to balance this issue of privacy and security.
Those who pretend that there's no balance that has to be struck and think we can take a 100-percent absolutist approach to protecting privacy don't recognize that governments are going to be under an enormous burden to prevent the kinds of terrorist acts that not only harm individuals, but also can distort our society and our politics in very dangerous ways.
In a democracy, the public should be asked how much security and how much privacy they want for themselves.
[A new all-encompassing national identification system] contradicts some of our most sacrosanct American principles of personal liberty and expectations of privacy and is far in excess of what is needed to provide us with the security and protections we all want.
I advocate for protecting the liberty of the net, and securing privacy.
I argue against people who believe both are somehow given automatically. They're not.
I think it's important to recognize that you can't have 100 per cent security and also then have 100 per cent privacy and zero inconvenience.... In the abstract you can complain about Big Brother and how this is a potential program run amok, but when you actually look at the details then I think we've struck the right balance.
The National Security Agency’s capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide. If a dictator ever took over, the N.S.A. could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back.
But what I want to assure and reassure the public is we are concerned about your safety, your security, and your privacy. Let's work together in partnership to ensure that we can have the best way forward.
There are converging web-related issues cropping up, like privacy and security, that we currently have no way of thinking about. Nobody has thought to look at how people and the web combine as a whole - until now.
Triumphs against the natural order of living exact unforeseen payments.
At the same time that man attempts to straighten a crooked nature, he is striving to annihilate space, which seems but another phase of the war against substance. We ignore the fact that space and matter are shock absorbers; the more we diminish them the more we reduce our privacy and security.
I particularly recognize that reasonable people can disagree as to what that proper balance or blend is between privacy and security and safety.
It's important to recognize that you can't have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience.
Whether it's Facebook or Google or the other companies, that basic principle that users should be able to see and control information about them that they themselves have revealed to the companies is not baked into how the companies work. But it's bigger than privacy. Privacy is about what you're willing to reveal about yourself.
There's a growing sense that the online ad industry is out of control from a privacy perspective and that some rules need to be put in place.