It's a genuine dilemma for governments, deciding how much information to share in this threat-filled era.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
I believe that when you provide information to people, they become less fearful and they will engage more in their democracy if they are empowered with information.
The better the information it has, the better democracy works. Silence and secrecy are never good for it.
If information ends up in the wrong hands, the lives of people very often are immediately at risk.
In order to win the war on terrorism, we have to win the war of information. Information is so very, very valuable. This is an important tool in gathering up information.
To know we are being spied on by our own government, and to have someone else's government collaborating on that, to know that data storage is so cheap your information can be kept for years and used to create any kind of story, to me that's a grave attack on human rights.
I think if we're going to live in this - in this world - in this technological world where information can be disseminated so quickly, we have to be serious and take firm, strong action against those who are putting American lives at risk. Because this will put people's lives at risk.
Companies should be able to share specific threat information with the government without the prospect of lawsuits hanging over their head.
Politically speaking, you don't necessarily give away information that allows your enemy to get an upper hand. But at the same time you don't keep reality from the population.
Judy, we think that since the 11th of September, 2001, we've faced a similar heightened threat level. And we've been enhancing both the exchange of intelligence and security information and the assessment of that information, because that's the crucial element.
If our governments are so compromised that they will not tell us the truth, then we must step forward to grasp it.
No opposing quotes found.