I imagine that the intention is to get rid of them. The interests of security demand that we get rid of them.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I believe it is essential that we close the security gaps that put our nation at risk, and I will continue to fight for the funding that will secure high-risk targets, such as our ports and borders.
The question is how much of your privacy and your convenience and your commerce do you want your nation's security apparatus to squeeze in order to keep you safe? And it is a choice that we have to make.
Should we fear hackers? Intention is at the heart of this discussion.
We need to stop spending money on those weapons systems that do not advance national security.
People want security in this insecure world.
It is a virtual reflex for governments to plead security concerns when they undertake any controversial action, often as a pretext for something else.
We must plan for freedom, and not only for security, if for no other reason than that only freedom can make security secure.
In order to have greater visibility of the larger cyber threat landscape, we must remove the government bureaucratic stovepipes that inhibit our abilities to effectively defend America while ensuring citizens' privacy and civil liberties are also protected.
We have an illusion of security, we don't have security.
The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security.