It is not possible to debate the balance between privacy and security, including the rights and wrongs of intrusive powers, without also understanding the threats.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I particularly recognize that reasonable people can disagree as to what that proper balance or blend is between privacy and security and safety.
The last refuge of privacy cannot be placed solely in law or technology. It must repose in both, and a thoughtful combination of the two can help us thread a path between having all our secrets trivially discoverable and preserving nothing for our later selves for fear of that discovery.
The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry. But we live in a complex world where you're going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change.
Human beings are not meant to lose their anonymity and privacy.
People have a right to privacy, but they also have a right to live. Fundamentally, we need cybersecurity and need to secure communications as well.
Citizens' rights cannot be protected if their digital activities are governed and policed by opaque and publicly unaccountable corporate mechanisms.
Even in democratic society, we don't have good answers how to balance the need for security on one hand and the protection of free speech on the other in our digital networks.
How to strike the right balance between our privacy and our expectation that the state will protect us and facilitate our freedom is one of the most difficult challenges facing us all.
The balance between freedom and security is a delicate one.
Nothing that we have authorized conflicts with any law regarding privacy or any provision of the constitution.
No opposing quotes found.