I think that you sign a sort of unwritten contract when you become a public figure, when you become an actor, that you're sacrificing a certain amount of privacy and parts of your life change.
I think everybody should have a certain amount of privacy, even though they are in the public eye, no matter who they are.
When one chooses a life as a public personality they give up certain levels of privacy but in one's home and intimate moments everyone should be protected.
There was a time when the FCC tried to require a certain amount of television and media to be educational, a certain amount to be newsworthy and a certain amount of it to be public access.
I'm not the guy trying to be all up in the videos and be a celebrity. I feel like I'm going to lose a certain amount of my privacy if I do that.
The trouble is that privacy is at once essential to, and in tension with, both freedom and security. A cabinet minister who keeps his mistress in satin sheets at the French taxpayer's expense cannot justly object when the press exposes his misuse of public funds. Our freedom to scrutinise the conduct of public figures trumps that minister's claim to privacy. The question is: where and how do we draw the line between a genuine public interest and that which is merely what interests the public?
A beautiful deleveraging balances the three options. In other words, there is a certain amount of austerity, there is a certain amount of debt restructuring, and there is a certain amount of printing of money. When done in the right mix, it isn't dramatic.
I think what we've had in the past is the government has said, "Well, we need to collect the whole haystack." And the haystack is Americans' privacy. Every Americans' privacy. We have to give up all of our privacy.
I always felt that a governor surrenders a certain amount of privacy. And I came to accept that.
Once you put in backdoors, once you allow a government to intercept anything they want, you have to give it to other governments around the world. Once you do that, there is no privacy; there is no security. There is no protection for democracy.
While I accept that there are certain things about my private life that will always be of interest to the public, it would be better if you give the same amount of attention to issues that matter as well.
Let me marry in a normal way. I know I'm a public figure, but the person I'm getting married to might need privacy.
Maybe you just can't protect people from certain specialized types of folly with any sane amount of regulation, and the correct response is to give up on the high social costs of inadequately protecting people from themselves under certain circumstances.
Although I am a public figure, I'm still a little shy. I don't think my own personality is important. I prefer to keep some small dosage of privacy.
As a public figure, you have to maintain a certain demeanor. We also have responsibility to the public, but of course, I'm not perfect. I have a lot of flaws; my husband can tell you that, my friends, even. They know who I am.
Eventually you're supposed to get so confounded by this whole thing that you just give up completely, and that's when it starts to work. Not give up the practice, but give up trying to figure it out.