A Quote by Keir Starmer

In a democracy there will always be a tension between security and privacy. — © Keir Starmer
In a democracy there will always be a tension between security and privacy.
Surveillance legislation fit for the 21st century, which strikes the right balance between privacy, security and democracy is a prize worth fighting for, and Labour will work constructively with the government to achieve it.
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?
In a democracy it is ultimately for us, the citizens, to judge where to place the balance between security and privacy, safety and liberty. It's our lives and liberties that are threatened, not only by terrorism but also by massive depredations of our privacy in the name of counter-terrorism. If those companies from which governments actually take most of our intimate details want to show that they are still on the side of the angels, they had better join this struggle for transparency too.
For me, privacy and security are really important. We think about it in terms of both: You can't have privacy without security.
There is a tension between parliamentary and popular sovereignty. A lively, meaningful democracy would achieve a balance between the two.
There must always be a balance between protecting privacy and security. In our country, one of the ways we have struck that balance is by requiring a court order before law enforcement can access certain communications of and data on suspects.
There's a constant tension between the excitement of new people and security with one person. If you go with excitement, you create chaos; you hurt people. There's jealousy, and it gets very messy. If you have security, it can be boring, and you die inside because of all the opportunities missed.
In terms of security and privacy, what people care about the most is the privacy of their messages.
I particularly recognize that reasonable people can disagree as to what that proper balance or blend is between privacy and security and safety.
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.
If sexual relations between consenting adults are not part of the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution, then American democracy is in trouble.
In Britten or Berg, there's a tension between the sweet and the sour, between the familiar and the unfamiliar, the tonal and the atonal, the happy and the sad. That, to me, is what all western art is about - that tension. It's why we want to say anything at all.
There's always a tension between those who would like to garner wealth, and they contribute a lot to society. There's also those who say, 'I believe in the common good. I want that to be enlarged.' They contribute a lot to society. The tension, the debate, between these two views is extremely important to our progress.
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.
It's true that the war in Iraq opened a distance in relations between part of Europe and the U.S. government, but our basic ties are stronger than that. We share democracy, free markets and a commitment to Western security. We differ on how to guarantee that security.
In a democracy, the public should be asked how much security and how much privacy they want for themselves.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!