I don't think he would have had any trouble answering Justice Sonia Sotomayor's excellent challenge in a case involving GPS surveillance. She said we need an alternative to this whole way of thinking about the privacy now which says that when you give data to a third party, you have no expectations of privacy. And [Louis] Brandeis would have said nonsense, of course you have expectations of privacy because it's intellectual privacy that has to be protected. That's my attempt to channel him on some of those privacy questions.
There should be an understanding and trust that your privacy and data will be protected.
As individuals, we have very little say about how our data is being used. I'm not worried about the privacy implications of it so much. But it seems to me that, as an individual, if I'm the one generating the data, I should have some kind of say in how it's going to be used.
The only thing they [government] want is better data. But data doesn't tell people someone is well educated. It's a vicious circle. There is some myth involved. Some of this attitude has a long history.
TIA was being used by real users, working on real data - foreign data. Data where privacy is not an issue.
We take privacy very seriously and have privacy a policy and our intention is never to sell any customer data.
I promoted Hyderabad to the world by saying that there was privacy in India and their data will be sage. Data is wealth.
You have plenty of liberals out there who are all for the cops raiding their political enemies, they're all for the cops doing whatever they have to do to get whatever goods they want on their political enemies. And yet the Patriot Act comes, oh, you can't do it, it's an invasion of privacy. And yet in some cases they don't care about other people's privacy. Privacy is irrelevant to them depending on what the target is.
When dealing with data, scientists have often struggled to account for the risks and harms using it might inflict. One primary concern has been privacy - the disclosure of sensitive data about individuals, either directly to the public or indirectly from anonymised data sets through computational processes of re-identification.
There are people who are always going to try to engage in activity that is illegal and they're going to try to subvert surveillance. But everybody should not give up their liberties and rights to privacy because some people are going to [do that]. We shouldn't stop or limit our basic liberties because some people are going to engage in criminal activities.
Privacy is a vast subject. Also, remember that privacy and convenience is always a trade-off. When you open a bank account and want to borrow some money, and you want to get a very cheap loan, you'll share all details of your assets because you want them to give you a low interest rate.
When a handful of tech giants are gatekeepers to the world's data, it's no surprise that the debate about balancing progress against privacy is framed as 'pro-data and, therefore, innovation' versus 'stuck in the Dark Ages'.
I'm going to say something rather controversial. Big data, as people understand it today, is just a bigger version of small data. Fundamentally, what we're doing with data has not changed; there's just more of it.
All the new data, applications, and e-commerce that are created have to be managed and protected. Additionally, when there is a new application, the old application is still there, and has to be protected.
I think there is a big group of people out there who disagree about what is going on. They want to have their privacy back, they want to have internet freedom.
The past is always with you. Some people want to be protected from this truth.