A Quote by Tom Cotton

Why would you codify a set of safeguards you might want to change as technology evolves and you face new risks of privacy, in addition to changing safeguards that might need to be relaxed in an emergency situation?
The child in the womb has no voice but Parliament's. Many MPs who voted for the 1967 Act did not think they were abandoning the unborn because they were fooled by the supposed safeguards. Now we know just how ineffective those safeguards are.
It is difficult to predict the outcome of any Presidency, but with Donald Trump the worst-case scenarios seem particularly plausible, because he is so uninterested in the safeguards that might prevent them.
In any technology, one has to be very careful to ensure that it is good and has enough safeguards.
When one plan that you have, to get this or to get that, to advance in the world, or whatever it might be, when that seems in danger of veering off the path you have set for it, you have your emergency plan ready. And in simple language what that emergency plan is, what you put into operation, is called worry. If you can worry you are occupied, and what an incredible human situation it is!
Those who are experts in the fields of surveillance, privacy, and technology say that there need to be two tracks: a policy track and a technology track. The technology track is encryption. It works and if you want privacy, then you should use it.
If my campaign is not in the debate, we will not have a real discussion of the emergency of climate change and why in fact we need a Green New Deal type national mobilization at the scale of a wartime mobilization in order to address this emergency.
Profitability, growth, and safeguards against existential risks are crucial to strengthening a company's long-term prospects. But if these three factors constitute a company's 'hard power,' firms also need 'soft power': public trust and acceptance, won by fulfilling a company's social responsibility.
I stand for a strong state that safeguards freedom. I don't need to show muscle for that.
I do believe when there are advances in technology that it is important to balance the privacy interests affected with the investigative take that you might get from that technology.
I don't think there's a particular technology that will set the trajectory for us moving forward. We don't want to be one of the companies that say AI is the next big thing, let's go build an AI application for Robinhood. That might not work. It might be awkward.
We need to put in proper safeguards. How are we going to feel if somebody leases to the Taliban?
As an actor, depending on who you are, you might be stopped on the street and might not get all the privacy you want, but I'd rather have that than no human connection whatsoever.
I want to change things with everything I do, not for the sake of changing things, but for the sake of taking greater and greater risks, or how minimalist I might be able to be, or how I can involve elements or ingredients in music videos that are not musical, for instance.
We need to codify our values and build consensus around what we want from a free society and a free Internet. We need to put into law protections for our privacy and our right to speak and assemble.
It's absolutely essential that we have the same safeguards that straight couples do. But I want more than a 50 percent chance of success. I don't want to emulate that.
At one point I thought changing my name might help with privacy, but that was before the Internet.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!