Top 98 Encryption Quotes & Sayings

Encryption provides enormous benefits to society by enabling secure communications, data storage, and online transactions.

Strong encryption enables commerce and protects us online.

There's been a certain amount of opportunism in the wake of the Paris attacks in 2015, when there was almost a reflexive assumption that, "Oh, if only we didn't have strong encryption out there, these attacks could have been prevented." But, as more evidence has come out - and we don't know all the facts yet - we're seeing very little to support the idea that the Paris attackers were making any kind of use of encryption.

I think anybody who uses email in the center of our life needs encryption.

It's very hard to keep an uncrackable encryption if you share it with the government.

The reality is that if you - let's say you just pulled encryption. Let's ban it. Let's you and I ban it tomorrow. And so we sit in Congress and we say, thou shalt not have encryption. What happens then? Well, I would argue that the bad guys will use encryption from non-American companies, because they're pretty smart.

The arc of technology is in the direction of unbreakable encryption, and no laws are going to get in the way of that reality.

As all of our lives become digital, the logic of encryption is all of our lives will be covered by strong encryption, and therefore all of our lives - including the lives of criminals and terrorists and spies - will be in a place that is utterly unavailable to court-ordered process. And that, I think, to a democracy should be very, very concerning.

The problem of end-to-end encryption isn't just a terrorism issue.

In some ways, you can think of end-to-end encryption as honoring what the past looked like.

WhatsApp has a consistent history - from zero encryption at its inception to a succession of security issues strangely suitable for surveillance purposes.

Without encryption, you and I wouldn't be able to do our banking online. We wouldn't be able to buy things online, because your credit cards - they've probably been ripped off anyway, but they would be ripped off left and right every day if there wasn't encryption.

While encryption protects against cyberattacks, deploying it in warrant-proof form jeopardizes public safety more generally.

I'm 16 now, I was 15 when it happened... and the encryption code wasn't in fact written by me, but written by the German member. There seems to be a bit of confusion about that part.

I am not convinced that lack of encryption is the primary problem. The problem with the Internet is that it is meant for communications among non-friends.

Trying to explain Turing's work in encryption and decryption? It's complicated.

We believe that when technology providers deploy encryption in their products, services, and platforms they need to maintain an appropriate mechanism for lawful access.

The political solutions proposed against encryption are not going to work against terrorism.

Let's put it this way. The United States government has assembled a massive investigation team into me personally, into my work with the journalists, and they still have no idea what documents were provided to the journalist, what they have, what they don't have, because encryption works.

There is an unarguable downside to unbreakable encryption.

You know the interesting thing about encryption is that it cannot be secure just for some people.

Encryption...is a powerful defensive weapon for free people. It offers a technical guarantee of privacy, regardless of who is running the government... It's hard to think of a more powerful, less dangerous tool for liberty.

In this age of communications that span both distance and time, the only tool we have that approximates a 'whisper' is encryption. When I cannot whisper in my wife's ear or the ears of my business partners, and have to communicate electronically, then encryption is our tool to keep our secrets secret.

One of the things that I think is true is that encryption actually is able to secure our communications, that every individual can use encryption, and that it's accessible and in many cases free.

Weaken American encryption and consumers - both good and bad actors - will simply seek their technology from companies based abroad. Weaker encryption also means weaker national security.

I think it's interesting because the 1990s ended with the government pretty much giving up. There was a recognition that encryption was important. In 2000, the government considerably loosened the export controls on encryption technology and really went about actively encouraging the use of encryption rather than discouraging it.

We should be careful not to vilify encryption itself, which is essential for privacy, data security, and global commerce.

Everyone is a proponent of strong encryption.

The encryption genie is out of the bottle.

If, technologically, it is possible to make an impenetrable device or system where the encryption is so strong that there's no key - there's no door at all - then how do we apprehend the child pornographer? How do we solve or disrupt a terrorist plot?

Encryption threatens to lead all of us to a very dark place.

Without strong encryption, you will be spied on systematically by lots of people.

Attempts to restrict encryption at the state or local levels would only serve to undermine security and economic competitiveness for the entire nation.

The US government still has no idea what documents I have because encryption works

Somebody will be able to overcome any encryption technique you use!

Blockchain technology, or distributed ledger technology, is just a way of using the modern sciences of encryption to enable entities to share a common infrastructure for database retention.

With the growing availability of commoditized encryption, it is becoming easier for common criminals to communicate beyond the reach of traditional surveillance.

It seems that 'national security' is the root password to the Constitution. As with any dishonest superuser, the best countermeasure is strong encryption.

The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce, and the ENCRYPT Act sends a clear message that the complicated issues with encryption must be addressed thoughtfully and nationally.

The stakes in the encryption debate are high, with significant consequences for personal privacy, the U.S. private sector, and our national security.

Under the cover of encryption, terror masterminds provide recruits with the tactics and tools necessary to carry out attacks using small arms and explosives. None of this requires any overseas travel.

What encryption lets us do is say, "Yes, the Internet is insecure." Bad guys are able to compromise computers everywhere, but we're able to tolerate that because if they do intercept our messages, they can't do any harm with it.

On balance, the use of encryption, just like the use of good locks on doors, has the net effect of preventing a lot more crime than it might assist.

The government does things like insisting that all encryption programs should have a back door. But surely no one is stupid enough to think the terrorists are going to use encryption systems with a back door. The terrorists will simply hire a programmer to come up with a secure encryption scheme.

So, in 1993, in what was probably the first salvo of the first Crypto War, there was concern coming from the National Security Agency and the FBI that encryption would soon be incorporated into lots of communications devices, and that that would cause wiretaps to go dark. There was not that much commercial use of encryption at that point. Encryption, particularly for communications traffic, was mostly something done by the government.

The concern is over what will happen as strong encryption becomes commonplace with all digital communications and stored data. Right now the use of encryption isn't all that widespread, but that state of affairs is expected to change rapidly.

User-controlled default encryption is a real challenge for law enforcement.

You don't need to be a spook to care about encryption. If you travel with your computer or keep it in a place where other people can put their hands on it, you're vulnerable.

All too often, vital electronic evidence has been made unavailable through encryption that doesn't allow for execution of legal process including court-approved search warrants.

We have to solve the encryption problem. It is not easy.

[Bill] Binney designed ThinThread, an NSA program that used encryption to try to make mass surveillance less objectionable. It would still have been unlawful and unconstitutional.

We think the government should be pushing for more encryption. That it's a great thing. You know, it's like the sun and the air and the water.

We need to think about encryption not as this sort of arcane, black art. It's a basic protection.

Privacy and encryption work, but it's too easy to make a mistake that exposes you.

I love strong encryption. It protects us in so many ways from bad people. But it takes us to a place - absolute privacy - that we have not been to before.

I don't own encryption, Apple doesn't own encryption. Encryption, as you know, is everywhere. In fact some of encryption is funded by our government.

Clipper took a relatively simple problem, encryption between two phones, and turned it into a much more complex problem, encryption between two phones but that can be decrypted by the government under certain conditions and, by making the problem that complicated, that made it very easy for subtle flaws to slip by unnoticed. I think it demonstrated that this problem is not just a tough public policy problem, but it's also a tough technical problem.

Encryption works. Properly implemented strong crypto systems are one of the few things that you can rely on. Unfortunately, endpoint security is so terrifically weak that NSA can frequently find ways around it.

Encryption would help prevent a lot of cyber attacks.

So end-to-end encryption, keeps things encrypted and that means that law enforcement, without a warrant, cannot read that information.