Top 1200 Privacy And Security Quotes & Sayings

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.

We do need to rethink privacy. I think we need to fall back on (former Supreme Court Justice) Felix Frankfurter's definition of privacy which is, "Privacy is the right to be left alone."

In Internet in general, there are security, privacy, and many other issues.

In the quest for perfect protection of Sony's intellectual property, the company threw the privacy and security of their customers under the bus.

Our national security requires us to be strong and fearless, but not at the cost of personal privacy.

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.

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

We do have to balance this issue of privacy and security. Those who pretend that there's no balance that has to be struck and think we can take a 100-percent absolutist approach to protecting privacy don't recognize that governments are going to be under an enormous burden to prevent the kinds of terrorist acts that not only harm individuals, but also can distort our society and our politics in very dangerous ways.

I think we're seeing privacy diminish, not by laws... but by young people who don't seem to value their privacy.

Anyone who steps back for a minute and observes our modern digital world might conclude that we have destroyed our privacy in exchange for convenience and false security.

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?

There are definitely problems with technology companies, mostly around privacy, in my opinion, and the fact that they don't protect our privacy and we haven't passed privacy laws.

Increasing cyber-physical system complexity brings security challenges as well as privacy challenges.

We have a media that goes along with the government by parroting phrases intended to provoke a certain emotional response - for example, "national security." Everyone says "national security" to the point that we now must use the term "national security." But it is not national security that they're concerned with; it is state security. And that's a key distinction.

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.

Privacy and security are those things you give up when you show the world what makes you extraordinary.

With new technologies promising endless conveniences also comes new vulnerabilities in terms of privacy and security. And nobody is immune.

Amid credible national security concerns related to Huawei, ZTE, and other 5G firms, we must take concrete steps to protect the privacy and data of American consumers and companies.

In a democracy, the public should be asked how much security and how much privacy they want for themselves.

What I do think is important is this idea of a 'privacy native' where you grow up in a world where the values of privacy are very different. So it's not that I'm against privacy but that the values around privacy are very different for me and for people who are younger than my parent's generation, for whom it's weird to live in a glass house.

Privacy and security are the ultimate shared responsibility, and everyone - including governments, companies, and citizens - have an important role to play.

But what I want to assure and reassure the public is we are concerned about your safety, your security, and your privacy. Let's work together in partnership to ensure that we can have the best way forward.

Like all security, privacy is hard.

Privacy under what circumstance? Privacy at home under what circumstances? You have more privacy if everyone's illiterate, but you wouldn't really call that privacy. That's ignorance.

We must carefully consider card security solutions, such as adding photographs or machine-readable electronic strips, so to prevent further breaches of individual privacy that could result from changes to the design of Social Security Cards.

In terms of security and privacy, what people care about the most is the privacy of their messages.

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 don't believe in privacy. I mean, I like the idea of privacy, but I don't believe that it happens anymore. I think privacy is something, I am afraid, we seem to be waving goodbye to.

First, the security and privacy of sensitive taxpayer information is absolutely essential.

It's important to recognize that you can't have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience.

With existing technology, we can enforce airport security without sacrificing our personal privacy.

A child born today will grow up with no conception of privacy at all. They'll never know what it means to have a private moment to themselves an unrecorded, unanalysed thought. And that's a problem because privacy matters, privacy is what allows us to determine who we are and who we want to be.

I would argue that we have a patriotic duty to move toward energy independence and clean energy. It is a matter of national security - energy security, climate security, economic security, job security, everything.

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

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.

Most Americans want a sense of privacy. A lot of us don't realize how much of our privacy we're exposing by the internet.

But why people need privacy? Why privacy is important? In China, every family live together, grandparents, parents, daughter, son and their relatives too. Eat together and share everything, talk about everything. Privacy make people lonely. Privacy make family fallen apart.

It is not possible to debate the balance between privacy and security, including the rights and wrongs of intrusive powers, without also understanding the threats.

We take privacy very seriously and have privacy a policy and our intention is never to sell any customer data.

This wholesale invasion of Americans’ and foreign citizens’ privacy does not contribute to our security; it puts in danger the very liberties we’re trying to protect.

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.

What we want to work with manufacturers on is to figure out how can we accommodate both interests in a sensible way? How can we optimize the privacy, security features of their devices and allow court orders to be complied with?

Facebook says, 'Privacy is theft,' because they're selling your lack of privacy to the advertisers who might show up one day.

Liberty requires security without intrusion, security plus privacy.

I would argue that security and liberty, security and privacy are not actually opposing. The only place those can be oppositional is in the realm of rhetoric but not fact.

Security incidents have gone up 5-10 times during the pandemic, so there is an increased need for security operations risk management, identity and access management, data privacy and compliance.

I particularly recognize that reasonable people can disagree as to what that proper balance or blend is between privacy and security and safety.

It makes me feel like working non-stop: at least, on sets, the level of security gives me a bit of privacy. It's a relief.

Media reporting denied privacy to anybody doing what I do for a living. It was no longer possible to work on your picture in privacy.

Privacy is absolutely essential to maintaining a free society. The idea that is at the foundation of the notion of privacy is that the citizen is not the tool or instrument of government - but the reverse... If you have no privacy, it will tend to follow that you have no political freedom.

If privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy.

Privacy is an age of universal email collection and spying, with millions of CCTV cameras and warrantless spying pervasive; privacy has become virtually nonexistent and, therefore, extremely scarce and desirable. Bitcoin can be a completely anonymous transaction that maintains the user's privacy beyond the reach of any authority.

It's important to be informed about issues like usability, reliability, security, privacy, and some of the inherent limitations of computers.

The American people must be willing to give up a degree of personal privacy in exchange for safety and security.

Privacy matters; privacy is what allows us to determine who we are and who we want to be.

For me, privacy and security are really important. We think about it in terms of both: You can't have privacy without security.

In a democracy there will always be a tension between security and privacy.

I accept you need the right balance, people do need to know their privacy is protected, but when it's essential information which will be dealt with by security agencies... I do feel the public interest overrides that.

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.

I am worried about this word, this notion - security. I see this word, hear this word, feel this word everywhere. Security check. Security watch. Security clearance. Why has all this focus on security made me feel so much more insecure? ... Why are we suddenly a nation and a people who strive for security above all else?