United States Census Bureau Quotes

History did not end in 1965. Largely because of the Voting Rights Act, voting tests were abolished, disparities in voter registration and turnout due to race were erased and African-Americans attained political office in record numbers.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 laid the foundation for the Voting Rights Act of 1965, but it also addressed nearly every other aspect of daily life in a would-be free democratic society.

The "flatfoot mentality" insists that any individual or organization that wants to change anything in our present system is somehow subversive of "the American way," and should be under constant surveillance—a task that seems to absorb most of our resources for fighting genuine crime.

There is no communication between the Census Bureau and the IRS [Internal Revenue Service] and the INS [Immigration & Naturalization Service]. None. Zero. Zilch.

The federal government has no right to treat all Americans as criminals by spying on their relationship with their doctors, employers, or bankers.

I favor the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and it must be enforced at the point of a bayonet, if necessary.

If you are an American, you can understand why people cannot go through your house and go through your files. By the same token, should they be able to go through them electronically?

Efforts to constrain encryption through forms of extraordinary access will inevitably introduce vulnerabilities into the security of consumer products in ways that are likely to have adverse long-term effects on the security, privacy, and civil liberties of citizens.

I care a lot about privacy. I also care an awful lot about public safety. There continues to be a huge collision between those two things we care about.

Our liberty cannot depend on the good intention of those in power.

Surveillance is just getting too easy right now. And this is only because of technology..

Big Brother in the form of an increasingly powerful government and in an increasingly powerful private sector will pile the records high with reasons why privacy should give way to national security, to law and order, to efficiency of operation, to scientific advancement and the like.

Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives

We could have beaten John Kennedy on Civil Rights. We can’t beat Lyndon Johnson. He’s a man who understands power and how to use it. He’ll tear your arm off at the shoulder and beat you over the head with it, but he’ll get the votes. We’re going to lose to Lyndon Johnson.

We've got a larger than usual police force. Its twice as big as any city of our size. They [Blacks attempting to vote] won't have a chance.

Privacy in one's associations may in many circumstances be indispensable to freedom of association, particularly where a group espouses dissident beliefs.

Privacy violations should be considered criminal offences.

Britain's anti-terror laws are an affront to democracy.

One can doubt the sincerity of the technology community’s outrage over the NSA’s surveillance practices—doubt, for example, that the Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg, whose company reportedly stores petabytes’ worth of data about its billion-plus active monthly users, was shocked at the thought of mass data collection.

no court has ever authorized what the government now seeks, no law supports such unlimited and sweeping use of the judicial process, and the Constitution forbids it.

This is not a case about one isolated iPhone. Rather, this case is about the Department of Justice and the FBI seeking through the courts a dangerous power that Congress and the American people have withheld: the ability to force companies like Apple to undermine the basic security and privacy interests of hundreds of millions of individuals around the globe. The government demands that Apple create a back door to defeat the encryption on the iPhone, making its user’s most confidential and personal information vulnerable to hackers, identify thieves, hostile foreign agents, and unwarranted government surveillance.

In circumstances involving dramatic technological change, the best solution to privacy concerns may be legislative. A legislative body is well situated to gauge changing public attitudes, to draw detailed lines, and to balance privacy and public safety in a comprehensive way.

In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was vigorously and vociferously opposed by the Southern states. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed it into law nonetheless.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 brought an end to the ugly Jim Crow period in American history.