Rodney Frelinghuysen Quotes

Liberty requires security without intrusion, security plus 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 issue of wiretapping raises the issue of the balance between human liberty and the requirements of national security. I would say that the weight should be on the side of human liberty and that if human liberty is ever to be infringed, the demonstration on the national security side must be overwhelming.

If we give up all our privacy rights, have we become any safer?

The Constitution defends all of us against unreasonable search and seizure. What constitutes reasonableness depends upon threat.

Liberty comes only after security.

Our need for public safety and our need for privacy are crashing into each other and we've got to sort that out.

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.

There is no inverse relationship between freedom and security. Less of one does not lead to more of the other. People with no rights are not safe from terrorist attack.

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

How to strike the right balance between our privacy and our expectation that the state will protect us and facilitate our freedom is one of the most difficult challenges facing us all.

The president's priority is to protect the safety and security of the American people. That's the physical security of the American people as well as the prosperity of the American people.

The right of an individual to conduct intimate relationships in the intimacy of his or her own home seems to me to be the heart of the Constitution's protection of privacy.

The safety and security of the nation depends more so than ever before on intelligence.

If we take away all our privacy rights, we become our own terrorists.

Those who are troubled by our existing programs are not interested in repeating the tragedy of 9-11. And those who defend these programs are not dismissive of civil liberties. The challenge is getting the details right and that is not simple.

Apple chief executive Tim Cook is such a respected figure that it's easy to overlook the basic problem with his argument about encryption: Cook is asserting that a private company and the interests of its customers should prevail over the public's interest as expressed by our courts.

Benjamin Franklin once said, 'A people who would trade liberty for security deserve neither.' I think we can have both. We can keep our liberties. We can have our security.

It doesn't thrill me to bits that the state has to use the tools of electronic surveillance to keep us safe, but it seems clear to me that it does, and that our right to privacy needs to be qualified, just as our other rights are qualified, in the interest of general security and the common good.

I have a personal belief that you never have to give up liberty for security. You can still provide security without sacrificing our Bill of Rights.

We all love privacy. We all care about public safety. And none of - at least people that I hang around with, none of us want back doors. We don't want access to devices built-in in some way.

You cannot barter security for freedom, or freedom for security.

Freedom cannot be trifled with. You cannot surrender it for security unless in a state of war, and then you must guard carefully the methods of so doing.

A crucial question is how to balance surveillance with privacy and keeping Americans safe.

Freedom without security portends chaos, perpetual anxiety and fear.