Barton Gellman Quotes

I support safeguarding users' personally identifiable information and sensitive data like health or financial records. I also believe the government has a responsibility to punish deceptive and unfair practices that defy reasonable expectations about consumers' privacy.

When documents were analog, they were protected by government laws against unreasonable search and seizure. When they live in the cloud... the ground is shifting.

It is a fiction to imagine that the haphazard paper chits of old are more private than the modern digital alternative. Paper records have always presented a security risk.

In computer circles, any unencrypted data is known as 'cleartext.'

Uncontrolled access to data, with no audit trail of activity and no oversight would be going too far. This applies to both commercial and government use of data about people.

Even the best data security systems can't protect private taxpayer information from entrepreneurial foreign businesses than can make huge profits selling U.S. taxpayer information.

If we as a society do not understand 'the cloud,' in all its aspects - what data it holds, how it works, what the bargains are we make as we engage with it, we'll all be the poorer for it, I believe.

I've always shied away from online data storage. I don't even use my employers' network drives for anything sensitive. I want to control access myself.

There are two types of encryption: one that will prevent your sister from reading your diary and one that will prevent your government.

I want my government to do something about my privacy - I don't want to just do it on my own.

In this era of massive online connectivity, the majority of privacy breaches and data leaks remain unknown, unchallenged, and unregulated. Regulatory compliance alone cannot ensure privacy.

Once you put in backdoors, once you allow a government to intercept anything they want, you have to give it to other governments around the world. Once you do that, there is no privacy; there is no security. There is no protection for democracy.

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

Data is valuable, so let's be mindful of how we're sharing it.

I think over time more people will become more aware of how vulnerable their data is.

Looking back, there hasn't been a single day in WhatsApp's 10 year journey when this service was secure.

Enigma is really an investment in peace of mind. I keep a lot of confidential information on my laptop. I'm usually very careful about keeping my laptop under close physical control but had an unfortunate lapse and left it on a plane. That could have cost me dearly if not for the Enigma.

It's a day-one expectation that when you buy a processor, it's not going to leak your data.

I think, in general, data protection really matters.

You no longer can say that inside a company everything is trusted because you could bring in a contaminated device. And it's the same thing with data, because so much is no longer stored inside a company.

With the evolution of information technology, there have emerged new questions, for example, of data and privacy.

People want to have some assurance that their privacy, their data is going to be protected.

I haven't seen - I haven't heard the arguments that would make that case. And I haven't seen a proposal yet that satisfies the objections. The problem is, you create a key like this, and it can't - it's hard to say that it's going to be hidden. And then it becomes used both by our government in multiple cases, but also it could get out as far as hackers are concerned or other countries.

The solution to government surveillance is to encrypt everything.

Every time you write an email, it is in the public domain. There are all these ways where security is not as good as people believe.