Clara Shih Quotes

Government and businesses cannot function without enormous amounts of data, and many people have to have access to that data.

We need a basic protection for people having access to their data and knowing where their data is.

Our view is that sensitive, contractual, market-moving, private data should be kept private.

TIA was being used by real users, working on real data - foreign data. Data where privacy is not an issue.

If you entrust your data to others, they can let you down or outright betray you.

When we share our personal data with business, its use should be transparent and secure.

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.

We don't sell data; we don't allow anyone to sell data.

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

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.

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

We want to ensure that as a user is moving through their world, their data is following them in an appropriate manner.

Information agencies operate in an industry that values data. Restricted access to information is what makes it valuable.

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.

You can't talk about big data without talking about things like privacy and ownership.

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.

Cloud services cut both ways in terms of security: you get off-site backup and disaster recovery, but you entrust your secrets to somebody else's hands. Doing the latter increases your exposure to government surveillance and the potential for deliberate or inadvertent breaches of your confidential files.

We tend to assume that data is either private or public, either owned by one person or shared by many. In fact there's more to it than that, above and beyond the upsetting reality that private data is now anything but.

Anytime Facebook wants to change how it might use all that data about you, in any way, across any service it has within the Facebook ecosystem, all it has to do is change one privacy policy, tell you about it, and that's that.

Many well-meaning attempts to address public concern about privacy reflect an outdated understanding of the contemporary data ecosystem.

We share no data with the government anywhere in the world.

It is very important, to have a robust digital economy, that the citizens regain the trust in how their data are being processed and who can access them.

If we start - premise that the information is mine, and we give the individual's rights, we worry about what happens during a breach. If you try to protect access to it, as opposed to not even making it available, you have less to worry about who will break the wall.

People used to be unhappy that files and data of Aramco are undeclared, unclear, and not transparent.