John Pistole Quotes

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.

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.

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

There must always be a balance between protecting privacy and security. In our country, one of the ways we have struck that balance is by requiring a court order before law enforcement can access certain communications of and data on suspects.

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.

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

Liberty requires security without intrusion, security plus privacy.

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.

Law-abiding citizens value privacy. Terrorists require invisibility. The two are not the same, and they should not be confused.

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.

I have nothing to hide!

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

The public must know about the general outlines of surveillance activities in order to evaluate whether the government is achieving the appropriate balance between privacy and security.

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 'The Transparent Society,' I am actually no radical. I accept that some secrecy is necessary and avow that human beings have an intrinsic need for some privacy.

Certainly I support the Constitution, and I respect people's privacy, but I also think we need to err on the side of protecting us.

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.

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

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.

Privacy may actually be an anomaly.

I don't mind gearing my life towards privacy. It's my nature.

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

Privacy isn't negotiable. It's the right of every American.

I might have lived in England for the last several years, but I'm still an American citizen and I have not given up my right to privacy.

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