Keir Starmer Quotes

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.

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.

Is privacy about government security agents decrypting your e-mail and then kicking down the front door with their jackboots? Or is it about telemarketers interrupting your supper with cold calls? It depends. Mainly, of course, it depends on whether you live in a totalitarian or a free society.

I have nothing to hide!

The American people believe that we ought to control our government. On the other hand, we've seen government more and more controlling us

The privacy and dignity of our citizens are being whittled away by sometimes imperceptible steps. Taken individually, each step may be of little consequence. But when viewed as a whole, there begins to emerge a society quite unlike any we have seen – a society in which government may intrude into the secret regions of a [person's] life.

The more authority a person asks for in a democracy, the less privacy they’re entitled to.

We encounter the dilemma of freedom versus authority in all sorts of places but probably nowhere more frequently than in the area of Big Brother's ongoing efforts to protect us from ourselves – efforts that many people view as an invasion of their privacy or as infringement upon their God-given right to be stupid (though they don't usually put it that way).

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.

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

I can’t allow the U. S. Government to destroy privacy and basic liberties.

A democratic country has zero tolerance for all illegal monitoring operations.

There used to be technological limitations … that provided a measure of privacy for Americans. Now with essentially no technological limitations—the technology can practically do anything—the only way to strike the appropriate balance between liberty and security is to embed that balance in the law.

Unfettered discretion [in obtaining information could] alter the relationship between citizen and government in a way that is inimical to democratic society.

Liberty and security are often in direct confrontation and must be balanced in a way that protects us without destroying what is worth protecting.

The balance between freedom and security is a delicate one.

And it is essential that in fighting terrorism, sacrifices should not be made on democracy.

I think the government has a role in protecting the fundamental rights of its citizens.

I grew up with the understanding that the world I lived in was one where people enjoyed a sort of freedom to communicate with each other in privacy, without it being monitored, without it being measured or analyzed or sort of judged by these shadowy figures or systems, any time they mention anything that travels across public lines.

Privacy under what circumstance? Privacy at home under what circumstances? You have more privacy if everyone's illiterate, but you wouldn't really call that privacy. That's ignorance.

As for civil liberties, any one who is not vigilant may one day find himself living, if not in a police state, at least in a police city.

NSA surveillance is a complex subject - legally, technically and operationally.

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

Privacy is a right, but as in any democratic society, it is not an absolute right.