Matt Rosendale Quotes

People listen to me, and they hear about a government they want, a government... that will cut spending, cut taxes, that will focus on private-sector job creation.

At least in Russia, you cannot just go and tap into someone's phone conversation without a warrant issued by court. That's more or less the way a civilized society should go about fighting terrorism.

Have you noticed the people most likely to be up in arms about governments apparently spying on us tend to be the most non-private people you know? The people launching petitions and wailing about Big Brother and data collection are most likely to be the most constant self-presenters.

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

The right to personal privacy is precious. Without it, we are all potential victims for a prying secret police.

What is the society we wish to protect? Is it the society of complete surveillance for the commonwealth? Is this the wealth we seek to have in common - optimal security at the cost of maximal surveillance?

Secret government programs that pry into people's private affairs are bound up with ideas about secrecy and privacy that arose during the process by which the mysterious became secular.

Well, take the evolution of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. It began as hackers' rights. Then it became general civil liberties of everybody - government stay away.

Citizens' rights cannot be protected if their digital activities are governed and policed by opaque and publicly unaccountable corporate mechanisms.

I have nothing to hide!

I was not going to balance the budgets on the backs of communities.

I will veto again and again until spending is brought under control.

Many of our customers have serious concerns about government surveillance of the Internet. We share their concerns.

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

In our view, the current storage by the government of bulk meta-data creates potential risks to public trust, personal privacy, and civil liberty.

Reduction in taxes will be justified only as we can show we can succeed in bringing the budget under control.... Until we can determine the extent to which expenditures can be reduced, it would not be wise to reduce our revenues.

Serious people need to work hard to reduce the debt, reduce taxes, and slash regulation on the small businesses and families that are the lifeblood of new jobs and innovation in our state.

It is not possible to debate the balance between privacy and security, including the rights and wrongs of intrusive powers, without also understanding the threats.

Surveillance legislation fit for the 21st century, which strikes the right balance between privacy, security and democracy is a prize worth fighting for, and Labour will work constructively with the government to achieve it.

If the concern is security, there needs to be evidence-backed policies to increase security and safety, while maintaining our liberties and freedoms. Policies that clamp down on freedoms and don't increase security empirically need to be outright rejected.

I think most people accept that it is necessary to have some surveillance in a democratic society. I think most people accept that it's important to have limits and clear safeguards on that.

People don't object to spying on the grounds that the secret dossier about them might be full of errors. They object to spying because it's spying.

What would the infrastructure of the Internet look like if mass surveillance wasn't its business model?

This is a big debate concerning the values of the society in question: Whether the risk of a terrorist act is more important than the 100 percent right to privacy.

A dramatic spending increase to fund the SEC and the CFTC, as envisioned by the authors of the Dodd-Frank legislation, would further the mindset that our nation's problems can be solved with more spending, not more efficiency.