Tim Cook Quotes

Companies should be able to share specific threat information with the government without the prospect of lawsuits hanging over their head.

We must carefully consider card security solutions, such as adding photographs or machine-readable electronic strips, so to prevent further breaches of individual privacy that could result from changes to the design of Social Security Cards.

If we don't act now to safeguard our privacy, we could all become victims of identity theft.

Governments are scared of software.

The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry. But we live in a complex world where you're going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change.

New technologies can be used for destructive purposes. The answer is to develop rapid-response systems for new dangers like a bioterrorist creating a new biological virus.

Even in democratic society, we don't have good answers how to balance the need for security on one hand and the protection of free speech on the other in our digital networks.

Incidentally, our railroad facilities are under video surveillance by the federal police. However, the federal and state governments will have to determine whether video surveillance shouldn't be significantly expanded to a certain degree.

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.

You fight technology with technology, so you have to stay one step ahead of the criminal. It's very much a chess game - they make a move, you have to make a move.

We need to take lessons learned from fighting terrorism and apply them to cyber crime.

'Cyber-security' is one of those hot topics that has launched a thousand seminars and strategy papers without producing much in the way of policy.

CISPA permits, but does not require, entities that have been attacked to voluntarily share their knowledge of a cyber threat with each other and with government.

All of our intelligence agencies, our Department of Defense, are all working to meet this threat. But it's a fast moving world; it's a place where offense is easier than defense, and keeping up with the next innovation in cyber-warfare is an enormous challenge.

There are definitely problems with technology companies, mostly around privacy, in my opinion, and the fact that they don't protect our privacy and we haven't passed privacy laws.

We take all potential threats to public and private sector systems seriously and will continue to investigate and hold accountable those who pose a threat in cyberspace.

It would be a matter of concern for government if intrusive data capture has been deployed against Indian citizens or government infrastructure.

Our national security requires us to be strong and fearless, but not at the cost of personal privacy.

The stakes in the encryption debate are high, with significant consequences for personal privacy, the U.S. private sector, and our national security.

If a serious and sophisticated attacker has enough time he or she will get into a digital network. Governments and private corporations need to be able to detect an attacker on their network quickly, quarantine him completely and then kick him off.

There should be an understanding and trust that your privacy and data will be protected.

I think, in general, data protection really matters.

As cyber threats evolve, we need to evolve as well.

The political solutions proposed against encryption are not going to work against terrorism.

Weaken American encryption and consumers - both good and bad actors - will simply seek their technology from companies based abroad. Weaker encryption also means weaker national security.