Andrew Vachss Quotes

I think there should be regulations on social media to the degree that it negatively affects the public good.

If I could edit Google Images, then I wouldn't be as scared of the Internet.

We must restrict the anonymity behind which people hide to commit crimes. As citizens, we have a right to privacy. We have no such right to anonymity.

Internet freedom is not possible without freedom from fear, and users will not be free from fear unless they are sufficiently protected from online theft and attack.

The Internet is unpoliceable essentially.

The problem of end-to-end encryption isn't just a terrorism issue.

The real question is whether or not the communities that rule the Internet can make their spaces safer for users, especially women and minorities.

AR is going to play such an infinite role in our lives that we have to establish clear ground rules respecting everyone's rights. That means open platform and open ecosystems and protections that put user privacy first.

I try not be an evildoer on the Internet.

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.

How many of you have broken no laws this month? That's the kind of society I want to build. I want a guarantee - with physics and mathematics, not with laws - that we can give ourselves real privacy of personal communications.

A number of countries, including Russia and China, have put forward proposals to regulate aspects of the Internet like 'crime' and 'security' that are currently unregulated at the global level due to lack of international consensus over what those terms actually mean or over how to balance enforcement with the protection of citizens' rights.

The decisions we make about communication security today will determine the kind of society we live in tomorrow.

I've spent my life defending the Net, and I do feel that if we don't fight online crime, we are running a risk of losing it all.

Whether greater cybersecurity requires a greater sacrifice of our digital freedoms is an important debate that we should be having, preferably with all the facts in front of us.

There should be order if the development of the cyber world is to be sustainable.

Technology companies must constantly weigh ethical decisions: Where should Facebook set its privacy defaults, and should it tolerate glimpses of nudity? Should Twitter close accounts that seem sympathetic to terrorists? How should Google handle sex and violence, or defamatory articles?

Google is in an amazing position to be the target of tons of lawsuits that will set precedent for many important things for us on the Internet.

Bringing an end to mass government surveillance needs to be a central pillar of returning to the principles we have put in jeopardy in the early 21st century.

The Internet's distinct configuration may have facilitated anonymous threats, copyright infringement, and cyberattacks, but it has also kindled the flame of freedom in ways that the framers of the American constitution would appreciate - the Federalist papers were famously authored pseudonymously.

In terms of dangers, such as viruses, fraud or identity theft, I don't think we were thinking about that at all when we got started. If we had been worried about that, the net might have been better today, but we might not have even got there.

We all need to decide what makes it safe and secure on the Internet. It can't be anybody else's decision. We have to have a voice.

Pictures get manipulated, pictures get dropped into accounts. We've asked an internet security firm and a law firm to take a hard look at this to come up with a conclusion about what happened and to make sure it doesn't happen again.

If you are an American, you can understand why people cannot go through your house and go through your files. By the same token, should they be able to go through them electronically?

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.