Amy Klobuchar Quotes

I particularly recognize that reasonable people can disagree as to what that proper balance or blend is between privacy and security and safety.

I have nothing to hide!

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.

Privacy may actually be an anomaly.

Since we enacted the PATRIOT Act almost three years ago, there has been tremendous public debate about its breadth and implications on due process and privacy.

The U.S. Constitution protects our privacy from the prying eyes of government. It does not, however, protect us from the prying eyes of companies and corporations.

We are all victims of data mining…. We are in a data mining culture…. Americans do not place a high value on the privacy of their communications and will give up that right for modest benefit.

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.

It’s important to recognize that you can’t have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience.

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?

… the government should not be permitted to collect and store mass, undigested, non-public personal information.

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.

I do believe when there are advances in technology that it is important to balance the privacy interests affected with the investigative take that you might get from that technology.

I guard my privacy zealously.

If the FBI parks a van bristling with cameras outside your house, you are justified in closing your blinds.

I do suspect that privacy was a passing fad.

Despite being in public life, I value my own privacy immensely and would be as concerned as anyone else if I thought my mobile phone records could be easily available to officials across government.

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.

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

The Patriot Act, passed overwhelmingly but hastily after 9/11, allows the FBI to obtain telecommunication, financial, and credit records without a court order.

We want to be sensitive to people's concerns about privacy about their personal being and things, while ensuring that everybody on every flight has been properly screened.

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

The people of the FBI are sworn to protect both security and liberty. It isn't a question of conflict. We must care deeply about protecting liberty through due process of law, while also safeguarding the citizens we serve - in every investigation.

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.