Lee Tien Quotations

What's offensive to me is that you have the government selling Registered Traveler on the basis that we will get you through security lines faster, when they created the inconvenience on dubious grounds in the first place.

We're approaching the use of biometrics very, very cautiously, ... We feel that the technology is not even close to the accuracy being claimed by some of these companies. As such, there will be thousands of false negatives and false positives when you scale up the millions of travelers.

The fact is that over the last 10 or 20 years our privacy has been at risk by the vast amounts of data that society is putting in third-party hands. That's how modern society has been architected.

One snap shot of me walking down the street from a camera above, sure that's not really an invasion of privacy, but when you're able to connect the dots of my entire routine throughout the day, that's another story. Our laws haven't kept up with that, and yet technology is creating those problems for us.

RFID in passports is a terrible idea, period. But on top of that, the State Department is acting without the appropriate authority and without conducting any form of credible cost-benefit analysis. It's asking Americans to sacrifice their safety and privacy 'up front' for a dangerous experiment that it hasn't even bothered to justify.

RFID in passports is a terrible idea, period, ... But on top of that, the State Department is acting without the appropriate authority and without conducting any form of credible cost-benefit analysis. It's asking Americans to sacrifice their safety and privacy 'up front' for a dangerous experiment that it hasn't even bothered to justify.

There is a difference between talking to your kids and sniffing your kids.

Underground democracy movements will always need the anonymity of simple paper documents, but this technology makes it easier for governments to find dissenters,

I think the bottom line is that anybody that does disclosures of security vulnerabilities has to be very careful (so as to) not be accused of being a hacker. The computer trespass laws are very, very tricky.

Tying voter ID requirements to the REAL ID Act is bad for voting and for privacy, ... There's scant evidence that inadequate voter ID is a factor in election fraud. And the Commission admits to concerns that voter ID requirements could disenfranchise eligible voters, adversely affect minorities, or be used to monitor voting behaviors are 'serious and legitimate.' Moreover, the REAL ID Act turns drivers' licenses into de facto national IDs by forcing states to link their DMV databases so that drivers' personal data will instantly be available to a wide range of state, local, and federal officials. Once created, history has shown that law enforcement, employers, landlords, credit agencies, mortgage brokers, and direct mailers will find a way to access, and in all likelihood abuse, those databases.

These laws were written some time ago. They were careful in some places and not in others.

This is not within the scope of the original testing.

This enables the government to have a much easier time of knowing what private people are up to without any sort of process or consent.

This may be appropriate for cattle, pets or packages, but for humans it is a very different issue.

AT&T's customers reasonably expect that their communications are private and have long trusted AT&T to follow the law and protect that privacy.

AT&T customers reasonably expect that their communications are private and have long trusted AT&T to follow the law and protect their privacy.

Even worse, it shows how the government and private industry make backroom deals to weaken our privacy by compromising everyday equipment like printers. The logical next question is: what other deals have been or are being made to ensure that our technology rats on us?

It's simply a very bad idea for privacy and for free speech for the government to design any technology, much less the Internet, to be surveillance-friendly.

The FCC's overreach is an attempt to overrule Congress's decision to exclude 'information services,' ... By mandating backdoors in any service that has the capability to replace functions provided by a telephone, the FCC has stretched the statute to the breaking point.

In one sense, this battle is about the First Amendment in the global context. What we call free speech, a lot of countries deem illegal. If U.S. firms like AOL or Yahoo -- or for that matter, colleges and universities that provide Internet service -- must affirmatively prevent U.S. speech from reaching foreign audiences, that's a big burden and a big chilling effect.