Peter Swire Quotations

This raises new issues. Tracking people secretly is a worry. I think it would be good to clarify that strangers can't put these on your car without permission.

One worry is that candidates will talk out of a thousand sides of their mouth. What if they have a thousand messages that are different for every tiny part of the population? It's much harder to get accountability for what candidates say.

Just like a Social Security number can get copied today, a fingerprint could get copied tomorrow. And it's real hard to get a new fingerprint.

Recent revelations show even more clearly why the board is needed. The White House has had no privacy officials, and having privacy expertise in the White House will reduce the chance of mistakes going forward.

I think people get desensitized by cameras. They get used to them in casinos and then are less surprised when they are elsewhere.

It all could be linked up after the fact, and that was enough to lead to the federal policy.

We have systems that are robust and strong enough to do important things like move money, but not apparently robust enough to allow privacy choice.

When someone claims that we should make a security improvement at the expense of privacy or other values, we should apply ordinary analysis to make sure that the security payoff is really there. If we get little or no security improvement and a large infringement on free speech or other values, then we should be very careful. If there is a big security payoff, then we deserve to look at that more carefully,

What's done in the elevator stays in the elevator. Except when it doesn't.

Right now, there's no one at home at the White House when it comes to privacy. There's no political official in the White House who has privacy in their title or as part of their job description. Congress should take the lead here because this administration has not.

Private industry spends billions of dollars on this targeting. The companies think it works. Why wouldn't it work for politicians?

The more (the government) can figure out who the surfers are, the more peoples' First Amendment rights are in jeopardy.

Accuracy that is good enough for marketing is not necessarily good enough to detain a suspect.

It's evidence that privacy is not being taken seriously. The guidance is very clear.

It's everyone your teenager called from home, who is dating whom, contacts with reporters for politicians.

Everyone is still trying to figure out how to share more often while still keeping the key stuff secret.

It has to be secure by design, so grandma doesn't have to be a computer expert.

Cameras used for specific suspects and at specific times, that's good law enforcement. But I don't want it part of my permanent record every time I scratch myself on a public street.