Hillary Clinton Quotes

The federal government has no right to treat all Americans as criminals by spying on their relationship with their doctors, employers, or bankers.

The government can still conduct clandestine searches of innocent people's private information such as library, medical, and financial records. This is wrong and should have been addressed in a true compromise.

In an age when many of our citizens casually reveal information about themselves in social media wildly beyond anything imaginable only a decade ago, it would seem to be a useful exercise in civics to re-educate the public about the value and purpose of protecting against unwarranted government intrusion.

The Supreme Court, of course, has the responsibility of ensuring that our government never oversteps its proper bounds or violates the rights of individuals. But the Court must also recognize the limits on itself and respect the choices made by the American people.

The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.

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 should outlaw all wiretapping—public and private, wherever and whenever it occurs, except when the security of the nation itself is at stake—and then only with the strictest safeguards.

The right of individual privacy is essential to the well-being of a free society and shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling state interest.

When awesome investigative power is entrusted to so many individuals, it is extremely important that they wield it with a proper regard for your constitutional rights, especially your right to privacy.

We don’t have to choose between preserving privacy and preventing terrorism. We do have to decide how much oversight and accountability there should be when the government conducts surveillance on its citizens.

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?

If we take away all our privacy rights, we become our own terrorists.

I want to make it clear … that America is not interested in spying on ordinary citizens.

I can’t allow the U. S. Government to destroy privacy and basic liberties.

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.

It took 100 years, a Supreme Court Decision, and an Act of Congress, to stop the telephone companies from recording any American’s telephone calls and giving them to the police.

Unfettered discretion [in obtaining information could] alter the relationship between citizen and government in a way that is inimical to democratic society.

[The FBI v. Apple Case] threatens a radical transformation of the relationship between the government and the governed.

I do not believe the government has the right to investigate somebody's private life.

Ironically, one of the clearer threats to consumer privacy is the government's largely unchecked ability to collect your sensitive information without due process.

Has President Bush exceeded his constitutional authority or acted illegally in authorizing wiretaps without a warrant? Benjamin Franklin would not have thought so.

In my day, the president ruled with authority before the law, but now all that is lost.

The right to personal privacy is precious. Without it, we are all potential victims for a prying secret police.

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.

Nothing that we have authorized conflicts with any law regarding privacy or any provision of the constitution.