Efforts to constrain encryption through forms of extraordinary access will inevitably introduce vulnerabilities into the security of consumer products in ways that are likely to have adverse long-term effects on the security, privacy, and civil liberties of citizens.
In our view, the current storage by the government of bulk meta-data creates potential risks to public trust, personal privacy, and civil liberty.
I think that has a lot of dangers, as does government surveillance, which is way too high.
I never thought I would tweet - I thought it was too dangerous.
As more of our medical records are stored electronically, the threats to our privacy will increase.
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.
Sharing with just your friends doesn't protect your privacy. I know the people at Facebook will disagree and argue that users can control what is shared with whom. But this is simply an illusion that makes us feel better about all the sharing we have done and are about to do.
Why would you codify a set of safeguards you might want to change as technology evolves and you face new risks of privacy, in addition to changing safeguards that might need to be relaxed in an emergency situation?
Simply handing over your iPod to a friend, your blind date, or the total stranger sitting next to you on the plane opens you up like a book." (Steven Levy)
