Topics in the News: Privacy
Ron DeSantis on Privacy:
(Technology Jan 11, 2022)
Enact protections for the data privacy of all Floridians
Big Tech companies have used their platforms to elevate preferred narratives and to stifle dissent, serving as a de facto council of censors. Florida was the first state to legislate protections for its citizens and we should build on this success.
These same companies make a fortune by selling user data. Floridians should not have their data utilized by Big Tech without providing affirmative consent and I urge the Legislature to enact protections for the data privacy of all Floridians.
Click for Ron DeSantis on other issues.
Source: 2022 State of the State Address to the Idaho legislature
Ron DeSantis on Privacy:
(Technology Feb 26, 2021)
Hold big tech accountable for political censorship
Florida is also leading in protecting our people from political censorship and holding big tech accountable. When our legislature convenes next month it will pass and I will sign the most ambitious reform yet proposed for combating
political censorship and preventing big tech from interfering in our elections and for safeguarding the privacy of your personal data. in Florida we are not going to let the terms of the debate in our country be set by Silicon Valley.
Click for Ron DeSantis on other issues.
Source: Remarks by Senator DeSantis at the 2021 CPAC Conference
Pete Buttigieg on Privacy:
(Technology Feb 18, 2020)
National data security policy, don't leave it to companies
We don't have a national policy on data security or on data privacy. Different states have them. We're relying on very outdated legal protections. We need to set a national standard, even when you give your data to a company, on what they
can and can't do with it, certain rights that we have over data, especially when companies are making money off of it. We can't just leave it to the companies to regulate themselves.
Click for Pete Buttigieg on other issues.
Source: CNN Town Hall 2020 with Erin Burnett
Andrew Yang on Privacy:
(Technology Feb 5, 2020)
Preserve our data rights and our data dignity
Q: How will you as president protect American citizens' privacy in the digital age?YANG: This is one of the foremost issues of our time. Our data is getting sold and resold over and over again. And we're none the wiser, and we're not seeing a dime of
it. We have to say, "that our data is ours." And if we choose to share it with a technology company, that is fine, but it is still ours, and we should a bill of rights around our data:
- You have to tell us every time you do something with it.
There needs to be an audit trail. You need to say, "look, I sold it to them; I resold it to them."
- We need to share in any value you're receiving for our data. If you're going to get money from our data, then we deserve a cut.
- We can change
our preferences and turn this off whenever we want, because, again, it's our information, and just because we decided to share it on your platform for a certain period of time should not be some kind of lifelong commitment that we can't undo.
Click for Andrew Yang on other issues.
Source: CNN N. H. Town Hall on eve of 2020 N. H. primary
Julian Castro on Privacy:
(Abortion Oct 15, 2019)
Codify Roe v. Wade, repeal Hyde Amendment
Q: What about adding new Supreme Court seats to create a liberal majority and protect things like abortion rights?V.P. Joe BIDEN: I would not pack the Court. What I would do is make sure that the people that I recommended for the Court [would]
support the right of privacy.
Mayor Pete BUTTIGIEG: I'm not talking about packing the Court just with people who agree with me. What I'm talking about is reforms that will depoliticize the Court.
CASTRO: I wouldn't pack the Court. The
might be to look at term limits or having people cycle off from the appellate courts. So that you would have a replenishment of perspective. I would also make sure that I appoint, as president, people who respect the precedent of Roe v. Wade. That we
codify Roe v. Wade. That we do away with things like the Hyde Amendment because you shouldn't only be able to have reproductive freedom if you have money. We have to concern ourselves not only with reproductive freedom but also reproductiv
Click for Julian Castro on other issues.
Source: October Democratic CNN/NYTimes Primary debate
Pete Buttigieg on Privacy:
(Government Reform Oct 15, 2019)
Expand but depoliticize Supreme Court
Q: What about adding new Supreme Court seats to create a liberal majority and protect things like abortion rights?V.P. Joe BIDEN: I would not pack the Court. What I would do is make sure that the people that I recommended for the Court, from Ruth
Bader Ginsburg to Elena Kagan support the right of privacy on which the entire notion of a woman's right to choose is based.
BUTTIGIEG: I'm not talking about packing the Court just with people who agree with me. What I'm talking about is
will depoliticize the Court. I'm not wedded to a particular solution but I am committed to establishing a commission on day one that will propose reforms to depoliticize the Supreme Court because we can't go on like this.
Mayor Julian CASTRO:
I wouldn't pack the Court. The smarter move might be to look at term limits or having people cycle off from the appellate courts. So that you would have a replenishment of perspective.
Click for Pete Buttigieg on other issues.
Source: October Democratic CNN/NYTimes Primary debate
Joe Biden on Privacy:
(Government Reform Oct 15, 2019)
Don't pack the Supreme Court
Q: What about adding new Supreme Court seats to create a liberal majority and protect things like abortion rights?BIDEN: Reproductive rights are a constitutional right. In fact every woman should have that right. I would not pack the Court.
What I would do is make sure that the people that I recommended for the Court, from Ruth Bader Ginsburg to Elena Kagan support the right of privacy on which the entire notion of a woman's right to choose is based.
Click for Joe Biden on other issues.
Source: October Democratic CNN/NYTimes Primary debate
John Delaney on Privacy:
(Technology Jul 17, 2019)
Adopt California's strict privacy rules federally
John Delaney on Online Privacy: Congress should adopt California's privacy rules.At least one candidate has suggested Congress emulate California's own sweeping online privacy law, considered the toughest in the country. "I favor
digital privacy legislation at the federal level very similar to what California has done," former Rep. John Delaney told The New York Times. "I think that's the right framework."
The California Consumer Privacy Act, set to go into effect in 2020, gives consumers the right to opt out of the sale of their personal information, to request that their data be deleted and to request that companies disclose what information gets
collected on them. It allows the state to fine companies for violations and, under certain circumstances, lets individual Californians sue companies for failing to keep their data secure.
Click for John Delaney on other issues.
Source: Politico "2020Dems on the Issues"
Andrew Yang on Privacy:
(Technology Jul 17, 2019)
Users should have property rights to their data
Andrew Yang on Online Privacy: Users should have property rights to their data. No candidates have similar views.Some public figures have called for data to be treated akin to property, affording users ownership over their personal information
and extensive rights over just how that information can be collected, shared and used.
Andrew Yang, the former tech entrepreneur who has reached cult-hero status in certain corners of the web, backs this idea. For him, that means users should have the right to opt out of any data collection,
to be told if a website has information on them, to have all of their data deleted from a site upon request and to move all their information to another site if desired.
Click for Andrew Yang on other issues.
Source: Politico "2020Dems on the Issues"
Tom Steyer on Privacy:
(Abortion Jul 12, 2019)
Supports Roe v. Wade's right to privacy
Abortion: Steyer is emphatically pro-abortion. Steyer has a very thin public record of commenting on legal and judicial issues.
He also supports Roe v. Wade, thus indicating a belief in the so-called constitutional "right to privacy" and "right to abortion."
Click for Tom Steyer on other issues.
Source: Josh Hammer, The Daily Wire, on 2019 Democratic primary
Howie Hawkins on Privacy:
(Technology May 19, 2019)
Public broadband; public ownership of online platforms
Establish a public broadband service as a not-for-profit public utility in order to provide universal access to a high-speed phone, TV, and internet service at lower costs and with net neutrality.Online platforms like Amazon, Facebook, Google, and
Uber tend toward monopoly because people gravitate to the platforms that have the most users and information. These monopolies are abusing data collection and privacy, censoring content, and eliminating competitors through predatory pricing and buyouts.
The remedy is a combination of antitrust action to divest tech conglomerates of multiple platforms and the
conversion of some platforms to public utilities that serve the public interest.
Click for Howie Hawkins on other issues.
Source: 2020 Presidential Campaign website HowieHawkins.us
Kamala Harris on Privacy:
(Corporations May 12, 2019)
Facebook is like a utility; needs to be regulated
Q: Your opinion on Facebook and social media? A: I think that Facebook has experienced massive growth and has prioritized its growth over the best interests of its consumers, especially on the issue of privacy.
There is no question that there needs to be serious regulation, and that that has not been happening. There needs to be more oversight.
Q: Do you think they should be broken up?
A: Yes, I think we have to seriously take a look at that. They're essentially a utility. There are very few people that can actually get by without somehow, somewhere using Facebook.
We have to recognize it for what it is. It is essentially a utility that has gone unregulated. As far as I'm concerned, that's got to stop.
Click for Kamala Harris on other issues.
Source: CNN SOTU 2019 interview of presidential hopefuls
Amy Klobuchar on Privacy:
(Technology Mar 17, 2019)
Users of social media should be able to control their data
Those companies for so long have said, we have your back. Meanwhile, your data is getting shared. You send an e-mail to someone, and the next thing, you see an advertisement about the thing you sent the e-mail on. So that's why I want privacy
legislation to basically say, hey, we have a right over our data. Stop messing around with us, and then also put in plain language what your rights are, instead of 50 pages. And then, finally, notify us when there's breaches.
Click for Amy Klobuchar on other issues.
Source: CNN State of the Union 2019 on 2020 Presidential hopefuls
John Delaney on Privacy:
(Technology Mar 12, 2019)
Bipartisanship on infrastructure, digital privacy, and more
The former technology executive did what he had to make his pitch for moderation and accord. "I don't think bipartisanship is a dirty word," he said.He ticked off six possible areas of common ground he thinks
both parties could find if he's president--a carbon tax; infrastructure spending; criminal justice reform; immigration reform; digital privacy and a new national service programme. You have to admit, he's an optimist.
Click for John Delaney on other issues.
Source: BBC.com on 2020 Democratic primary contenders at 2019 SXSW
Jay Inslee on Privacy:
(Technology Mar 10, 2019)
Regulate internet to protect privacy & net neutrality
We have to do things that will protect Americans in this new Internet age, one of which is to protect our privacy. We passed one of, if not the best privacy bills in the United States, so that our privacy cannot be shopped and marketed and commoditized.
That's extremely important, given what's going on in the world. Second, we have to protect our net neutrality. And I'm proud to have signed the first law in the United States by statute that will protect our net neutrality.
Click for Jay Inslee on other issues.
Source: CNN 2019 "State of the Union" on 2020 Presidential hopefuls
Elizabeth Warren on Privacy:
(Corporations Mar 8, 2019)
Breaking up big internet companies is doable and necessary
Small businesses would have a fair shot to sell their products on Amazon without the fear of Amazon pushing them out of business. Google couldn't smother competitors by demoting their products on Google Search. Facebook would face real pressure from
Instagram and WhatsApp to improve the user experience and protect our privacy. Tech entrepreneurs would have a fighting chance to compete against the tech giants.
Click for Elizabeth Warren on other issues.
Source: Blog posting on Medium.com by Elizabeth Warren
Cory Booker on Privacy:
(Corporations Mar 7, 2019)
Don't condemn high tech business; regulate them
On high tech regulation: "Why do we need to universally condemn entire sectors of our society, as opposed to creating regulations and rules that make sure that they are affirming what's in the best interest of our country?" Booker supports more
regulation on privacy and security issues. He said too few companies control too much of the industry to expect them to self-regulate, and he criticized practices like contracting low-wage jobs, instead of providing corporate benefits to those workers.
Click for Cory Booker on other issues.
Source: NPR Morning Edition, "Election 2020: Opening Arguments"
Hillary Clinton on Privacy:
(War & Peace Feb 12, 2019)
OpEd: supported Iraq War to avoid looking unpatriotic
Soon president [Buh in 2002] was telling us that "either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists," a dictum impossible for America to uphold or enforce in the case of Pakistan and many other states playing the three-dimensional chess game of
geopolitics in the Islamic world. Next it was an "Axis of Evil," and so on. For the home front, the message was that we would be kept safe through the deployment of force and the acceptance of some encroachments on our freedom and privacy.
And also, for some reason, we would need to invade Iraq. Democrats, unsure of themselves, were afraid to sound like an opposition at all, and many carefully avoided opposing the Iraq War for fear of looking unpatriotic. (Some, particularity
Hillary Clinton, would come to regret this posturing.) Instead they tried to change the subject, emphasizing Social Security and Medicare, even though global security was the dominant issue of our moment--even in Indiana.
Click for Hillary Clinton on other issues.
Source: Shortest Way Home, by Pete Buttigieg, p. 50
Pete Buttigieg on Privacy:
(War & Peace Feb 12, 2019)
Not realistic to demand "with us or with the terrorists"
Soon president [Buh in 2002] was telling us that "either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists," a dictum impossible for America to uphold or enforce in the case of Pakistan and many other states playing the three-dimensional chess game of
geopolitics in the Islamic world. Next it was an "Axis of Evil," and so on. For the home front, the message was that we would be kept safe through the deployment of force and the acceptance of some encroachments on our freedom and privacy.
And also, for some reason, we would need to invade Iraq. Democrats, unsure of themselves, were afraid to sound like an opposition at all, and many carefully avoided opposing the Iraq War for fear of looking unpatriotic. (Some, particularity
Hillary Clinton, would come to regret this posturing.) Instead they tried to change the subject, emphasizing Social Security and Medicare, even though global security was the dominant issue of our moment--even in Indiana.
Click for Pete Buttigieg on other issues.
Source: Shortest Way Home, by Pete Buttigieg, p. 50
Kamala Harris on Privacy:
(Abortion Jan 21, 2019)
Don't limit abortions to the first 20 weeks of pregnancy
A supporter of abortion rights, Harris voted against a bill that would limit abortions to the first 20 weeks of pregnancy. As California state attorney general, she launched an investigation of anti-abortion activist
David Daleiden, whose undercover videos later sparked charges of breaking privacy laws. His supporters said Harris' relationship with Planned Parenthood was a conflict of interest.
Click for Kamala Harris on other issues.
Source: PBS News hour on 2020 Presidential hopefuls
Amy Klobuchar on Privacy:
(Principles & Values Nov 26, 2018)
Nicknamed "The Senator of Small Things," but some are big
In the Senate, Ms. Klobuchar is not in the forefront on divisive issues like immigration, but she has led efforts to curb the skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs, expand voting rights, address sexual harassment and protect online privacy after
revelations of Facebook's data mining.Early in her tenure, she carved out a niche in consumer protection, shepherding passage of bipartisan bills to ban lead in toys and improve swimming pool safety after several highly publicized child deaths,
measures that Republican strategists in Minnesota said have earned Ms. Klobuchar a derisive nickname: "The Senator of Small Things."
Ms. Klobuchar has heard the "small things" criticism, and resents it. "Not for a minute do
I view these as small things," she said sharply. "They're big things for the people whose kids' lives were saved."
Click for Amy Klobuchar on other issues.
Source: NY Times on 2020 Democratic primary
Deb Haaland on Privacy:
(Technology Oct 9, 2018)
Supports net neutrality and public internet infrastructure
I support the right to privacy and net neutrality, and I will work to continue the expansion of broadband access across New Mexico.
In a world where internet access is essential to success in school, in the job market, and at work--public internet infrastructure is a big, smart idea that deserves further discussion.
Click for Deb Haaland on other issues.
Source: 2018 NM-1st House campaign website DebForCongress.com
Joe Biden on Privacy:
(Homeland Security Aug 2, 2018)
1991: Favors government "back doors" into encryption
In 1991, Biden introduced two bills aimed at curbing terrorism and crime respectively, both of which featured language mandating that tech companies create "back doors" in their products for law enforcement to snoop through. Biden tried to water
down encryption again three years later with a successful bill that expanded federal wiretap powers, but privacy advocates managed to remove this and other provisions from the bill before it passed.
Click for Joe Biden on other issues.
Source: Jacobin Magazine on 2020 presidential hopefuls
Barack Obama on Privacy:
(Technology Apr 17, 2018)
Government should decide privacy limits, not companies
The bargain at the heart of our government has always been that privacy matters enormously, but it must yield when the government needs to see into private spaces to protect the community. No large part of America has been entirely off limits to
judicial authority. President Obama was, by background an instinct, a civil libertarian, but he could see the darkness and the danger in talking about privacy as an absolute value. He dove into the issue in 2016, ordering unprecedented scrutiny of
the clash between privacy and security. He said that if we were headed to a place where wide swaths of American life would be judge proof, that wasn't a decision a company should make: only the people should make such a decision.
Unfortunately,
President Obama ran out of time. It was possible to build secure mobile devices and still permit judges to access in appropriate cases, he left office without deciding what to do next, including whether to seek legislation or regulation of some kind.
Click for Barack Obama on other issues.
Source: A Higher Loyalty, by James Comey, p.153-4
Arvin Vohra on Privacy:
(Civil Rights Dec 12, 2017)
Abolish Patriot Act and redundant spy agencies
When we abolish the Patriot Act and massively downsize the current redundant spy agencies into one, constitutionally limited agency, you get your privacy and dignity back. This downsize means an end to warrantless wiretapping and a renewed protection of
your right to maintain your privacy against any search or seizure without probable cause. We can focus on the actual defense of our country. I want to protect the individual right to privacy (expressed in the 4th Amendment).
Click for Arvin Vohra on other issues.
Source: 2018 Maryland Senate campaign website VoteVohra.com
Donald Trump on Privacy:
(Technology Apr 3, 2017)
Repeal internet privacy rules: let companies sell ad info
President Trump signed a bill repealing internet privacy rules passed last year that would have given internet users greater control over what service providers can do with their data. The FCC regulations would have required broadband companies to get
permission from their customers in order to use their "sensitive" data--including browsing history, geolocation and financial and medical information--to create targeted advertisements.The bill uses a little-known tool called the
Congressional Review Act (CRA) that allows the president to overturn recently passed agency regulations. Before Trump took office, the CRA had only been successfully passed once, under Pres. Bush in 2001. Trump has signed 10 bills overturning
Obama-era regulations, including the internet privacy rule.
The bill caused an uproar when it passed the House and Senate last month, with critics accusing Republicans of selling their constituents' privacy.
Click for Donald Trump on other issues.
Source: The Hill analysis of 2016-17 Trump Administration
Donald Trump on Privacy:
(Technology Oct 9, 2016)
Proportional response to eliminate cyberattacks
Q: What steps will you take to protect vulnerable infrastructure and institutions from cyber attack, while protecting personal privacy on electronic devices and the internet?TRUMP: The United States government should not spy on its own citizens.
That will not happen in a Trump administration. As for protecting the Internet, any attack on the Internet should be considered a provocative act that requires the utmost in protection and, at a minimum, a proportional response that identifies and
then eliminates threats to our Internet infrastructure.
CLINTON: I will make it clear that the United States will treat cyberattacks just like any other attack. We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses and we will
invest in protecting our governmental networks and national infrastructure.
JILL STEIN: Negotiate international treaty banning cyberwarfare; create a new UN agency tasked with identifying the sources of cyber attacks.
Click for Donald Trump on other issues.
Source: ScienceDebate.org: 20 questions for 2016 presidential race
Hillary Clinton on Privacy:
(Technology Oct 9, 2016)
Respond to cyberattacks economically & militarily
Q: What steps will you take to protect vulnerable infrastructure and institutions from cyber attack, while protecting personal privacy on electronic devices and the internet?CLINTON: As President, I will fight to ensure that the Internet remains a
space for free exchange, providing all people equal access to knowledge and ideas. While we must protect this exchange and the privacy of individuals, we must also invest in cybersecurity, which is not only essential to our national and economic
security, but will become increasingly important as devices across sectors are networked. As president I will make it clear that the United States will treat cyberattacks just like any other attack. We will be ready with serious political, economic
and military responses and we will invest in protecting our governmental networks and national infrastructure. I believe the United States should lead the world in setting the rules of cyberspace. If America doesn't, others will.
Click for Hillary Clinton on other issues.
Source: ScienceDebate.org: 20 questions for 2016 presidential race
Hillary Clinton on Privacy:
(Technology Jan 17, 2016)
Work with Silicon Valley: security consistent with privacy
Q: Tech companies are responsible for the encryption technology to protect personal data, but the government wants a back door into that information. Is it possible to find common ground?O'MALLEY: I believe whether it's a back door or a front door
that the American principle of law should still hold that our federal government should have to get a warrant, whether they want to come through the back door or your front door. And I also agree with Benjamin Franklin, who said, no people should ever
give up their privacy or their freedoms in a promise for security.
CLINTON: I was very pleased that leaders of President Obama's administration went out to Silicon Valley last week and began exactly this conversation about what we can do, consistent
with privacy and security.
Q: The leaders from the intelligence community went to Silicon Valley, they were flatly turned down. They got nowhere.
CLINTON: That is not what I've heard. Let me leave it at that.
Click for Hillary Clinton on other issues.
Source: 2016 NBC Democratic debate
Bernie Sanders on Privacy:
(Homeland Security Oct 13, 2015)
PATRIOT Act was 99-1, and I was the one
Q: You and Hillary Clinton both voted for the Patriot Act which created the NSA surveillance program. You've emphasized civil liberties, privacy during your campaign. Aren't these two things in conflict?CHAFEE: No, that was a 99-to-1 vote for the
PATRIOT Act, and it was seen as modernizing our ability to tap phones which always required a warrant.
Q: Do you regret that vote?
CHAFEE: As long as you're getting a warrant, I believe that under the Fourth Amendment, you should be able to do
surveillance. And in the Patriot Act, section 215 started to get broadened too far. So I would be in favor of addressing and reforming section 215 of the Patriot Act.
Q: Secretary Clinton?
CLINTON: No, I don't. I think that
it was necessary to make sure that we were able after 9/11 to put in place the security that we needed.
SANDERS: It was 99 to one and I was maybe the one. [Note: See related FactCheck--he was not the one!]
Click for Bernie Sanders on other issues.
Source: 2015 CNN Democratic primary debate in Las Vegas
Bernie Sanders on Privacy:
(Homeland Security May 31, 2015)
Worried about invasion of privacy from NSA corporate America
Q: Do you support the USA Freedom Act, limiting the PATRIOT Act?SANDERS: I may well be voting for it. It doesn't go as far as I would like it to go. I voted against the original Patriot Act, and I voted against its reauthorization. Look, we have got
to be vigorous in fighting terrorism and protecting the American people. But we have to do it in a way that protects the constitutional rights of the American people. And I'm very, very worried about the invasion of privacy rights that we're seeing not
only from the NSA and the government but from corporate America, as well. We're losing our privacy rights. It's a huge issue.
Q: The government is going to be asking corporate America to keep this data under the USA Freedom Act. You're comfortable
with that?
SANDERS: No, I'm not. But we have to look at the best of bad situations. The question is whether the NSA keeps it, the question is whether it is transferred to the phone companies, who already keep records for an extended period of time.
Click for Bernie Sanders on other issues.
Source: Meet the Press 2015 interviews of 2016 presidential hopefuls
Kamala Harris on Privacy:
(Civil Rights Apr 1, 2015)
Ensure marriage equality for all Californians
She has fought to reduce elementary school truancy in California, preserve the state's natural resources, and ensure marriage equality for all Californians.
She has also worked with the technology industry to improve online privacy and safety.
Click for Kamala Harris on other issues.
Source: 2016 Senate campaign website, KamalaHarris.org
Rand Paul on Privacy:
(Homeland Security Feb 26, 2015)
Kids are concerned with privacy & the surveillance state
Sen. Rand Paul will drop by a College Republicans reception, then pose for hundreds of pictures at a "liberty reception" hosted by the Young Americans for Liberty. In an interview with POLITICO to preview his CPAC remarks, Paul offered backhanded advice
to Jeb Bush: "A lot of kids are concerned with privacy, and the fact that he's come out to be a big advocate for the surveillance state and the dragnet, collecting all the phone records--if he's smart, he won't probably bring that up at CPAC."
"Younger voters in particular don't like hypocrisy," Paul continued. "Him saying recently down in Florida that he would still incarcerate people even for medical marijuana, and then it turns out--him basically acknowledging that he'd been using
recreational marijuana as a kid. I don't think anybody faults him for youthful indiscretions. But if you look at the people who end up getting caught up in the war on drugs, they're often not elite kids at prep schools. They're poor kids with no school."
Click for Rand Paul on other issues.
Source: Poltiico.com on 2015 Conservative Political Action Conf.
Arvin Vohra on Privacy:
(Homeland Security Jan 20, 2015)
Intelligently rethink overall military spending
Libertarian Party vice-chair Arvin Vohra calls Obama out on ignoring here the expensive and destructive Drug War, and his hypocrisy on Internet informational privacy while running, and defending, a universal surveillance state, and his refusal to
intelligently rethink overall military spending and postures while talking up a supposedly more intelligent form of constant foreign military intervention.
Click for Arvin Vohra on other issues.
Source: Reason Mag.: Libertarian response to 2015 State of the Union
Barack Obama on Privacy:
(Technology Jan 20, 2015)
Better meet the threat of cyberattacks
No foreign nation, no hacker, should be able to shut down our networks, steal our trade secrets, or invade the privacy of American families, especially our kids. We are making sure our government integrates intelligence to combat cyber threats, just as
we have done to combat terrorism. And tonight, I urge this Congress to finally pass the legislation we need to better meet the evolving threat of cyber-attacks, combat identity theft, and protect our children's information.
Click for Barack Obama on other issues.
Source: 2015 State of the Union address
Elizabeth Warren on Privacy:
(Technology Aug 24, 2014)
End bulk collection of phone records
Warren would like to end the bulk-collection of phone records, which is authorized by Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act and set to expire June 1, 2015.Even though Warren praised the Obama's administration's reforms of its surveillance apparatus
earlier this year, she said they might not go far enough: "Congress must go further to protect the right to privacy, to end the NSA's dragnet surveillance of ordinary Americans, to make the intelligence community more transparent and accountable."
Click for Elizabeth Warren on other issues.
Source: Megan R. Wilson in TheHill.com weblog, "Clinton vs. Warren"
Rand Paul on Privacy:
(Technology Dec 8, 2013)
4th Amendment bans NSA from collecting everyone's phone data
Q: The NSA collects 4 billion cell phone records outside the country every day. How severely would you like to restrict the surveillance by the National Security Agency?PAUL: I would like to apply the Fourth Amendment to third-party records. I don't
think you give up your privacy when someone else holds your records. So, when I have a contract with a phone company, those are still my records. And the government can look at them if they ask a judge. But the most important thing is, a warrant applies
to one person. A warrant doesn't apply to everyone in America. So, it's absolutely against the spirit and the letter of the Fourth Amendment to say that a judge can write one warrant and you can get every phone call in America. That's what's happening.
I think it's wrong. It goes against everything America stands for. And I will help to fight that all the way to the Supreme Court.
Q: So, you would ban mass data mining?
PAUL: I'm not opposed to the NSA. But I am in favor of the Fourth Amendment.
Click for Rand Paul on other issues.
Source: Fox News Sunday 2013 series of 2016 presidential hopefuls
Kamala Harris on Privacy:
(Technology Jul 2, 2013)
Warns mobile app companies to protect privacy or face fines
Harris has started to warn scores of companies that their mobile applications or "apps" violate California privacy law and could face fines of up to $2,500 each time one is downloaded. Harris announced an agreement with the apps platforms that
allows consumers the opportunity to review an app's privacy policy before they download the app rather than after, and offers consumers a consistent location for an app's privacy policy on the application-download screen in the platform store.
Click for Kamala Harris on other issues.
Source: Consumer Watchdog blog on 2019 Democratic Primary
Kamala Harris on Privacy:
(Technology Jul 23, 2012)
Unit to prevent misuse of technology to invade privacy
On privacy: "The Privacy Unit will police the privacy practices of individuals and organizations to hold accountable those who misuse technology to invade the privacy of others," according to Harris. The Department's press release explained, "The
Privacy Unit's mission to enforce and protect privacy is broad. It will enforce laws regulating the collection, retention, disclosure, and destruction of private or sensitive information by individuals, organizations, and the government.
Click for Kamala Harris on other issues.
Source: Marketing Research blog on 2019 Democratic Primary
Nikki Haley on Privacy:
(Immigration Apr 3, 2012)
Audit businesses to see if using E-Verify
We already had a strong anti-illegal immigration bill when I became governor. All I wanted to do was enforce it. Our law required businesses to prove they weren't hiring illegal aliens by using, among other methods, a federal database called E-Verify.
The problem is, for E-Verify to work government has to know whether employers are actually using it. Obama's Department of Homeland Security told us we could no longer audit businesses to check if they were using E-Verify. The privacy of the people
being checked, they said, would be compromised if we asked for proof from businesses. Out of the more than 6,000 businesses they had checked, over 2,000 violations had been found. But no more. Now the federal government was saying that we couldn't use
the best and most efficient means we had to enforce our law.
My goal wasn't to overburden employers with rules and regulations. I just wanted to use the easiest and least costly way, to ensure we weren't employing illegals, and that was E-Verify.
Click for Nikki Haley on other issues.
Source: Can't Is Not an Option, by Gov. Nikki Haley, p.211-212
Mike Bloomberg on Privacy:
(Crime Sep 28, 2010)
OpEd: never a conspicuous civil libertarian
New Yorkers, most of them still Democrats, objected to Bloomberg's handling of the 2004 Republican National Convention, when 1,800 people were arrested and held in a large detention center, some guilty of no more than standing on a street during a police
sweep. Never a conspicuous civil libertarian, the mayor brusquely dismisses the issue of the treatment of demonstrators, and privacy in general, justifying himself and his Police Department: "There's a camera watching you at all times when you're out in
the street; the civil liberties issue has long been settled," he says.As he sees it, those who were arrested put themselves at risk and in effect got what they deserved because the police were reacting to threats. 5 years after the convention, the
city had spent $6.6 million to defend the lawsuits, an additional $1.7 million to settle 90 claims and still faced lawsuits filed by hundreds of plaintiffs. About 90% of the people arrested had their charges dismissed outright or dropped after 6 months.
Click for Mike Bloomberg on other issues.
Source: Bloomberg: Money, Power, Politics, by J.Purnick, p.154-155
Rand Paul on Privacy:
(Homeland Security Sep 1, 2010)
Warrantless searches overstep Constitutional powers
In the last nine years, the Federal Government has expanded the scope of its power at an alarming rate, while blatantly ignoring the Constitution. Whether it's passing the 315 page Patriot Act without a single member of Congress ever reading the bill,
proposing a National ID Card, establishing FISA courts and utilizing warrantless searches, or betraying the medical privacy of ordinary citizens, the Federal Government has overstepped its limited powers as stipulated in the Constitution.
Click for Rand Paul on other issues.
Source: 2010 Senate campaign website, www.randpaul2010.com, "issues"
Joe Biden on Privacy:
(Abortion Oct 1, 2008)
Constitution does offer an inherent right to privacy
Q: Do you think there’s an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution? A: I think the liberty clause of the 14th Amendment offers a right to privacy. Now that’s one of the big debates that I have with my conservative scholar friends, that they say,
you know, unless a right is enumerated--unless it’s actually uses the word “privacy” in the Constitution--then no such “constitutional right” exists. Well, I think people have an inherent right.
Click for Joe Biden on other issues.
Source: 2008 CBS News presidential interview with Katie Couric
Mike Gravel on Privacy:
(Government Reform May 2, 2008)
FISA was created to check abuse of power
The 1968 Senate Church committee estimated that more than half a million Americans had an intelligence file. At the urging of his Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld, and Chief of Staff Dick Cheney, Western Union, RCA, and ITT participated in the spying but
didn’t have to testify to the committee. “Domestic intelligence activity has threatened and undermined the Constitutional rights of Americans to free speech, association and privacy,” the Church Committee’s final report said. “It has done so primarily
because the Constitutional system for checking abuse of power has not been applied.“ The Congressional investigations resulted in laws prohibiting the assassination of foreign leaders and the creation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)
and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). The executive branch is supposed to get permission from this special court before it can engage in surveillance. We saw how effective this law was after September 11, 2001: not very.
Click for Mike Gravel on other issues.
Source: A Political Odyssey, by Mike Gravel, p.195-196
Barack Obama on Privacy:
(Drugs Aug 14, 2007)
A “secret smoker”, especially around reporters
There was a reason besides personal privacy why Obama had been so resistant to my presence [while preparing this book]: Obama was a secret smoker--and he did not want to light up in front of a reporter.
Some politicians are comfortable smoking in front of the media or in public, while others believe the habit will reflect poorly on their public image. Obama was in the latter group, almost to an obsessive degree.The public portrait of
Obama now bordered on saintly, especially for a politician. Learning that he smoked might tarnish this picture. So Obama went to great lengths to conceal the habit.
It really came as no surprise to me that Obama smoked. His wife mentioned in our
interview that Obama had a cigarette dangling from his lips on their first lunch together. He had written in Dreams from My Father about smoking in the college dorms. But most telling, like most smokers, he occasionally smelled of tobacco.
Click for Barack Obama on other issues.
Source: From Promise to Power, by David Mendell, p.258&272-273
Joe Biden on Privacy:
(Abortion Apr 26, 2007)
Nominees should agree on constitutional right to privacy
Q: As president would you have a specific litmus test question on Roe v. Wade that you would ask of your nominees for the high court? A: I strongly support Roe v. Wade. I wouldn’t have a specific question but I would make sure that the people
I sent to be nominated for the Supreme Court shared my values; and understood that there is a right to privacy in the United States Constitution. That’s why I led the fight to defeat Bork, Roberts Alito, and Thomas.
Click for Joe Biden on other issues.
Source: 2007 South Carolina Democratic primary debate, on MSNBC
Barack Obama on Privacy:
(Homeland Security Mar 27, 2007)
Homeland security must protect citizens, not intrude on them
Every democracy is tested when it is faced with a serious threat. As a nation we have to find the right balance between privacy and security, between executive authority to face threats and uncontrolled power.
What protects us are the procedures we put in place to protect that balance, namely judicial warrants and congressional review. These are concrete safeguards to make sure surveillance hasn’t gone too far.
Click for Barack Obama on other issues.
Source: In His Own Words, edited by Lisa Rogak, p. 99
Barack Obama on Privacy:
(Homeland Security Mar 27, 2007)
Personal privacy must be protected even in terrorism age
Americans fought a revolution in part over the right to be free from unreasonable searches, to ensure that our government couldn’t come knocking in the middle of the night for no reason.
We need to find a way forward to make sure that we [stop] terrorists while protecting the privacy and liberty of innocent Americans.
Click for Barack Obama on other issues.
Source: In His Own Words, edited by Lisa Rogak, p.132
Hillary Clinton on Privacy:
(Civil Rights Jun 16, 2006)
Pushing for privacy bill of rights
Hillary Clinton urged creation of a “privacy bill of rights” to protect people’s personal data. Clinton’s speech on protecting consumers from identity theft and citizens from government snooping was the latest in a series of talks billed as “major
addresses” by aides. Previous speeches were on energy and the economy. A potential presidential candidate in 2008, Clinton noted her work on a House committee investigating the Nixon administration’s illegal snooping and other abuses. Clinton said
any president should have the latest technology to track terrorists, but within laws that provide for oversight by judges. “The administration’s refrain has been, ‘Trust us,’” Clinton said. “That’s unacceptable.
Their track record doesn’t warrant our trust. Unchecked mass surveillance without judicial review may sometimes be legal but it is dangerous. Every president should save those powers for limited critical situations.”
Click for Hillary Clinton on other issues.
Source: Associated Press 2008 speculation
Mike Bloomberg on Privacy:
(Homeland Security May 24, 2006)
Use DNA and fingerprint technology for worker ID database
Bloomberg thrust himself into the national immigration debate, advocating a plan that would establish a DNA or fingerprint database to track and verify all legal US workers. Bloomberg compared his proposed federal identification database to the Social
Security card, insisting that such a system would not violate citizens’ privacy and was not a civil liberties issue. “You don’t have to work--but if you want to work for a company you have to have a Social Security card,” he said. “The difference is, in
the day and age when everybody’s got a PC on their desk with Photoshop that can replicate anything, it’s become a joke.“The mayor said DNA and fingerprint technology could be used to create a worker ID database that will ”uniquely identify the person“
applying for a job, ensuring that cards are not illegally transferred or forged. The New York Civil Liberties Union said a DNA or fingerprint database ”doesn’t sound like the free society we think we’re living in.“
Click for Mike Bloomberg on other issues.
Source: Sara Kugler, Associated Press
Jesse Ventura on Privacy:
(Abortion Jul 2, 2000)
Keep abortion legal on privacy grounds
It’s not so much that I think abortion should be legal as it is that I don’t think it can be made illegal without abusing the Constitution. Unless the government barged in at the precise moment the woman was there in the operating room with her feet in
the stirrups, how would the government know she was getting an abortion? How could they even know she is pregnant without infringing upon her rights? Ultimately, I have to support keeping it legal. The government has to stay out of this one.
Click for Jesse Ventura on other issues.
Source: Do I Stand Alone, by Jesse Ventura, p.150
Page last updated: Mar 02, 2022
Error processing SSI file