When people say, "I have nothing to hide," what they're saying is, "My rights don't matter."

The problem is when [the state] monitor all of us, en masse, all of the time, without any specific justification for intercepting in the first place, without any specific judicial showing that there's a probable cause for that infringement of our rights.

We have to be able to reject disproportionate and unjustified responses in the cyber domain just as we do in the physical domain.

We have to recognise that rights are being violated. The United Nations actually filed a report that found that that was the case, that mass surveillance is a violation of rights.

I'm familiar with Andrei Sakharov reputation, but I don't know his personal history at all.

We need to think about encryption not as this sort of arcane, black art. It's a basic protection.

It's clear the CIA was trying to play 'keep away' with documents relevant to an investigation by their overseers in Congress, and that's a serious constitutional concern. But it's equally if not more concerning that we're seeing another 'Merkel Effect,' where an elected official does not care at all that the rights of millions of ordinary citizens are violated by our spies, but suddenly it's a scandal when a politician finds out the same thing happens to them.