Everyone is a proponent of strong encryption.

Everyone is a proponent of strong encryption.

Encryption would help prevent a lot of cyber attacks.

Trying to explain Turing’s work in encryption and decryption? It’s complicated.

If you go to a coffee shop or at the airport, and you’re using open wireless, I would use a VPN service that you could subscribe for 10 bucks a month. Everything is encrypted in an encryption tunnel, so a hacker cannot tamper with your connection.

Those who are experts in the fields of surveillance, privacy, and technology say that there need to be two tracks: a policy track and a technology track. The technology track is encryption. It works and if you want privacy, then you should use it.

Encryption threatens to lead all of us to a very dark place.

In some ways, you can think of end-to-end encryption as honoring what the past looked like.

The reality is that if you – let’s say you just pulled encryption. Let’s ban it. Let’s you and I ban it tomorrow. And so we sit in Congress and we say, thou shalt not have encryption. What happens then? Well, I would argue that the bad guys will use encryption from non-American companies, because they’re pretty smart.

I trust and use RakEM for my private messages and calls. Other messengers collected metadata about who I messaged, when and where – RakEM does not collect metadata, encrypts local files, and uses the strongest end-to-end encryption around.

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

Encryption works. Properly implemented strong crypto systems are one of the few things that you can rely on. Unfortunately, endpoint security is so terrifically weak that NSA can frequently find ways around it.

We have to solve the encryption problem. It is not easy.

We believe that when technology providers deploy encryption in their products, services, and platforms they need to maintain an appropriate mechanism for lawful access.

Encryption provides enormous benefits to society by enabling secure communications, data storage, and online transactions.

In this age of communications that span both distance and time, the only tool we have that approximates a ‘whisper‘ is encryption. When I cannot whisper in my wife‘s ear or the ears of my business partners, and have to communicate electronically, then encryption is our tool to keep our secrets secret.

With the growing availability of commoditized encryption, it is becoming easier for common criminals to communicate beyond the reach of traditional surveillance.

I love strong encryption. It protects us in so many ways from bad people. But it takes us to a place – absolute privacy – that we have not been to before.

Since Snowden went public, companies such as Apple and Google – two of the world‘s most valuable companies – have incorporated much greater encryption into their products and have also been at pains to show that they will not go along with U.S. government demands to access their encrypted products.

Without encryption, you and I wouldn’t be able to do our banking online. We wouldn’t be able to buy things online, because your credit cards – they’ve probably been ripped off anyway, but they would be ripped off left and right every day if there wasn’t encryption.

On balance, the use of encryption, just like the use of good locks on doors, has the net effect of preventing a lot more crime than it might assist.

Anyway, it’s not true that the authorities cannot access the content of the phone even if there is no back door. When I was at the NSA, we did this every single day, even on Sundays. I believe that encryption is a civic responsibility, a civic duty.

We think the government should be pushing for more encryption. That it’s a great thing. You know, it’s like the sun and the air and the water.

Without strong encryption, you will be spied on systematically by lots of people.

I don’t need to understand how encryption works to understand how it’s helping the criminals.

We basically have only two real tried and true techniques that can help counter this. One of them is to make systems as simple as we can, and there are limits to that because we can only simplify things so much. The other is the use of encryption.

There is an unarguable downside to unbreakable encryption.

User-controlled default encryption is a real challenge for law enforcement.

Apple and Google want to create encryption for which they could not provide you the key. Their business model will not survive if the American government has a special relationship with them that requires them to surrender this kind of information.

There are programs such as the NSA paying RSA $10 million to use an insecure encryption standard by default in their products. That’s making us more vulnerable not just to the snooping of our domestic agencies, but also foreign agencies.

The people working in my field also are quite skeptical of our ability to do this. It ultimately boils down to the problem of building complex systems that are reliable and that work, and that problem has long predated the problem of access to encryption keys.

I don’t own encryption, Apple doesn’t own encryption. Encryption, as you know, is everywhere. In fact some of encryption is funded by our government.

The stakes in the encryption debate are high, with significant consequences for personal privacy, the U.S. private sector, and our national security.

Somebody will be able to overcome any encryption technique you use!

You don’t need to be a spook to care about encryption. If you travel with your computer or keep it in a place where other people can put their hands on it, you’re vulnerable.

Let’s put it this way. The United States government has assembled a massive investigation team into me personally, into my work with the journalists, and they still have no idea what documents were provided to the journalist, what they have, what they don’t have, because encryption works.

Properly implemented strong crypto systems are one of the few things that you can rely on.

All too often, vital electronic evidence has been made unavailable through encryption that doesn’t allow for execution of legal process including court-approved search warrants.

There are two types of encryption: one that will prevent your sister from reading your diary and one that will prevent your government.

Encryption…is a powerful defensive weapon for free people. It offers a technical guarantee of privacy, regardless of who is running the government… It’s hard to think of a more powerful, less dangerous tool for liberty.

The government does things like insisting that all encryption programs should have a back door. But surely no one is stupid enough to think the terrorists are going to use encryption systems with a back door. The terrorists will simply hire a programmer to come up with a secure encryption scheme.

While encryption protects against cyberattacks, deploying it in warrant-proof form jeopardizes public safety more generally.

What encryption lets us do is say, “Yes, the Internet is insecure.” Bad guys are able to compromise computers everywhere, but we’re able to tolerate that because if they do intercept our messages, they can’t do any harm with it.

I believe that if you took privacy and you said, I’m willing to give up all of my privacy to be secure. So you weighted it as a zero. My own view is that encryption is a much better, much better world. And I’m not the only person that thinks that.