Starts off a little slow, but it's worth a read. I'm loathe to trust people who pursue government office, yet if these words actually reflect her beliefs, I'm impressed.
We should take concrete steps to protect people’s ability not only to communicate privately, but to transfer value privately, as they could have done with physical coins in the days in which the Fourth Amendment was crafted.
developers of open-source privacy software should not have to answer for the actions that other people take using the software they wrote.
We should not ask peers transacting with one another, where no intermediary exists, to collect and report information on each other.
The surveillance-is-fine-with-me attitude may reflect a “condition[ing]” of the American people by “influences alien to well-recognized Fourth Amendment freedoms.”[54] People may have gotten so used to a world swallowed by the third-party doctrine and the financial surveillance apparatus that has grown out of it that they have no expectation of freedom from government surveillance of their financial lives.
But we need to ask questions that go beyond the cost to financial institutions of preparing the reports and the cost to government agencies of sifting through them. We should consider with fresh eyes whether these measures are proportionate to the threats we face and whether they diminish the liberties that make the United States a beacon for the rest of the world. Has monitoring in our financial markets placed Americans in a fishbowl that exposes private decisions about sensitive matters to public view? Has the BSA infrastructure added damaging frictions to the financial system’s ability to serve people who are not involved in criminal activity, particularly people who are not wealthy or are associated with politically or socially disfavored activities?[33] Have we forgotten the need, in the words of Supreme Court Justice Brandeis, “to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent”?[34] Should we be curtailing, rather than expanding, the government’s enlistment of financial institutions to surveil their customers? Do technologies exist that can both help this country defend itself from threats at a reasonable cost and better protect Americans’ privacy?
For these and other new technologies to be able to play a role in protecting Americans’ privacy, government must guard jealously the ability of Americans to use them freely. Such protective measures may run counter to regulatory instincts, but overcoming those instincts is crucial to maintaining the freedom and prosperity of the American people.