There is more to life than increasing its speed.

YouTube now supports HD video.

You already have zero privacy - get over it.

Well, this privacy you're concerned about is largely an illusion. All you have to give up is your illusions, not any of your privacy. Right now, you can go onto the Internet and get a credit report about your neighbor and find out where your neighbor works, how much they earn and if they had a late mortgage payment and tons of other information.

If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines -- including Google -- do retain this information for some time and it's important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities.

A relatively small of data was collected and this was not authorised. We stopped driving immediately. There appears to be no use of data. It's sitting on a hard drive. We will not delete [the collected data] until ordered to do so.

The way that people think about privacy is changing a bit. What people want isn't complete privacy. It isn't that they want secrecy. It's that they want control over what they share and what they don't.

The mission of the company is to make the world more open and connected.

We're building a web where the default is social.

Mark [Zuckerberg] is a good guy.

Interviewer: If you had the power to change up to three things in the world today that are related to IT security, what would they be?
EK: Internet design--that's enough.

Interviewer: That's it? What's wrong with the design of the Internet?
EK: There's anonymity. Everyone should and must have an identification, or Internet passport. The Internet was designed not for public use, but for American scientists and the U.S. military. That was just a limited group of people--hundreds, or maybe thousands. Then it was introduced to the public and it was wrong...to introduce it in the same way.

I'd like to change the design of the Internet by introducing regulation--Internet passports, Internet police and international agreement--about following Internet standards. And if some countries don't agree with or don't pay attention to the agreement, just cut them off.

The problem is that it won't work. Any design of the Internet must allow for anonymity. Universal identification is impossible. Even attribution -- knowing who is responsible for particular Internet packets -- is impossible. Attempting to build such a system is futile, and will only give criminals and hackers new ways to hide.

Imagine a magic world in which every Internet packet could be traced to its origin. Even in this world, our Internet security problems wouldn't be solved. There's a huge gap between proving that a packet came from a particular computer and that a packet was directed by a particular person.

Moreover, centralizing information like this actually hurts security because it makes identity theft that much more profitable a crime.

The whole attribution problem is very similar to the copy-protection/digital-rights-management problem. Just as it's impossible to make specific bits not copyable, it's impossible to know where specific bits came from. Bits are bits. They don't naturally come with restrictions on their use attached to them, and they don't naturally come with author information attached to them.

Accept that there will always be anonymous speech on the Internet.

Every child is an artist. The problem is how to remain an artist once he grows up.

The first time you do something, it's science.
The second time, it's engineering.
A third time, it's just being a technician.
I'm a scientist, once I do something I do something else.

If you really want to know what the future's going to be, don't ask a technologist, a scientist, a physicist. Don't ask someone who's writing code. If you want to know what society is going to be like in 20 years, ask a kindergarten teacher. They know. In fact don't ask any kindergarten teacher, ask an experienced one. They're the ones that know what society is going to be like in another generation.

Doubt is the primary characteristic of the researcher.

Goedel's Theorem has been used to argue that a computer can never be as smart as a human being because the extent of its knowledge is limited by a fixed set of axioms, whereas people can discover unexpected truths... It plays a part in modern linguistic theories, which emphasize the power of language to come up with new ways to express ideas. And it has been taken to imply that you'll never entirely understand yourself, since your mind, like any other closed system, can only be sure of what it knows about itself by relying on what it knows about itself.

Seeing yourself as the world's victim is profoundly disempowering and keeps you locked in a cycle of self-created pain and misery.
We break free from this cycle by making a conscious decision to accept complete responsibility for our own reality.