The diverse threats we face are increasingly cyber-based. Much of America’s most sensitive data is stored on computers. We are losing data, money, and ideas through cyber intrusions. This threatens innovation and, as citizens, we are also increasingly vulnerable to losing our personal information.
Part of any solution to get our economy going should include steps to free up our small businesses by peeling back unnecessarily burdensome regulations, ending the continual threats of tax hikes, and addressing the cloud of federal debt that hangs over our economy.
I live surrounded by threats. I must stay alert. I am a law-abiding citizen; have never broken any rule while driving. But if someone clicks a photo or shoots a video, I have to be suspicious of their intentions.
I was extended secret service protection during my presidential run in 1984, when I received the most death threats ever made toward a candidate.
Some of the greatest national security threats we face cannot be defeated or defended by traditional military hardware, but only by greatly enhanced cyberspace warfare, including both offensive cyber-warfare and cyber-security.
It’s never fun to read death threats.
Putin responds to threats, to illegal sanctions, and to incessant propaganda with statements that governments need to respect each other’s national interests and to work together for common benefit. No politician in the West speaks in this way.
‘Toughness’ and ‘credibility’ are leitmotifs that run through both Trumpian and Kissingerian deal-making. Both men insist that war and diplomacy are inseparable and that, to be effective, diplomats need to be able to wield threats and offer incentives in equal, unrestricted measure.
California feels like Colombia but with less threats. I don’t have to be constantly looking over my shoulder.
Terror threats to the U.S. homeland have reached unprecedented levels.
In the urgent aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, with more attacks thought to be imminent, analysts wanted to use ‘contact chaining’ techniques to build what the NSA describes as network graphs of people who represented potential threats.
I believe we’re stronger when we speak loudly and unapologetically for human rights; when we stand with our allies against common threats like terrorism, radicalization, and poverty; and when we unite to prevent the world’s most dangerous regimes from acquiring the world’s deadliest weapons.
And let us be frank, the security threats that emanate from our ports come from foreign cargo.
Presidents have, of course, acted inappropriately in the past, and our constitutional system has a framework in place for addressing misconduct by the chief executive. But it’s designed to deal with straightforward criminal activity, not national security threats.
To advocate a New Order was to seek freedom and respect for peoples without prejudice, and to seek a stable basis for the existence all peoples, equally, and free of threats.
My fans are all pretty cool, you know; I’ve never really seen anybody fighting on Twitter, no death threats, no harsh language, no gay slurs, nothing like that.
Iran’s continued pursuit of nuclear weapons, support for international terrorist organizations, and abhorrent human rights practices pose one of the greatest threats to global security.
Israel is a beacon of hope, freedom and liberty surrounded by existential threats.
As women, we have to deal with constant threats of violence. And it’s in our media and fiction, too. So we internalize it.
Just as we can no longer pretend that ducking under wooden desks will keep us safe from a nuclear bomb, we must no longer pretend that a large nuclear stockpile will protect us from the most immediate security threats the United States faces.
Britain outside the E.U. would be less able to respond with the speed and strength we need to tackle complex and growing cross-border threats to all our communities.
The use of threats and intimidation to force energy companies to submit to an extremist agenda may be fitting under a totalitarian regime, but it is never acceptable in the United States.
In seeking to counter challenges such as terrorist threats, hostile state activity, or nuclear proliferation, we cannot work in isolation.
That said, the question remains: how to strike the balance between free speech and mutual respect in this mixed-up world, both blessed and cursed with instant communication? We should not fight fire with fire, threats with threats.
The alarm bells sound regularly: cybergeddon; the next Pearl Harbor; one of the greatest existential threats facing the United States. With increasing frequency, these are the grave terms officials invoke about the menace of cybercrime – and they’re not understating the threat.
In a world of serious threats, Britain stands tall, saving lives and building a more prosperous, stable future for all.
Those that are the loudest in their threats are the weakest in their actions.
In today’s interdependent world, a threat to one becomes a menace to all. And no state can defeat these challenges and threats alone.
Terrorism has come to publishing. It is a grave concern when criticism is turned to mortal threats.
If you live with death threats, you need friends. So you have to risk that they might spy on you.
We don’t want A.I. to engage in cyberbullying, stock manipulation, or terrorist threats; we don’t want the F.B.I. to release A.I. systems that entrap people into committing crimes. We don’t want autonomous vehicles that drive through red lights, or worse, A.I. weapons that violate international treaties.
Sporting cannot be subjected to fear, blackmail and threats.
The threat landscape continues to expand, while cyber threats are continually becoming more sophisticated. This has convinced organizations to expand their security policies and deploy more security solutions.
The Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee is crucial to the military’s ongoing modernization efforts, ensuring readiness levels are at a place where we can protect ourselves against threats from around the world.
