Good morning. The Judiciary Committee will come to order and without objection the chair is authorized to declare recesses of the committee at any time. Welcome everyone to this mornings legislative hearing on h. R. 699 the email privacy act and i will begin by recognizing myself for an opening statement. Todays hearing examines h. R. 699 the email privacy act and the need to modernize the electronic indications privacy act and in enacting it 30 years ago Congress Declared that the laws purpose was to achieve a fair balance between the privacy expectations of american citizens in the legitimate needs of law and fortunes and First Nations is bigger for First Nations these piriformis decades old outdated law has been a priority as chairman of the committee not to working with members of Congress Advocacy groups on Law Enforcement for years on many complicated nuances involved in updating this law. Im i am pleased to now hold this important hearing to examine the leading reform proposals in the house h. R. 699 and to examine in more detail the nuances Congress Must consider in updating this law. While technology has undoubtedly outpaced the law in the last three decades the purpose of the law remained steadfast that im confident that congress will once again strike that balance and do so in a way that continues to promote the development and use of new technologies and services and create a statutory framework that will modernize the law to reflect how people can indicate with one another today and in the future. Reform has brought sweeping implications. More specifically the stored Communications Act governs that the state and local government access to stored email, count records and subscriber information from telephones email and other Service Providers. Ecpa not only of plies one Law Enforcement seeks information the criminal investigation but also in civil investigations and our Public Safety emergencies. H. R. 699 at its core establishes or the first time in federal statute a uniform werent requirement for storage medications content in criminal investigations regardless of the type of Service Provider the age of an email or whether the email has been opened. I support the core of h. R. 699 which would establish a standard that embodies the principles of the Fourth Amendment and reaffirms our commitment to protecting the privacy interests of the American People however are terrance at the Fourth Amendment should not end there. Congress can ensure we are furthering the legitimate need of Law Enforcement through it for reform by joining with the warrant requirement recognizing exceptions and procedures designed to further the legitimate needs of Law Enforcement. One of the goals of this legislation is to treat searches in the Virtual World than the physical world the police so it makes sense the exceptions to the warrant requirement in the procedures governing the service of boards should also be harmonized into a well settled law that the government may conduct a search in the absence of a warrant in certain instances including when the government determines an emergency requiring a search in the government obtained consent from the owner of information. The stored Communications Act created a framework unique to the electronic world in which even in an emergency with the consent of the customer disclosure of email content or even noncontent urges voluntary at the discretion of the provider. Its also well established law that a search warrant must be served at the place where the search or seizure occurs. For three decades at the warrant had been executed with the provider because as with any Third Party Custodian the information sought is stored within. H. R. 699 but now require the government to also serve the warrant directly on the criminal suspect, a proposal which has raised serious Public Safety and operational concerns across the Law Enforcement community. Congress also continued to and sure civil investigative agencies are able to obtain electronic communication information for civil violations of federal law. Courts have routinely held that subpoenas satisfy the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment. Unlike a warrant which is issued without prior notice and executed often by force with an unannounced in unanticipated physical intrusion a subpoena commences an adversarial process during which the person served with a subpoena may challenge it in court before complying with its demand. The stored Communications Act currently authorizes the issuance of a subpoena direct it to the provider albeit with the requirement that the government notify the customer. But congress can go further to ensure that ecpa satisfies the Fourth Amendment i requiring any civil process authorized by the law became the service of the subpoena on the customer. In this context the customers provided notice and the opportunity to contest the subpoena. Enforcement of the subpoena through a court order issued by a federal judge that protects the rights and privileges of the customer while ensuring that evidence of illegal activity is not insulated from investigators would afford heightened protection beyond that which the courts have deemed necessary to comport with the Fourth Amendment. Congress has enacted laws that impose penalties for certain conduct sometimes criminal penalties and sometimes civil. We have established federal agencies to enforce these laws with the tools to carry out that enforcement. Congress should ensure in its efforts to modernize subseven ecpa we do not illuminate violations of federal law simply because congress chose to make those violations punishable by Civil Penalties but i want to thank our distinguished witnesses for being here today and i look forward to hearing from each of you on h. R. 699 and how to properly balance the privacy expectations of american citizens and the legitimate needs of Law Enforcement. I look or to working with all members on both sides of the aisle to modernize the electronic indications privacy act. Its worth noting today that we also plan to hold a separate hearing on in the future on surrounding access to information located on servers outside the u. S. July 10, 2015. A letter from the Technology Council of north america dated november 30, 2015. A statement from americans for tax reform dated november 1, 2015. The Coalition Letter dated november 30, 2015. Without objection the items have been entered into the record. It is my pleasure to recognize the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee for his opening statement. Thank you, chairman. Members of the committee and our honored witnesses here for the hearing. And those who are in 2141 to participate in the listening of this very important measure. Hr 699, the email privacy act enjoys, im pleased to say, the overwhelming bipartisan support of the house. The business arent 304, 191 republicans, 113 democrats and 27 members of the house Judiciary Committee. Now,now, what do all of these members have in common . First of all, we agree that the Electronic Communications privacy act is outdated and provides a justifiably inconsistent standard for government access to stored communications. This statute continues to serve as one of the main guarantees of our digital privacy. The law was designed in 1986. When few of us used and even fewer. The consequences of applying a 30 yearold understanding of technology to modern communication are inconsistent at best. For example, the law seems to apply different standards for government access to the same email at different points in its lifecycle. When it is drafted, when it is transmitted, what it is opened by its recipient, and when it is archived in the cloud. We are not well served by a law whose applications are unpredictable and that the courts have had great difficulty in interpreting. Because of the Rapid Transit technological change the situation will only get worse if we do not act. The government should be obligated to show probable cause before it can provide before a provider to disclose the content and its customers mail. No matter how old the messages this standard is consistent that the holding of the Six Circuit Court in 2010. The case motivated the department of justice to voluntarily adopt awards for email standards. It also reflexively ended the unconstitutional compelling of the parties to reduce content and Civil Enforcement action. Current law requires the government to show probable cause and obtained a warrant only for email that has been in storage for 180 days or less. But the government can subpoena the same email. This is no longer acceptable to most americans. The sixth circuit rightly observed, citizens have the same reasonable expectation of privacy in the email before and after the 180 day mark. And as the department of justice testified soon thereafter, there is no principle business to treat email less than 180 days old differently than email more than 180 days old. Thirdly, the sponsors of hr 699 all agree that current law is not adequate to protect new forms of digital communication. Content is content. Our expectation of privacy does not diminish mainly because congress did not think of the media and when i last visited the statute. The law should protect Electronic Communications across the board. Email, Text Messages, private messages of all sorts, and other forms of Digital Information stored in the cloud. Finally, the sponsors of this bill agree that we must act without delay. We have an obligation to provide clear standards to Law Enforcement with respect to emerging technologies. We should also recognize that american businesses cannot sustain these new technologies if consumers cannot trust them. As a Committee Takes of this bill we should ensure that it does not conflict with the basic notion that the government seizure of our email without a warrant violates the 4th amendment. But we should note that this principle has already taken hold across the federal government. The department of justice already uses warrants for emailing criminal cases. The government stopped using lesser prospects in the federal contacts years ago. In short, mr. Chairman, this legislation accomplishes two vital tasks. It updates the statute for modern use, and it does so without any significant interruption to Law Enforcement. We should all come together as soon as possible. I want to personally thank the witnesses for being with us today, for their testimony. And i urge my colleagues to give this measure their full support. I think the chairman. Thank you, mr. Conyers. I would like to recognize the presence of the chief sponsor of the legislation, the german from wisconsin. Kansas. Kansas. Kansas. The gentleman from wisconsin [laughter] we welcome my distinguished witnesses today. I will begin my swearing un. Please raise your right hand. Do you and each of these were the testimony you are about to give shall be the truth,truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth so help you got . Thank you very much. Please be seated. The witnesses have responded in the affirmative. The director of the Enforcement Division of the United States securities and Exchange Commission where he has served since 2013. Prior to joining the sec he served as the assistant United States attorney for the Southern District of new york where he was a deputy chief appellate attorney and a member of the securities and Commodities Fraud Task force and major crimes unit. As a prosecutor he handled numerous whitecollar criminal investigations, trial and appeal including matters related to securities fraud, mail and wire fraud and money laundering. A graduate of Columbia College and yeah law school. President of the International Association of attorneys and currently serves as the chief of staff of the Criminal Division for that Us Attorneys Office for the Eastern District of tennessee. In his capacity he has worked in the organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task force and the general crime section where he handles whitecollar crime, fraud, and public direction. He also served as the deputy criminal chief and the narcotic in Violent Crime section. Prior he was a Police Officer for seven years in knoxville, tennessee. And a jd from the university of tennessee. Mr. Richard little help as thehell is the assistant special agent in charge of the Tennessee Bureau of investigation. In addition to his duties he serves as an advisor and trainer and criminal law and procedure as well as the bureaus chief firearms instructor. He is a frequent presenter to the Community Organizations on ways to protect children online. Active in engaging the Legal Community on better ways to protect children from victimization. Received a bachelorsa bachelors degree from Bowdoin College and a jd from vanderbilt university. Chris calabrese the Vice President for policy at the center for democracy and technology where he oversees the subject policy portfolio. Before joining he served as Legislative Council of the American Civil Liberties union, legislative office where he led advocacy efforts relating to privacy, new technology command identification systems. Prior to joining he served as Legal Counsel for the Massachusetts Senate majority leader. A graduate of Harvard University and holds a jd from the Georgetown University law center. Mr. Richard salgado is the director of Law Enforcement and Information Security at google. Mr. Salgado oversees Google GlobalLaw Enforcement and National Security efforts and legal matters relating to the data, security command investigation. Previously he was senior counsel in the computer crime section of the us justice department. As a prosecutor, a specialized Computer Network crimes such as hacking, wiretap, denial of service attacks, lucius code and other Technology Driven privacy crimes. In 2005 he joined stanford is illegal electronic computer crimes, Internet Business legal and policy issues and modern surveillance law. He received his jd from yale law school. Mr. Paul rosensweig is the founder of red branch consulting, Homeland SecurityConsulting Company and a Senior Advisor to the chertoff group. He formerly served as Deputy Assistant secretary for policy for the department of Homeland Security, a asecurity, and distinguished visiting fellow at the Homeland Security studies and Analysis Institute and serves as a lecturer and law at George Washington university and adjunct professor as a National Senior analyst of the journal National Security law and policy and a visiting fellow at the heritage foundation. He earned a bachelors degree from haverford college, masters from Scripps Institution of oceanography and a jd from the university of chicago law school. Your written statement will be entered into the record in their entirety and we ask each of you to