Criminals understand that this new operating system provides them with a cloak of secrecy and they are quite literally laughing at us. They are astounded that they have a means of communication totally secure from government reach. I dont ask you to take my word for it, and one recorded phone conversation from Rikers Island in new york and inmate talking about the i o as eight defaults called it and im quoting, a gift from god. Number four, the encryption apple provided on its mobile devices prior to ios eight, that is before october 2014 was represented to be both secure for its customers and importantly was a searches. We. We know this because apple told us this. Apple characterized its iowa seven operating system as the ultimate privacy, it touted its proven encryption methods and assured users that iowa seven could be used with confidence in any personal or corporate environment. During the time when ios seven was the operating system apple also knowledged its responsibility to help and in apples own words, at least investigate robberies and other crimes, searching for missing children, trying to locate a patient with alzheimers disease, or hoping to prevent a suicide. Hoping to prevent a suicide. So apples experience i believe with ios seven demonstrated strong encryption and compliance with court orders are not mutually. It has had a profound impact on my office. In november 2015 we published a white published a white paper on Public Safety and encryption at that white time there is 111 iphones for which were locked out to obtain search words for those. To have months later when we submitted a written testimony for this committee, the number was 175. Today, it is 205 which represents more than one out of four of the 700 apple devices that have been analyzed by our offices on cyber lab since the introduction of iowa say. That problem is not just in manhattan, prosecutors in houston have been locked out of more than 100 iphones last year. Fortysix in connecticut, 36 in chicago since january. Those are just a few of the thousands of phones taken as evidence each year around the country. For centuries of jurisprudence that we talked about have held that no item, not home, biochem, save biochem, save for even a smart phone is beyond the reach of a court order search war. But the waterproof waterproof encryption today gives two very Large Companies functional control over the path to justice for victims of crime. Including who can be prosecuted and who may be exonerated. Our point is that we believe this line being drawn between Public Safety and privacy is extremely important. Its affecting our lives, our constituents lives, we believe you should be drawing it and we ask you to address this problem quickly. Time is not a luxury for state and local horsemen. Crime victims victims or communities cannot afford it. Our loss requires speedy trials, criminals have to be held accountable and victims are, as we speak and we know, in this audience asking for justice. Thank you. Will now proceed with questioning. Under the five minute rule i will be get by recognizing myself. Mr. Sewall, director coming created a dichotomy between this being a Technology Problem or Business Model problem. He said that apple was addressing this as a Business Model problem. Is that a fair contrast or is it Something Else . Is by no means a fair contrast. Ive heard this race before and i was raised in new york and in San Bernardino. Every every time i hear this my blood boils. This is not a marketing issue. Thats a a way of demeaning the other side of the argument. We dont put up billboards that talk about our security, we dont take out ads that market are encryption. Were doing this because we think protecting and the security and privacy of hundreds of millions of iphone users is the right thing to do. Thats the reason were doing this. To say that it is a marketing ploy or it somehow about pr is really diminishing what is a really serious conversation involving this congress, the stakeholders, and the American People. With respect. With respect to the new york case, judge orenstein last night took on this issue head on and he said in footnote 14 on page 40, i reject the governments claim, i find apples activities find apples activities in the position they are taking conscientious and that with respect to pr or marketing. Director coming in mr. Vance seem to suggest that the security provided by encryption on prior devices is fine but advancing Encryption Technology and is a problem, what you think about that . Its important to understand that we have not started on a path of changing our technology. We have not suddenly come to the notion that encryption, security and privacy are important. Apple just began back in 2009 with our encryption of face time and i message. We have been on a path from generation to generation as the software and the hardware allow us to provide greater security and greater safety and privacy to our customers. What happened between ios seven and ios eight is that we were able to transform the encryption algorithm that is used within the software and the hardware up the phone. To provide a more secure solution. We are moving to endtoend encryption on many devices and apps not just apple iphones, why is that happening . I think is a combination of things. From our perspective at apple its because we see ourselves as being in an arms race. In an arms arms race with criminals, cyber terrorists, hackers, we are trying to provide a safe and secure place for the users of our devices to be assured their information cannot be accessed or, hacked or stolen. From our perspective at an ten encryption an effort to improve safety and security. From the terrorist perspective i think its an effort to communicate in ways that cannot be detected. The terrorists are doing this independently of the issues that we are discussing here today. Now if the fbi succeeds in getting the order that is in dispute that apple has appealed to a final resolution, however long that takes, and they then get apple to develop this device that will allow the ten times and by the way all of us here, we cant turn that off. We could show you how to do that. Inside our firewall here we cannot do that. We understand the reason but that creates a separate vulnerability that someone could try it ten times and it would erase. Be it as it may if they were to get you to develop the code and apply it and then crack the four digit code to get into the device, once they get in there they can find all kinds of other restrictions that apple has no control over right . With regard to apps on the phone, various other communication features the consumer may have chosen to put on a comes that correct . Thats correct. One of the apps that we see matera space is call something called telegraph. It is an app that can reside on any phone. It has nothing to do with apple, can be loaded over the internet or outside the country. This is a method of providing absolutely uncrackable communication. If what happens here is apple is forced to write a new operating system to degrade the safety and security and phones belonging to tens or hundreds of millions of innocent people, it will weekend our safety and security but it will not affect the terrorists in the least. Think very much. My time is expired. Thank you mr. Chairman, welcome to the witnesses. Let me start off with professor landau. Director called me has just testified that until the invention of the smart phone there was no closet, no room, no basement in america that the fbi could not enter. Did encryption exist before the invention of the iphone. Encryption has existed for decades and centuries. Theres been a fight over the use of encryption over the 70s about publication, in the 80s about the control of encryption about non National Security. In the 90s a whether there would be export controls on devices with strong encryption. The white house change those rules in 2000, we expected to see widespread use of strong encryption on devices and on application, technologist response to apple is what took you guys so long . How in the face of all the Cyber Security problems that we have had did it take industry so very long to do this . Well, as our technical expert let me ask you this, is there any functional difference between asking apple to break its own encryption and what the fbi has demanded in california . Im sorry, asking apple i dont quite understand the question. What apple is being asked to do with the birth the Security Control and go around so its not raking the encryption but its diverting its own Security Control. Right. Is there any functional difference between that and . And what the fbi has demanded in california. What is commanded in california is that apple divert its own security code. Let me ask the same question. What is the functional difference between ordering apple to break its encryption and ordering apple to bypass it security so the fbi can break the encryption . Thank you you break a member. Functionally there is no difference. What we are talking about is an operating system in which the passcode is an inherent and integrated part of the encryption outreach. If you can get access to the passcode it will affect the encryption process itself. What we are being asked to do a california is to develop a tool, tool which does not exist at this time that would facilitate and enable the fbi in a very simple process to obtain access to the passcode. That passcode is the cryptographic key. Essentially we are throwing open the doors and we are allowing the very act of ink decryption to take place. I was hoping you would go in that direction. Let me ask you this, there has been a suggestion that apple is working against lawenforcement and that you no longer respond to Legal Process when investigators need your assistance, is that accurate . It is absolutely false. As i said in my opening statement, we care deeply about the same motivation that motivate lawenforcement, the relation ship with lawenforcement falls within my shop at apple. The people we have who assist lawenforcement everyday are part of my team. Im incredibly proud of the work they do. We have dedicated individuals are available around the clock to participate instantly when we get a call as we discussed earlier. I want to squeeze in one more question before my time runs out. Okay ill try to be very quick. We do everything we can to assist lawenforcement and we have a dedicated team of people who are available 247 to do that. Why is apple taking the stand, what exactly is at stake in the San Bernadino case . This is not about the San Bernadino case, this is about the safety and security of every iphone that has been used today. I like to address one thing that director call me raised. There is no distinction between a 5c in this context. The tool that we are being asked to create will work on any iphone that is in use today. It is extensible, it is, the principles are the same, the notion that this is somehow only about opening on locked or theres some category of blocks that cannot be opened with the tool that theyre asking us to create is a misnomer. Its something we need to clarify. Thank you for your response. The chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. Thank you very much. I think you know have been one of privacy hawks on this committee. The whole debate over the usa freedom act was whether the nsa should go to court and get some type of order or warrants specifically naming the person or persons whose data is requested. Here, the fbi has done that. In your prepared testimony you said the questions about encryption should be decided by Congress Rather than through a warrant based on a 220yearold statue. I point out the bill of rights its a is about the same age. Now, the fbis fbis and tempting to enforce a lawful court order. Apple has every right to challenge that order as you have done, why is congress not the courts the best venue to decide this issue . I think ultimately Congress Must a decide this issue. Im completely in support of the position you articulate them. I think we find ourselves in and out situation in a court in california because the fbi chose to pursue a warrant that would compel apple to do something, we see that not as an extension of the debate, not as a way to resolve this issue, we viewed this as a way to cut off the debate. If the court were to grant the relief that fbi seeking we would be forced to do the very thing which we think is an issue and should be decided by the American People. Now what is your proposed legislative response . Do you have a bill for us to consider . No i do not. Okay thank you, that answers that. Now the fbi has provided some fairly specific policy proposals to ensure that lawenforcement can access encrypted data with a warrant, what policy proposal would apple support . You dont like with the fbi said, what is your specific response . What are asking for is a debate on this. I. I dont have a proposal or solution for. What i think we need to do is give this an appropriate and fair hearing at this body which exist to convene a deliberate decide issues of legislative importance. We think the problem heres we need to get the right stakeholders in the room. This is not a security versus privacy issue. This is a security versus security issue and that balance should be struck by the congress. Let me make this observation, having dealt with the fallout of the snowden revelations and the drafting and garnering support of usa freedom act, i can tell you i do not think you are going to like what comes out of congress. Congress, well follow the law that comes out of this process. We certainly understand. Okay. The thing is i dont understand, you dont like what is being done what the lawfully issued warrants and most warrants are issued on an ex parte basis where lawenforcement summits and it affidavit by a and the judge this determines whether they are sufficient for the warrants issue. Now youre operating in a vacuum. You told us what you dont like, you said congress ought to debate and pass legislation, you havent told us one thing about what you do like. One ever going to hear what you do like so that apple has a positive solution for what you are complaining about. You said congress job to do, we wont shirk from that, this hearing is a part of this debate. The fbi has provided some policy suggestions on that. You have not said what apple will support, all you have been doing is saying no, no, no. Our job in congress honestly, as we did with the freedom act and as we are doing with the Electronic Communications privacy act update is to balance our belief that there should be privacy for people who are not guilty or suspected of terrorist activity and there should be judicial process which there has been in this case, i guess what your position is, because because the you do not have anything positive is simply leave us to our own devices, will be very happy to do that, i can guarantee you are not going to like the result. I yelled back. Congressman i do think what we stand for is a positive place. The thing is you ask congress to do something, i ask you what congress should do and you said we have nothing. I said the fbi has provided specific policy proposals to ensure lawenforcement is able to get this information. Here we are talking about the iphone of a dead terrorist that was not owned by the terrorists but was owned by San Bernardino county, the thing is i dont have a government iphone, i have my own iphone which i use extensively. But the terrorists had a government iphone which belong to the government, i think the government and San Bernardino county specifically would like to get the bottom of this and youre resisting it. Ive said my piece. Min mr. Adlers is recognized. Thank you mr. Chairman. I welcome our constituents and i want to say that i appreciate your enlightenment of this issue and the district attorneys view of this dilemma that we face. I also suggest that i assume apple may have legislative suggestions for us after the courts come out with their determinations and apple decides they like the determination or dont like it at which point apple and a lot of other people and institutions will decide on specific legislative proposals. It may may very well be that this congress will wait to see what the courts do. Let me begin my question, district attorney, the director suggested earlier today that relief sought by the fbi is limited to this one device. Running this particular software in this case. I gather you have mentioned you have over 200 phones with similar problem that you dont really think this case will be limited to the one device, obviously it will set a precedent, maybe not the only president for a large class of devices including the ones youre interested in. There well may be an overlap between action and the federal court where the fbi is in litigation in state court. I do believe that what we should be seeking, collectively is not a phone by phone solution to accessing devices in the content, we should be creating a framework in which there are standards that are required to authorize access of a device and it is not based upon litigation as to whether you can get it west coast water east coast phone. I assume either the courts will set a standard or congress will. Several of your colleagues used to publish results of over 600 encryption products that are available online, more than 400 of these products are opensource and are made or owned by foreign entities. If congress would pass a law or for that matter of the courts were to impose a requirement for sinuous companies to provide lawenforcement with access to encrypted system, with that stop bad actors from open sources. Absolutely not. What apples product product does is it makes encryption easy by default. Set means that the secretary of the chair the federal reserve, the hvac employee, the chief of staff in your office and of course your office should be protected anyway but the regular person using a phone has the phone secured. If that congress were to pass a law prohibiting use of encryption on apple phones or however you would say just for apple, what it would do is would weekend but not change it for the bad guys. If someone purchased the phone from a Foreign Company could have the encryption that we had it from created. If someone purchased a phone summa could download the app from abroa