in looking at this issue there are basic backs from the state law perspective that are very important to this debate but not in this dispute. number one, as tim as tim cook said an open letter to his customers on february 16 of this year, smart phones, led by led by iphone have become an essential part of our lives. nothing could be more true, we are all using her cell phone for every aspect of our lives. number two, smart phones are also essential for criminals. our office investigates and prosecutes a huge righty of cases from homicides, sex sex crimes, international financial crime, including terrorism cases. criminals in each of those cases you smart phones to share information, to plan and commit crimes, whether it's through text messages, photographs, videos. number three, criminals know the ios eight operating system is warranted proof.

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 don't 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 i'm 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 apple's own words, at least investigate robberies and other crimes, searching for missing children, trying to locate a patient with alzheimer's 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. forty-six 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. it's 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. i've 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. that's a a way of demeaning the other side of the argument. we don't put up billboards that talk about our security, we don't 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. that's the reason we're 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 government's claim, i find apple's activities find apple's 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? >> it's 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 end-to-end 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 it's 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 it's 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 can't 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? >> that's 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. there's 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? >> i'm sorry, asking apple -- i

don't quite understand the question. what apple is being asked to do with the birth the security control and go around so it's not raking the encryption but it's 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 law-enforcement 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 law-enforcement, the relation ship with law-enforcement falls within my shop at apple. the people we have who assist law-enforcement everyday are part of my team. i'm 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 i'll try to be very quick. we do everything we can to assist law-enforcement 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 there's some category of blocks that cannot be opened with the tool that they're asking us to create is a misnomer. it's 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 220-year-old statue. i point out the bill of rights it's a is about the same age. now, the fbi's fbi's 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. i'm 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 law-enforcement can access encrypted data with a warrant, what policy proposal would apple support? you don't like with the fbi said, what is your specific response? >> what are asking for is a debate on this. i. i don't 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 here's 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, we'll follow the law that comes out of this process. we certainly understand. >> okay. the thing is i don't understand, you don't like what is being done what the lawfully issued warrants and most warrants are issued on an ex parte basis where law-enforcement summits and it affidavit by a and the judge this determines whether they are sufficient for the warrants issue. now you're operating in a vacuum. you told us what you don't like, you said congress ought to debate and pass legislation, you haven't 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 won't 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 law-enforcement 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 don't 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 you're resisting it. >> i've said my piece.

>> min mr. adler's 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 attorney's 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 don't 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 don't 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 you're 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 open-source 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 law-enforcement with access to encrypted system, with that stop bad actors from open sources. >> absolutely not. what apple's 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 abroad, they can down and load it anywhere. let's assume congress decided to prohibit is there any practical way we can enforce that? >> you would have to start expecting so much as a comes over the internet that it becomes intrusive.

>> so what you're saying is we are really debating something that is undoable. >> that is right. we were there 20 years ago which the open-source issue as part of the reason for the u.s. government change in export control which is part of what enabled. >> let me ask two quick questions before my time runs out. the district court yesterday cited note limiting principle to the legal theory behind the fbi's request of the order. is there limiting principle and the san the san bernadino case. >> absolutely none congressman. >> and finally, apples a brief smo constitutional concern, computer code speech protected on the first minute meant, a fifth amendment let me just ask, what fifth amendment question does this raise so let's ask about the first and fifth amendment. >> good question.

their mind what we're being asked to do is write a brand-new computer code. write a new operating system. the law with respect to the applicability of computer code to speech is well-established. this is a compelled speech by the government for the purpose of the government. >> is a first amendment problem. >> bear in mind that it is something apple does not want to make, the fifth amendment is forced activity and forced labor >> anybody on the panel want to comment on that question. >> thank you, my time has expired. >> the gentleman from california is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. i will pick pick up where you left off of forced labor. do you know of any place in our history in which, except in time of war when things are commandeered and people are told to do that are one pleaser and

-- police are in hot pursuit -- i am not of where of any case. >> i'm certainly understand a different time in a different set of circumstances. i want to do two things, your expertise is in encryption and you're probably very young but you remember 20 years ago the argument, wasn't at the fbi and then the late mike oxley and others that were champion that if we allowed more than 256 bit encryption the fbi cannot easily decoded and that would be the ruin of their investigations? >> right and the last 20 years the nsa has increasingly supported the secure technology for private-sector communication infrastructure inc. colluding

the algorithm. >> it is old technology, very good with analog world but this happens to be january 29, 2015 patton in the record. it is a patent on basically self-destructing the contents inside if someone tries to forcibly open it. the funny thing thing is, i was looking for the old patent going act decades and decades because the military and others have used these. they've had more punitive responses inside when we wanted to secure it. it is not new technology but there's a new twist on it. are we in the sense the equivalent of saying you can make something that destroyed the document but then you have to tell us how to defeat it. >> that's right. >> i'm looking at saying there is no history and that, this is not new. do do you know of any shredder company that has been

told they have to reassemble what they have shredded? >> i don't know much about shredding companies but i'd be very surprised. >> ..

>> >> we're not saying for sure but he has not checked so that is a possibility? garett we don't know the condition of the phone spirit of course, we're not talking about one phone but thousands. as scientist and the technology you have vertical traces in the chip so when you produce each chip it has the encryption algorithm that his internal that is separate from the software. but that chip when interfacing with an image if you keep giving it new images that is the party changes.

isn't it conceivable that with that phone and others the fbi and nsa could come up with an elegant work around on your phone also also hundreds of others around the world and with those billion yen lines from stanford and m.i.t., could produce something that is not available to the public that they have control and then make it more useful? but they have never asked? >> no. >> if anybody else who like to go they can't. >>. >> thank you very much.

just to get on the record. you are not objecting? i will step back. if you have something and served with a warrant you give that up? >> absolutely. so you have no way to get it is a you can spit correct. >> if that were possible to do something to just get this one without opening the door would you have a problem with that? >> that is a different issue to break in corruption and generally? to make the best analogy and

i am struggling with the right type of analogy. if apple had a box somewhere we could assure 100 percent certainty anything put in that box if we had such a place we wouldn't be here today. we would say give us your passwords. if you lose your phone we will give you the pasco. >> you didn't you did not include that now he said to be the fbi says we want you to build a tool to get that and you can put that tool in the box pahang .

>> is it possible theoretically to create code that would preclude you from creating a system to allow you to you did feet the functions. >> it would suppress. >> we're being asked to do three things. the issue is what is the consequence? >> the data as you go forward people are insecure in for good reason it is not expected.

>> yes with the eighth and ninth generation we have interrupted the cloud in a different way than a was before and more secure. >> you can still provide access? >> is interested in a different way. >> you could change that. really all that paper that was published last year? that was an excellent paper. and i would ask unanimous consent to put that paper in the record. >> without objection. >> if you go to the end we can never do what is asked. as a practical matter it is not achievable.

to save data want the master key is the that the same? >> once they build that software that has a serial number of that particular phone and then putting a new serial number and that is all the security risk comes. >> by colleague asked if they are better security than we do. if i take my phone to russia or china can they break into it? >> with respect to the phone itself we believe the encryption makes that

effectively impossible. with the things going on at the internet level there are very sophisticated techniques that can be used by militias actors through the internet itself for what is there what it is and. but we try to remove that possibility. >>. >> fascinating and important discussion of end add as you know, the former prosecutor in judge dealt 30 years either requested them but in

this particular case we're talking to cases different facts and issues. the fourth amendment doesn't apply to much to this situation because the position of the item is in possession of government. it is ironic talk about privacy on the issue of privacy that we see other countries to have more concern about privacy in their technology did we do. >> to discuss the idea of a

constitutional right of privacy we have a language barrier problem but you mentioned the first amendment and the death? briefly explain how easy this is a first amendment issue. >> and it is from the fact that we are asked to write code. so we are asked to speak by the government and the first amendment provides that protection to be held by the government. if this amendment provides as with protection of encryption. to be forced at the government's will enter the

most extraordinary circumstances. >> thanks. this request how would that affect apple worldwide in other countries? >> the way this would affect our customers it would create a risk but the data could be compromised. with respect to the international question they should be leading in the world is watching what happens is right now with this particular debate to maintain a consistent position around the world we would not compromise safety and security it is

substantially weakened if we're forced to make that compromise. insiders that government generally to give us a strong support that we need. >> talking about what is your solution after all of this litigation will we have not thought of yet if congress has taken a position to take the back door keys security system. i said that earlier but you stepped out. but to be imposed ted required to require that

type of system with specific technologies. >> let me ask you something else. in the courts rule your required to develop technology with the software be able to be used that the government has in possession ? >> absolutely nothing would preclude it fox. >> my last question. would other countries take the position you shall give government the key are what will other countries like china request for demand?

>> the holy places that i said before it will be a hot minute. >> i recognize the gentleman from georgia. >> what is the difference between the company being ordered to use its best efforts? a court order requiring reasonable technical assistance the difference between a court order to

accomplish the of bypassing of the auto eraser function verses a civil subpoena or a court order of the motion to compel with the delivery of information under the person's custody and control? >> i am not sure there is. they are both court orders directing the end result. one and maybe a civil or criminal context. , but in this discussion it is very much a part of our history when companies produce items or when congress becoming ubiquitous

the company has to have a realization that uses it to commit to criminal purposes. looking at currency transaction reports. liz it became obvious they were moving cash through the bank's the you have to file transaction reports. when two companies that our successful in reno that criminals are using devices they heard those stories i don't think that is new in the context of ethics or oversight to adapt to the realities of the climate

they created because they're the only entity in the position to submit a currency transaction report. >> the only one required if they had information or firsthand knowledge. >> is your opinion the government should have the ability to compel apple to use its best efforts to accomplish a technical feat? is that your opinion? >> as a lawyer i am not a lawyer as a technologist is a mistake. it is a security mistake.

>> with apple would do inherently to cause a security in their system. a target of organized crime to be very valuable for someone to put the phone down and not allowed under nondisclosure. also works of situations and then if they get into the phone. >> that creates the code to make is susceptible to make is stolen in misused? >> they should not be required to comply question mark i am not answering the of the go question that the security question. >> you would agree?

rick agreed wherefores to the reduces the safety in security. what about the security and safety of the lives taken due to the ongoing security situation that the fbi is seeking to get access with the homeland security? >> your time has expired. we are balancing very similar issues private security with the location of your children or to prevent your children from being kidnapped or harm to

or the ability to solve crimes. it is about how we balance the security needs for the united states. if you read the statements with any of the encryption and specialist makes society less safe overall that is what rebalancing. in order to solve crime that is the issue. >> i yield back spirit you just mentioned the balancing kerry you give me a fact.

>> we will follow though lot of court ordered civic you mentioned balancing i want you to imagine the fact pattern rebalance the interest in favor of what the bureau was asking you to do as opposed to your current position. >> we have to balance the best security for the country not what they're asking that the best security. >> i thought that was so we were balancing safety versus privacy? can you give me a fact pattern where apple would consent? >> i said privacy isn't personal safety. >> perhaps i am being ambiguous. can you give me a fact pattern you would agree with

the bureau is asking you to do? with other nuclear weaponry or terrorist plot to imagine a fact pattern you would do with the pirro is asking. >> would recreate a tool? >> yes. yes. >> i am not aware. >> there is no balancing to be done to have concluded you will not do it. >> i said we will follow the law if the balance is struck for there is an order to comply. >> there is. >> it is being challenged as we speak. in order in the york spec i am glad you mentioned that order. you would agree that analysis is very different than the national security cases. he would agree foot though

41 to invite this conversation of a legislative remedy every step back to the question where is your proposed remedy? >> we don't have any proposed today. >> have a you know, of that strikes the right balance? >> not just dappled with the other stakeholders that are engaged. >> let the record reflect i would like you to tell us what you could agree with? >> i dunno if apple has a lobbyist. maybe you have a governor relations department. kim you submit legislation

that you could wholeheartedly support to resolve this conundrum between you in the bureau? >> i do not have language for you today. >> we drafted it in your army of government relations i am trying to save us time. the judge in new york talks about a lengthy conversation sometimes we don't have time. what we save though lobbying in the opposing wider you propose that? and we are willing to ring gauge in the process. will you submit legislation that you could live with it

and agree with? >> after the debate to determine the right balance and that is the natural outcome. >> how long will the debate last? >> a you familiar with voice exemplar? >> ordered by the courts and judges for witnesses or defendants to have to speak so i witness can see if that is the voice they heard during a robbery. you mentioned never first in a right to not speak as as refuse to cooperate with the grand jury and held in contempt so there are cases you can be forced to speak. >> we made a constitutional argument.

>> but do you agree there are exceptions? big those are examples i have not heard of before secretary quickly the fifth amendment you said you are conscripted to do something but there is a lot of cases where folks are constricted to perform surgical procedures or cavity searches where they are looking for contraband or for the anesthesiologist constrict -- constricted by the government? i will give you the cases i relying on. >> island forward to those cases. >> your time has expired.

>> this is really hard. i am not looking to rabil to write legislation i don't expect you to do that. that is what we're trying to do but i raise the point earlier but the focus was surgical procedures to enforce a surgical procedure to be done sounds like that we can have the company create a way into it. so that will be done by the person in there is no one from around the world to

figure out how to conduct surgery on the individual but in this case there are people all over america who try to figure out how to utilize whatever is created to access the phone. and director tony -- kolbe says it is the three step process can you speak to that? >> i agree there are people that are trying to break into the system in steel the information in the capabilities are increasing every day. it isn't a threat that is static but increasing. the parts we asked to develop is to suppress the

creation after 10 failed attempts also the time delay between successive attempts there specifically tailored to deal with this situation where a bad person tries to break into it and designed with the attack because the third piece is to give written asking to rewrite the code that controls the touchscreen and allow them to put a probe into the phone to bypass through the touchscreen the only reason to make sense if you think it will be technology used on other phones that have more complicated software.

but if i believe and understand what is vast a view to create this way in through the one phone and i want you to do it. viking get past the privacy issues then it can be disposed of and destroyed in the end of it. so when you created for this one i don't think director comey was clear about that. >> select at the doctor's own paper.

>> said no. that means. i just want to understand but not just to be used buy you with the pursuit of justice with the hackers that are looking to do bad things everyday of the year. >> if this is created you're looking at the risks to other devices are apple phones they will have to be opened. >> edges have a couple seconds left. even if that is correct is it true that hackers of the

world will find a way to get around to conduct whatever operations are necessary. >> unquestionably that is the risk and danger that we foresee with respect to that comment that we should take the tool to put it on a hard drive to the fbi then they would go back into a computer what the phone up to the computer and perform the entire operation and so the tool is transportable on a hard drive. this is a very real possibility. >> shaded we be concerned to wind up on another computer than suddenly but all of us

are trying to protect ourselves. >> i respectfully disagree but i will confess that knowledge is great. apple has created a technology of the encryption that did not exist before. they now have a right of privacy of the technology just created. it didn't exist before apple created that technology. i cannot answer how likely it is the federal government is given a source code to get through the front door

than that is a risk to go viral. if there is the incremental risk for the source code would is that risk? don't save millions of phones but just to give its broad generalizations but i can tell you that the consequence, the other side to the cases all over the country right now. families and not getting justice. in the direct consequence of that encryption is that innocent victims all over the country are not getting their cases solved.

as they have been elected in sworn to do it and a consequence that encryption that i think needs to be balanced with the speculative increase in security. >> this is not about to a new right of privacy but a new form of security. but there are ways for that authentication devices if what is insecure that precluded the best way to prevent it wasn't the desk going out the risk is

somebody will come into apple to have a certificate that should not be decrypt it with the chinese government. >> my time is up. >> the professor has not answered what about the citizens or victims whose cases are threatened on this side in not addressed my we have an academic discussion? >> before these phones existed now the technology

moves to a new generation to help law-enforcement. rigo say we will ignore these former abilities or change the fact that it would change the way it gathers evidence. >> my time is expired. >> i will yield first. >> to don't know you. i am sure you are great in someone that knows technology and though i am interested in your comments about the vulnerabilities created by complying with the magistrate's order to

see justice picketed for academic but we're moving to a world where everything is digital if you keep track when i am walking around the house, my temperature, opening the refrigerator, a driving my car, if that is all open from i am not downplaying the problems that you clearly don't have access to but how laudable will our country be? to make extremely vulnerable. with the routine -- ukraine power grid seen in the

memorandum serving for a number of years of innovation and security in advisory and privacy advisory board. that this assumes are connected. in with all sorts of disasters in the best way is with those long getting credentials. foes of the best way to secure our souls. not just about personal safety love your data or the location of your family or business credentials but the way we will secure cells in the future. what law enforcement is asking for will include those strong security solutions it is also a

20th century way the fbi has excellent people so director comey said to have senior people there is they will share it with the fbi. that it leads to develop those skills but this committee thinks about the way to develop those capabilities with the funding but they also don't have the skills.

>>. >> i understand the differences. i love your products to use to think now i think technology what they charge me for the internet and get the information when not going to the poorhouse and i am excited how that improves my life. i am thankful for doing that. never hope simply to look for a way for the safety of the american people.

but in this committee i will work with the congresswoman. but to be very rarely rewarded. to take that position for the american people while you might dispute to look at it as an american company. a toyota is japanese bmw's german. you can dispute that when i take this loan as a member of the intelligence committee the for state and they take it away.

there are bad actors already competing with your product but we wouldn't take away one of the things i need the most in my life. we'll find a way to balance the security of the people of the united states thank you for coming in and talking to us. >> i agree. and i am proud to work for apple embodies the most viable characteristics that make america a great place. we stand for all entreprenuership. we are an american company and we are very proud of that.

we're on a path to create the very best in the most private those that we can but the people we compete with all over the world of nine the aggressive path so we will continue from generation to generation to improve that technology to supply the users with a safer experience. >> i will start where he left off. thinking about the nine year-old girl to see who killed one another i was

there and heard it happen. is the fbi with brute force could open a film would interposition? >> without involving apple and don't think we have a position to object or not. >> privacy and security are vitally important of national interest. if you weaken that encryption. >> i am asking about the encryption. do you have a problem with it? that is an easy question stick and it has the ability i would suggest that is a vulnerability.

i would have a problem. yes. >> ice see you are a lawyer. >> can i say something? >> let me get this question. to operate on this phone any employer subcontractor or anyone you know, that possesses that knowledge to unlock the phone? >> it is constructive the way we work together cooperatively. >> i am not suggesting you don't does anybody have the ability to lock the phone? then i feel a lot better about what i'm doing.

>> we cannot create the tools spirit i am saying does it exist? does anybody have that ability? >> short of creating something new? no. >> we have an arms race somebody finds a vulnerability. this committee finds the problem the next role of technology comes out. >> what is your feeling if the fbi develops a technology? the wreckage should be to do those investigations and

they should have some expertise in rehabing this conversation because they're using techniques in the mindset. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i didn't say subject to that they develop it into what they think is best. >> i am glad that you cleared that up. >> battle think any of this should happen without a court order. media watch too many movies but in that instance there is a terrorist to put the

location of a nuclear bomb how long would it take apple or could not develop that technology in a short period of time? >> would get all the data. there is an enormous change with respect to what law enforcement has access to. so whether a lost child with the malaysian airline went down within one hour we had apple operators cooperating with providers all over the world with the airlines and local law enforcement did fbi to find some way to locate where the plane was.

>> i just clarify i'd want to think apple has not been cooperative with an effort to access the data. the my questions are any points with a court order. so why step back. >> recognize the gentleman from washington state. >> it is very important in

the earlier part of the hearing that director comey and talked about public safety and that is concerning to send that message of the technology's impact people. >> i do not subscribe. >> and that is not what i thought. >> of the the judge stated the world of the internet the government's arguments are limitless surveillance and personal privacy. we often talk about security by design when it comes to the internet we can imagine

those horror stories were to spy to the baby monitors are caught hacking into a cart to bring with a home security system. so i am wondering if by design is that compatible with the insecurity by design? >> you are in a situation where you want to collect the data. the company wants the data and to tell your dishwasher don't turn on the 4:00 in the afternoon.

turn on at 8:00 tonight. it has individualize data then it will be shared under court order. also to secure the transition elsewhere. and that is a we're having. id to be used in a certain way. >> could companies open themselves up to liability for the is exploited by a bad actor? >> and then to actively police to be viable under

the authority of the ftc. >> you talk about the issue of security verses security is it is the debate. and how was that compatible in your opinion? the neck the last 20 years with those but working true private sector telecommunications. living the things that that legal types of data.

if you think more broadly and then to steal data and information. with the national security risk we have been hearing that all the people involved deleting to secure that is the move that apple makes it is one of the steps in that direction. >>. >> now i will recognize myself.

>> i'm sorry. it in 2014 he wrote with your chinese cloud to china? to correct. whose data is stored in the chinese cloud? is a my data stored as well? is a limited to chinese people? >> live should be clear with respect to personal data of this individual data himself has been registered as a chinese address. but in addition we have other data that has to do

with film content or movies or write tunes. and then to bring the data there is a lag time as a move that closer did provide a much better service to our customers. >> what was the cost of a ballpark figure to prove that information to the cloud? >> cost and time. >> and don't have the number four that. but in terms of the time

once the server exist in very it is instantaneous. >> was a prosecutor for a while we are focused on the crime concerned to get her hands on anything we can to see justice is served. to talk about privacy issues and to to what extent if you would change your mind working at the fbi? what does that mean to our privacy? period we have plateresque

the tool we are asked to prepare could be used to defeat the privacy. >> plenty get this clear and there are many rumors. are you saying there is no method that exists now that you could unlock vast phone to let the fbi no what is in their? >> we're not aware of such. >> talk about the cost of a reasonable burden in the time involved. you're the expert for the

time to create that is the undue burden to compromise the safety and security. >> it is your position could you elaborate as to why it would be an undue burden? severity answer is very simple. we don't believe they can be contained to one phone or that it would be. >> my time has run now. >> thanks to my friend from pennsylvania and has been very informative today thank

you for your presence in your programs as the prosecutor did it hasn't gone unnoticed. has extensive record of cooperation with apple with law-enforcement is that fair to say? >> that is correct we have been working with the fbi to help solve the crime. >> on december 5th the apple emergency call center received a call? >> it came at 2:47 a.m. saturday morning we have all fallen that exist people who man the hot line stick you had to document productions. >> we were working on the case did responded.

with all that information and we could pull the and we continue to respond. >> and then to receive a search warrant. >> we did comply. >> so i'd january 22nd you received another search warrant for the dash and in possession of the male terrorist? >> we have city engineers to work with fbi technicians to have a set of alternatives that should be tried there could be a possibility. >> the issue that apple has

cooperated for what you possess. to consider the notion to be gassed as a private company to create an anti-encryption technology that currently does not exist to jeopardize the privacy of hundreds of millions of by phone users. >> if asked to create the method to have our own phones spirit guide you familiar with the supreme court case from the late '80s? >> the supreme court held it was an unconstitutional search with that decision roche by justice scalia to offer a majority opinion

nothing new about the realization that the constitution insulates the criminality of the few to protect the privacy of assault is that the value of the privacy rights so deeply that it will trump law-enforcement convenience? to reduce sincerely believe that. what concerns me is apple decided it will strike that balance with no access by law-enforcement so they have created their own balance

and that changes radically the balance that existed previously. >> if i could just interject. that congress will have to work out also the article three court system the magistrate was not even appointed for lifetime tenure. so the company exercising its right to is very consistent with american democracy. bewrays an interesting point.

because of the encryption technology was a gift but with that phone conversation of wiretapping? >> there is a sign when you pick up the phone so also believe the tape was subpoenaed to. >> if i could just include that illustrates the point that in most instances at actors make a mistake.

data availability of encryption technology to steal from engagement of law enforcement that these conversations are recorded in subjecting themselves to unfettered surveillance. with the ability to outsmart the criminal sale and the bad actors without jeopardize thing because of the inability to access the inability to investigate further evidence of sex trafficking. yes he did something that was not smart but the greater horn is the inability to get to the fact

as a matter of public safety >>. >> that gentleman from new york. >> we realize there are some absolutes in balancing occurs all the time to develop the software and with that ability to access critical information with first question is that apple or in the other company to produce a product that does not exist. many who think that is

correct wonder if apple has consider the circumstances is the situation that would prevent bodily injury coupled with the consent of a person with there is no privacy claim asserted. in that category with a set of protocols you might voluntarily adopt to provide that information with instructions to be immediately destroyed. is that practical? is that part of the discussion to develop or does that have so many problems? >> spending a lot of time

thinking how to assist our customers if they lost a phone or in a situation in trying to recover data we have a number of mechanisms to do that as we move forward in this particular case the pass code unlocked is wetlands itself to a small usage. once you create the mechanism we cannot create that back door so to contemplate to make that available?

>> we have provided the things that our disposal. >> begin your written testimony that already exist now with those intelligence committees you are suggesting there are capabilities outside the government could contract with what they're asking a couple to do? >> he said talk to everyone who will talk with us. as an intruder earlier i had a conversation about using a the nsa tools.

they are loath to share because it can get into a court case bin it is exposed to so we talk with everyone who will talk with us that is the first place i suspect but there were discussions where people believe there are ways to break into the phone but i have described the fbi has not tried to develop. >> it seems we're contemplating of congress should take some action to

figure out what is your program standard it sounds as if that is problematic with a substantial increase to keep pace but that is the best protection with the long-term security of the united states some returnees to be a completely different view but there needs to be some authority how you handle state in a local because that does not have the resources that is jurisdictional and also between bureaucracies but in terms of creating to use saddam much lower level to

be removed from the situation in the appropriate way. >> i yield back to. >> the chair recognizes. >> i forgot when it was my turn cineaste teeeighteen the changing of the password the county did it at the request of the fbi what did that do? >> one of the met bids it would do the audio back up its struggles to find the data between a certain time frame that evidence is available to the fbi.

to connect them to that known source that has connected to before iran recognizes. when you connect to that it will do the auto back up in certain circumstances so that would have been available if we could pull it from the cloud that by changing the password which is different than the pass code it was a longer possible for that phone to do auto backup. >> is a chinese government have access to the cloud to give information and the chinese people? >> let me be clear undoubtedly they have the ability to access their own

cloud with respect to the u.s., we believe because of the words so of course, chinese people have access to the internet. are we aware of a hack through apple? no. >> this concludes today's hearing all members have five legislative days to submit questions for the witnesses we are adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

smith is sure sentence of the book is the head history is disappointment is a betrayal.

>> they heard testimony that the director talked-about powell mexico has ramped up their production of heroin in response to growing demand in the united states coming from a border state with the mexican counterparts as we complain about the supply they say what about the demand? the truth is we have to have the supply into the demand. the drug cartel smuggle more than a quarter million to across our border clinton but it seems driven national criminal organization for forced labor in humanity

illegal immigration these are major criminal networks to do anything for money and of course, they're happy to take off with a heroin across our borders. we need to take a critical look and consider strategies to keep them from coming onto our soil. we simply have not done enough to combat. the area of combat in command south of mexico into central america is south america.

the southern command is given zero navy ships because the navy fleet is too small and those resources are diverted elsewhere but it is irresponsible to ignore that transnational criminal threat to it and we need a strategy to cut off shipments before they reach our shores. i have introduced several amendments to focus our resources to interdict these shipments one would simply require the defense department to prioritize drug interdiction with the capabilities with that

needed boost to law-enforcement into often left with a scant resources so this amendment would allow the national guard to play a bigger role of drug interdiction. another amendment to require the president to create a plan this has been tested

with great success. it would help implement the strategy nationwide. giving law-enforcement the growing threat of both the supply and demand mr. president ion glad we're making progress on this legislation i am optimistic we can complete it this week in a bipartisan fashion we desperately need to target deal pureed epidemic in a cutoff is much of the supply before they turn to the cheap heroin of but we need

both pieces to make progress to restore communities currently plague by addiction and drug abuse. mr. president i yield the floor. >> mr. president. . . is a bill that we have been working on for three years. both senator portman, senator whitehouse, senator klobuchar, i want to thank them for their partnership and leadership on this bill. this is something that the four of us got together on because we saw in our own states the public health epidemic that was happening with our constituents, individuals struggling with addiction, peoplwh