mr. calabrese and mr. salgado and mr. rosensweig. and thank you all for your service and acknowledge the warshak case. i will not attribute your win or loss. i will just take the case as a circuit case. i just want to ask, since that case, the warshak case, mr. cook, do you know whether or not the department of justice has used anything less than a warrant based on probable cause to compel a third party provider to produce the contents of communication? have you all adhered to that? >> yes. >> let me move on, then, to -- >> that was easy, thank you. >> thank you. to say that i come to this with a sense of trust of government, not to sense that government is unworthy and consistently trying to undermine its citizens, but i am an adherent to the fourth amendment and its value and its value with the founding fathers. so, let me engage the three of you. one, i'm going to go to you, mr. rose rosensweig, that issues dealing with terrorism and any elements thereof are specifically, poinleed poinle pointedly and specifically excluded under t

mr. calabrese, mr. rosenzweig, if i might. let me thank you all for your service and acknowledge the warshak case. mr. ceresney, i will not attribute your win or loss. i will just take the case as a circuit case. since that case, the warshak case, mr. cook, do you know whether or not the department of justice has used anything less than a warrant based on probable cause to compel a third party provider to produce the comments of -- contents of communication. do you adhere to that? >> yes. that was easy, thank you. >> i've come to this with a sense of trust of government, not that government is unworthy and consistently trying to undermine citizens but i am an adherent to the fourth amendment and its value and the value to the founding fathers. let me engage the three of you. one, to you, mr. rosenzweig, to make it clear that issues dealing with terrorism and any elements thereof are i inappropriately excluded under this legislation. are you comfortable with that? >> very much so. if indeed that's part of the ground for at leas

mr. calabrese and mr. salgato, welcome. >> chairman goodlet ranking member conyers, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. my name is richard salgato -- >> would you pull your microphone a little closer to you. >> sure. thank you. my name is richard salgado, i'm director for law enforcement and information security for google. i oversee the company's compliance with government requests for users' data including requests made under the electronic communications privacy act of 1986, otherwise known as ecpa. in the past, i've worked on ecpa issues as a senior counsel in the computer crime and intellec intellectual property section in the u.s. department of justice. google strongly supports hr-699 the e-mail privacy act which currently has 304 co-sponsors, more than any other bill currently pending in congress. it's undeniable and unsurprising that there's strong interest in aligning ecpa with the fourth amendment and users' reasonable expectation of privacy. th

mr. calabrese. and mr. salgatto. welcome. >> members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. my name is richard salgatto. >> would you pull your microphone closer to you. >> sure. thank you. i'm director for law enforcement and information security for google. i oversee the company's compliance with government requests including under the privacy act of 1986 otherwise known as ecpa. in the past i've worked on ecpa issues as a senior counsel in the u.s. department of justice. google strongly supports hr-699 which currently has 304 cosponsors. more than any other bill currently pending in congress. it's undeniable and unsurprising that there is strong interest in aligning ecpa with the 4th amendment in users' reasonable expectation of privacy. the original disclosure rules set out in 1986 were given the state of technology back then. in 2015 those rules no longer make sense. users expect as they should that the documents they store online of the same fourth amendment protections as t

mr. calabrese, you agree with that? >> i do. >> mr. rosen white? >> i think i do. i haven't done -- i haven't checked precisely though. >> all right. with >> i'm going to yield -- my time is about to expire, yield back the balance of my time. >> gentleman yields back. chair recognizes himself for questions. emergency of provisions, emergency disclosure mechanisms and mr. little hail in his written testimony that the primary mechanism currently law voluntary and mentions that companies are often, in his words, unable or unwilling to respond to law enforcement's demand in a timely american. i think we all would agree true emergency is there and son of a georgia state trooper not going to be anybody that would deny the need from a law enforcement perspective, however, seems to be something implying missing here. did research with ourselves and others and based on the concerns that we saw that the publishing transparency report, base olden that report, with i we have looked at, google received 171 emergency disclosure requests and provided the least some data in respon

mr. calabrese, do you agree with that? >> i do. >> mr. rosenzweig? >> i think i do.haven't checked precisely, know. >> i'm going to yield -- my time is about to expire so i'll yield back the balance of my time. thank you all for being here. >> the chair recognizes himself for questions. mr. salgado, there has been this emergency issue of emergency disclosure mechanisms. mr. littlehale in his written testimony says that the primary mechanism currently in law is voluntary. he also mentions companies are unable or unwilling to respond to law enforcement's demands in a timely manner. i think we would all agree that there is not going to be anybody that would deny the need from a law enforcement perspective. it seems to be implying there's something missing here. we did a little bit of research and based on the concerns that we saw, the publishing google's transparency report, it says google received 171 emergency enclosure requests and responded in 80% of the requests. i would like to hear your answer. can you explain why google responded to only 80% of these requests? b

mr. calabrese, one last question for you, because my time is now over. but in dissent from the sec request, the commissioner wrote, i am not convinced this is necessary to maintain the efficiency of law enforcement. on the other hand, i am concerned that the judicial mechanism could entrench authority that have potential to lead invasions of privacy and in some circumstances may be unconstitutional in practice. do you agree or disagree with his concern? >> i do worry that we will create an unconstitutional or incredibly reckless carve-out for civil agencies. and my home is that we continue to push hr 699 forward as is, to a markup, and we can vote and get it to the floor. >> seeing how it's just me and the distinguished ranking member, this concludes today's hearing. without objection, all members have five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses or additional materials for the recalled. with that this hearing is adjourned. >>> as 2015 wraps up, c-span presents "congress: year in review," a look back at all the news maki

mr. calabrese, one last question for you because my time is now over. but in dissent from the ftc request the civil agency carve-out they wrote i'm not convinced this authority is necessary to maintain the commission's effectiveness as a law enforce the agency now or in cases we can foresee. i am concerned that the civil authorities to obtain content from ecpa providers can have the potential to lead to invasions of individual privacy and in some circumstances may be unconstitutional in practice. can you speak very briefly. do you agree or disagree with his concern? >> i do worry that we'll create an unconstitutional or incredibly -- carve-out for civil agencies and my hope is that we continue to push hr-699 forward as is to a markup and we can vote and get it to the floor. >> i apreshiate it. looking around how it's me and the distinguished ranking member, this concludes today's hearing. without objection all members have five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses or additional materials for the record, and with that

mr. calabrese's point. we have the standard that we would have to me.hatever they would like to establish, we are finding that standard but what we need is some mechanism where individuals do not produce the e-mail and has deleted or otherwise destroyed it. >> i think that we have already discussed it. so my time is expired. >> the gentlelady's time has expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman, thank you to the witnesses for being here. for anyone that can answer if someone deletes an e-mail that he or she has already sent out, would they be able to retrieve that at some point. >> it may vary from company to company. in most cases there would be some short period of time and the content that has been the leader then there would be some time that would vary from provider to provider. >> could it be retrieved from the person to who it was sent? >> it certainly could and there could be many communicants involved. >> the issue there and i am not one of the cosponsors of this time even though i am one of the people proudest of the work that we have done in gettin

mr. chris calabrese is the vice president for technology where he serves as the center's -- where he oversees the center's policy portfolio. before that he served as legislative counsel at the american civil liberties union legislative office where he led advocacy efforts relating to privacy, new technology and identification systems. prior to joining the aclu chris served as legal counsel to the massachusetts senate majority leader. chris is a graduate of harvard university and holds a j.d. from the georgetown university law center. mr. mr. richard salgatto is the director of law enforcement and information security at google. he oversees the global law enforcement and national security efforts and legal matters relating to data, security and investigation, previously mr. salgatto worked with yahoo and served as senior counsel in the computer crime section in the u.s. justice department. he specialized in computer network crime such as hacking, denial of service attacks, malicious code and other technology driven privacy crimes. in 2005 he joined stanford as a legal leg error on computer cri