mr. ceresney and mr. salzburg, since that ruling has the s.e.c. or the f.t.c. obtained email content through a subpoena issued to a third party provider? >> we have not, senator leahy. we have done so in excess of caution and i think in deference to the reform discussion that is have been ongoing in congress. senator leahy: and in deference to 5-year-old sixth circuit case which has not been overturned? mr. ceresney: our view it does not deny us the authority to obtain emails through an administrative subpoena. it involved a grand jury subpoena with no notice to the subscriber. we always have given notice to subscribers and there is a long line of supreme court and other circuit cases that say that an administrative subpoena with notice to a subscriber fly complies with the fourth amendment. senator leahy: mr. salzburg? mr. salzburg: we have not sought email content from a provider either before the rorschach decision or since. senator leahy: you have sought a legislative solution or change from congress in the past five years? mr. salzburg: no, we have not sou

mr. ceresney and mr. salsburg. since that ruling, has the fcc or the ftc obtained e-mail content through a subpoena issued to a third-party provider? >> we have not, senator leahy, but we've done so in an excess of caution and in deference to the reform discussions that have been ongoing in congress. >> and in deference to five-year-old six circuit case which has not been overturned? >> our view is warshack does not deny us the authority to obtain e-mails through an administrative subpoena. we have always given notice to subscribers. there's a long line of supreme court and other circuit cases that says an administrative subpoena complies with the fourth amendment. >> we have not sought e-mail content after the warshack decision or since. >> you have sought a legislative solution from congress in the past five years? >> no, we have not sought a solution until now. >> we have obviously offered over the last few years to have ongoing discussions, and we have had discussions. >> have you made a proposal? >> we have. >

mr. ceresney? >> no. don't think we see any distinction there. >> salsburg. >> we agree with that. >> thank you. you know, five years, we talk about the united states v. warshach, i'll ask the same question of both mr. ceresney and mr. salsburg. since that ruling has the sec or the ftc obtained e-mail content through a subpoena issue today a third party provider -- issued to a third party provider? >> we have not, senator leahy, but we've done so this an excess of caution, and i think in deference to the informed cushions that have been going -- discussions that have been ongoing in congress. our view -- >> and in deference to a 5-year-old sixth circuit case which has not been overturned? >> no. our view is it does not deny the authority to obtain e-mail through an administrative subpoena. from our perspective, it involved a grand jury subpoena with no notice to the subscriber. we always have given notice to subscribers, and there's a long line of supreme court and other circuit cases that say that an adm