mr. littlehale? >> yes it would be. >> mr. calabrese? >> i believe no it would not be. >> mr. salgado? >> i believe, no, it would not be. >> okay, mr. rosensweig? >> no, that's what warshack said. >> i think we've heard from mr. seresny, mr. cook and littlehale, since you believe the law would be constitutional, how do you square that position with the 6th circuit court's holding in warshack? >> the critical holding is one that the s.e.c. has already drawn, the issue at subpoena there was the grand jury subpoena. one issued with no notice to anybody. the fourth amendment to the united states constitution as we all know has never imposed a warrant requirement without any other -- without any exceptions or without any other way to meet the reasonableness clause. >> mr. littlehale? >> congressman, i believe that the due process provided by the s.e.c. proposal is -- offers a significant amount of protection, the same sort of protection contemplated by the fourth amendment, and i believe that the courts wo

mr. littlehale? >> congressman, i believe that the due process provided by the sec proposal is or offers a significant amount of protection, the same sort of protection contemplated by the fourth amendment and i believe that the courts would view that as sufficient protection. >> well, you know, the issue is that a subpoena, there can't be a motion to caution a subpoena until it's served. so even if there's an immediate motion to caution a subpoena, isn't there the risk of a constitutional violation here? >> congressman, there isn't. that's because our subpoenas are not self-executing. if we want to enforce our subpoena, we have to go to court to impel production. >> okay. well, except that war shock seems to indicate the opposite. well, you know, the thing is that here we're having the balance of the fact that apparently the position of law enforcement is that they want to expand what is currently the law. and the position of those who are privacy advocates say the law is the law and codify it. i thi

mr. littlehale here? >> sure, i'd be happy to. i think the statistic you're referring to is in our transparency report we've been publishing the number for a while here so policymakers and others can get an idea what the work is like. the number's actually relativ y relativerelatively low 171. the 80% represents lots of different situations where the emergency doesn't justify the disclosure. often the case that the identifier that's given to us in the emergency request doesn't actually go back to any real account. so, there are some services out there where you can create an account, using a google or any e-mail address, and it's not verified that there is such an address, they may use that account to threaten a school shooting or engage in other -- some violent activity. the authorities quite legitimately will come to google and ask us for information about this account that was used to create the account that made the threat. we look in our system and there is no such account and the response back is we have no data to produce i

mr. littlehale here? >> sure, i would be happy to.think the statistic you're referring to is in our transparency report, we've been publishing that number for a while here so that policy writers and others could get an idea. the number is relatively low, 171, compared to the type of legal process that we get. the 80% represents lots of different situations where the emergency doesn't justify the disclosure. often the case is that the identifier that's given to us in the emergency request doesn't actually go back to any real account. so there are some services out there where you can create an account using a google or any e-mail address. and it's not verified that there is such an address. they may use that account to threaten a school shooting or engage in other violent activity. the authorities, quite legitimately, will come to google and ask us for information about this account that was used to create the account that made the threat. we look in our system and there is no such account. so the response back is, we have no data to p

mr. littlehale. is there anything in this bill that expands the dragnet? mr. cook? >> well -- so of course i'm troubled by the characterization -- >> let me define dragnet. that would be is there anything in this bill that expands your ability to do investigations that maybe makes innocent citizens more vulnerable? >> no, sir. i think the bill limits in a couple of unprecedented ways law enforcement's ability to do their job. >> that's my understanding of it as well. mr. littlehale. >> yes, i share that concern. >> and you would share the characterization mr. cook as well? >> i believe the bill imposes additional limitations on traditional search warrant practice and even if the standard approved governing additional category of records as contemplated in the bill is given, we will have less authority with respect to those records than we would with records in the physical world, yes. >> thank you all. i turn to mr. selgatto. from a google perspective when i or a citizen signs up for an e-mail account, there's a long agreement that's there that i have to confess i h

mr. littlehale? >> yes, i express that concern. >> you share the characterization of mr. cook as well? >> i believe the bill imposes additional imitations on search warrant practice and if the category of records as contemplated in the bill is given, we will have less authority with respect to those records than with warrants with records in the physical world, yes. >> thank you. i thank both gentleman. to mr. salgado, when i or a citizen sign up for an e-mail account, there's a long agreement that's there that i have to confess i have not studied that or had my attorney look over and i agree and sign up for e-mail and am glad to have the service and it works really good. am i in that wavering some protection to privacy in that agreeme agreement? >> well, not with regard to what we're talking about here. the agreement certainly talks about how we use the information and where we might be needing to disclose it in order to provide the service so it's meant to describe to you and those interested in knowing these thin things. we will honor search warrants. >> we honor subpaenas? >> we do

mr. littlehale is a frequent presenter to community organizations on ways to protect children online. he's active in engaging the legal community on better ways to protect children from victimization. mr. littlehale received a bachelor's degree from bowden college and a j.d. from vanderbilt university. 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 work

mr. littlehale, is there anything that expands the dragnet. >> i am troubled that interpretation. >> onlyefine it, is there anything in this bill that expands your ability to do investigations and perhaps make innocent citizens more horrible. >> no, sir, i think that this is a narrow impact that limits a couple of unprecedented ways law enforcement's ability to do their job. >> that is my understanding of it as well. >> yes, i share that concern. >> i believe that the bill imposes additional limitations on traditional search warrant practices and even if the standard approved governing an additional categories as contemplated is given, we will have less authority with respect to the records then the records in the physical world. >> we turn over to the gentleman. thinking at this from this perspective, when we sign up for an e-mail account, there is a long agreement that is there that i have to confess that i have not studied that or have my attorney look that over. i say okay, i agree and i get my e-mail and i'm glad to have the service and it works really good. am i in that waiting is s