mrs. hess?>> i believe there certainly will be always no such thing as 100 percent security. however, industry leaders today have built systems that enable us to be able to get or receive readable content. >> and chief galati, what's your view on that? >> i believe that in order to provide, and i don't want to call it a tactical but rather a frontal, i think if the companies can provide law enforcement, i don't believe it would be abused. >> why not? >> we have the khalil law from 1984 and that was in use so i don't see how by making law. >> what they are saying isthe technology , once they develop that technology than anybody could get access to it and they could break the encryption. >> i believe that if we look at apple, they had the technology going back to about 18, 19 months where they were doing it for law enforcement and i am not aware of any cases of abuse that came out when asked apple actually did have capability so i can see if this bill had the key today. >> i will ask them because

-- isn't that correct, mrs. hess?ryption ist great for people like me love bank accounts and do not want , but it is be hacked a talent for all of us in society when you have a child sex predator who is trying to encrypt or, just as bad, a terrorist. what i want to know is, what are we going to do about it, and the industry says if congress forces them to develop tools so that law enforcement, with probable cause and a warrant can get access to the data, that will open the door. do you believe that is true, mrs. hess? ms. hess: i believe there will always be no such thing as 100% security. industry leaders have built systems that enable us to be able to get over receive readable content. chief galati, what is your view? i believe in order to provide, and i do not want to call it a back door, but a front door -- i think companies can provide law enforcement and it would not be abused. >> why not? chief galati: the laws in 1994 were not abused will stop i do not see how making a law -- >> what they are saying is the the

mr. chairman. i appreciate it so very much. ms. hess, thanks for participating in today's much-needed hearing. i appreciate the entire panel. we are certainly at a crossroads of technology and the law and having you and the fbi perspective is imperative, in my opinion. i have a question about timing. the recent debate has been revived as technology companies are using strong, end-to-end encryption, and you described the problem as growing. what will a hearing like this look like a year from now, two years from now? what do you perceive is the next evolutionary step in the encryption debate so we can attempt to get ahead of it and as processors become fasterfast will the ability to encrypt tweep increasing? >> yes, sir. my reaction to that is that if things don't change, then this hearing a year from now, we would be sitting here giving you examples of how we were unable to solve cases or find predators or rescue victims. in increasing numbers, and that would be the challenge for us is how can we keep that from happening and how might we be able to come up with solutions working cooperatively t

mr. chairman, members of the committee. >> i now recognize myself five minutes for questions. ms. hessi think sometimes the fbi's concerns about encryption are characterized as being against encryption. considering the fbi's work on investigations like the sony data breach or the ransom wear attacks on hospital, i have a tough time believing your sorgs against a technology that's against protecting information. does the fbi agree strong inscription is important to the security and privacy of our citizens and strength of national security? >> yes, sir. >> and it benefits law enforcement, yes? can you elaborate on that? >> yes, sir. and you are correct. as i stated in my opening statement, we do support strong encryption because it does the things you just said. we recognize that we have an increasing struggle to access readable information content of communications caused by that inscription that's now in place by default. >> so it brings a question of are you witnessing an increase in individual's intentionally or even unintentionally evading the law through availability of default ins

mr. chairman. >> thank you. i do ask unanimous consent for the written statement be entered into the record. i would like to introduce witnesses of our first panel. our first witnesses amy hesswas executive director at science and technology the federal bureau. she was responsible for the executive oversight of the criminal justice information services laboratory and technology divisions. she has an in fbi special agent, the bureau's headquarters in washington d.c. and we think msr testimony look forward to hearing your insight. we want to welcome chief thomas gulati from the new york city police department. a 32 year veteran of the new york city police department and currently serves i've's chief of intelligence. he is responsible for the activities of the intelligence bureau, the western hemisphere's largest municipal law-enforcement intelligence operations. thank you for testimony today we look for to hearing your comments. finally for the first panel we welcome captain charles: the indiana state police, currently he is the commander of the office of intelligence and investigative technology where he is responsible for the cyber crime, surveillance and internet crimes aga