tv Politics Public Policy Today CSPAN July 15, 2014 5:00pm-7:01pm EDT
we need to have that debate and that discussion. i don't know the exact answer on what it should be. but it should be something else besides if the evidence is excluded. that doesn't help the individual who is the innocent person out there. it may help bobby oglethorpe and ollie oglethorpe but it doesn't help the innocent person whose information is seized and still stored by government. good point. we need to add that into legislation before it gets out of our committee. one more question? or are we done? >> one more quick one. and then we'll move on. >> quick question. >> you have social media and things like secure portals that companies use to exchange information with each other and things like that that are all out in the cloud so what's your next step once you get the e-mail protected? >> we have to address all of those issues as well. right now we want to solve the
e-mail issue with epka. i think for passage we ought to deal specifically with e-mails so we can get something and amend it as we progress through technology, keeping its mind, the spirit of the fourth amendment as well. thank you very much for your attention. i appreciate it. thank you. >> i'll invite our panel members to join me here on stage, as formidable panel as one could ask for an event like this. joining me, we have -- if you're here, greg new james from -- i know quite well. a senior council of the senate for democracy and technology and the he'd of the project on freedom, security and technology and co-chair of the american bar
committee on american civil liberties. and an attorney in private practice and director of legal services for the american discrimination committee as well as legislative council at the american civil liberties union. a veteran of the fight for judicial privacy and is also a driving force behind the digital due process coalition. we have several members represented on stage. also, to my left we have nate jones who is an attorney in the legal and corporate affairs group at microsoft where he provides legal and policy advice on a range of issues related to legal compliance and government access to data. he's also been on the other side before during microsoft he was a director of counterterrorism and previously, kocouncil and natiol doj and spent more than seven years working on capitol hill
including five and a half as council for the senate judiciary committee. my immediate left, david leiber, council for google where he works on privacy and security issues. that issue does come up occasionally at google. and worked as a legislative aide to dick durbin. and then to my right, katy mckau live. researches digital privacy and impressively geeky portfolio of issues including spectrum allocation and internet taxation and she was previously staffer for congressman stearns and a radio professional in the u.s. and abroad. her did city dizzying array of publications. so please, welcome our panel.
and i want to begin, i guess i want to begin with greg because i know really, a few people who are more well schooled in the intricacies of that plan so before we discuss any current challenges in a form it's important to have a clear understanding of the byzantine statute ais as possible before we talk about the need to change it. so we'll begin by trying to give us a quick thumbnail sketch of how it works now and why once upon a time people thought that made since sense. >> thanks, julian. again, i'm with the center for democracy and technology. and i want to thank the cato institute for hosting this event and julian in particular, thank you very much. so this is a statute from 1986. just to put a little flesh on bones of 1986, i imagine some
people in the room were not born in 1986. one of the leading car models was the ford maverick. i didn't have one. i couldn't afford one. but that was one of the leading car models. we had just put away our 8-track tapes and now using cassette tapes. that was the world in which this statute that governs privacy on the internet was born. when we first were using the internet, a lot of us used aol, america online, we download ted mail from aol server on to our computers. storage was expensive so you printed out the e-mail because it was too spen stove save. and aol would only save it for a few days after you had do downloaded it. that was the world in 1986. fast forward to today, storage is cheap. companies are out there saying -- why would you ever delete anything and people don't delete stuff.
they leave it forever. and it's really cool. you can access it wherever you are. you can use this little device and access information in the cloud. no matter where you are. you could be in germany and do it, it's really amazing how much technology has progressed. the law stuck back in 1986 so it reflects its time. so, for example, because the aol's of the world would not save your e-mail for you for six months if an e-mail was that old, six months old and still on an aol server, it was their property. that's how it was looked at. you had basically abandoned it. it had become a business record of aol and it was available to law enforcement with a subpoena. if it's a newer e-mail, less than six months old, a warrant applies to get the content of that e-mail. and they didn't account for
things that were not in common use at the time. these little guys, cell phones. there were some cell phones. you know who had a cell phone in 1986? captain kirk had a cell phone. >> was it zach morris, actually? he might have been zach morris. >> and so, the statute doesn't reflect or set a rule for law enforcement access to the location information that this little guy again rates. every few seconds he pipg office a tower and here, if the call comes for greg, send it here. that's what this phone is doing dew point every few seconds. and a record is made that the phone is registering a net tower. what do they say about law enforcement access to that information? nothing. and the reason it doesn't say anything is because it wasn't an issue to be resolved back in 1986. now we have to face these
issues. and the judge has gotten legislation to face those issues in a very good way. >> and, perhaps, they started in tandem. but we've had an array of court decisions beginning to address some of these problems in a piecemeal way. location. we now have tlooets two federal appellate courts up holding on historical cell phone location information does actually require a warrant because it's not like a dialed phone number. it's information your phone is sending automatically with or without your knowledge. and so it doesn't fall under the called the third-party doctrine basically exempting that from fourth amendment protection. but you guys, nate in particular, are dealing with the
practical class lawsuits that arise not just as a result of the federal statute but as a result of the court decision in war shack. it applies to e-mail for at least as long as it is stored. a whole range of different types of digital content. you guys now, both companys across the board require a warrant for what you consider content or leading the way in terms of providing transparency about government requests. to what extent you still get requests for content or other kinds of information without a warrant? and, also, how you draw that thorny line between contentnd megadata. i thought it was clear kwhaz content and what is metadata. jew your go to a page and it tells you. i'm curious, how you -- what
kind of problems you're finding -- what kind of legal puzzles arise and what kind of pushback you see from law enforcement? >> so thanks for that, julian. so you alluded to a case in 2010 where the sixth circuit held that users do enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy in their e-mail. not withstanding what they say in that the distinctions that it made which candidly, frustrate the reasonable expectations of users powerpoint that take advantage of our services. and you know, that the court went a little bit further in saying that to textent that the not require a warrant for e-mail content it's unconstitutional. google and microsoft and others have relied on that decision. and i think the perception, at least initially, was that our application of that decision beyond the sixth circuit was aggressive. and i would submit that it wasn't so much that it was the
application of the decision that should be the focus but the application of the fourth amendment outside of the sixth circuit and because the court's decision really sort of rested on core fourth amendment principles. i don't think that we've really seen particularly in recent, you know, years, since the decision, a lot of pushback. you know, we've heard periodically that there would be efforts, you know, to challenge the notion that a warrant should be required in all circumstances. i think when we see this issue sort of crop up, at least from the google side, it tends to come from state and local law enforcement agencies. some of whom are not as familiar with the decision. they will file, you know, issue a subpoena for content and we'll remind them or at least, make them aware of the court's decision and they tend not to -- they don't come back to us or they'll come back to us with a
warrant. we haven't seen a lot of pushback on that. from a broader public policy perspective, i think one of the bigger risks is not so much that the google and microsofts of the world will get a subpoena and provide content because that's just not the case in practice. we demand a warrant for content. it's smaller providers, some of who may have thousands and hundreds of thousands or millions of users but are still sort of fledgeling businesses that don't have necessarily, the resources or the legal acumen to recognize the differences between what they say and what the fourth amendment says and maybe haven't followed this as closely so they'll see, official-looking subpoena that demands content based on, you know, a subpoena. and they will provide it. those are the bigger risks from the public policy perspective which i think is underscores the importance of codifying the warrant for content requirement. >> i agree with ever that david said. and i would add a couple of things. one is, in a word, we're
operating in a global marketplace. right? where people have -- people have less familiarity with the legal requirements in the u.s. and particularly less familiar when you're talking about case law and how that's being implemented and so explaining to people and reassuring them that a warrant is actually required for content, is sometimes difficult when you're dealing with people who are less familiar with our legal system and applicable law. so i think there's a significant interest that we all have in making sure that this is clarified in the law. you know, the second thing i would say is that i think, you know, what we're seeing here and what we're all talking about is trying to make sure that the law and protections afforded to it under the constitution with keep pace with not just technological developments but the way people and the extent to which people use that technology. and the things they're in storing in the cloud. and you know, i think we're
seeing important steps taken by the court. those things are helpful. we're not getting a lot of pushback on those things. but while the court's been a leader in recent weeks and months and with this, certainly, there's a problem that we still have in that it's not a comprehensive solution. it does still a lot of gaps where we don't know what the law is and what we're exposed to be doing and what we're not exposed to be doing and, you know, we've got a case going on in new york right now facebook does as well, both of which raise important questions about what providers, legal rights are to challenge things when they receive them and you know, the geographic scope of the u.s. legal process and whether or not congress meant warrant when it said "warrants" and what the imapproximately occasions of that are in terms of the particularity requirement and which congressman talked about it. and all of the other aspects of the fourth amendment that that brings along with it. >> since you mentioned the
global market you're competing in i'm curious to kpa extent you see this raised as a concern, either by individual users or by in particular, enterprise customers. if you're a sort of large corporation, potentially dealing with regulatory agencies or local u.s. attorneys who maybe are looking at what a company is doing, you might really proffer that a subpoena or a request for information come to your in-house council rather than someone else's attorney. to what extent domestically and internationally do you have a sense that there's a weariness about moving it to the cloud because of the program ti cal differential in terms of their ability to ensure the privacy and if confidentity of that data? >> yeah. it's a huge issue. i mean, there's probably one of the things that i underappreciated when i took this job. just how much time i would spend dealing with customer concerns. on the enterprise side.
this is eat example of how the law has not kept pace with feknology. if you're a large corporation and you provide your own e-mail service and you have an on-premise e-mail or cloud storage service, the goes to you to get the information. and they serve an order, a subpoena or sometimes, a search warrant on the company itself, goes to their general council's office and they figure out how to respond to it and there's certain information they possess that's afforded protections under the law. there is a great fear out there, not just about government obtaining their information, but doing it without their knowledge. and i think, you no, when you're talking about 'a company considering moving to the cloud, there's a lot of them that are concerned that they're going to serve legal process on microsoft
or google or somebody else and get that information without them knowing because of a nondisclosure order and in our position is basically, you went to the mull if i national corporation yesterday. you should go to them tomorrow and then we shouldn't be in the middle of that. and to the extent that there are nondisclosure obligations they should account for certainly the government's interest in making sure that evidence isn't lost or looufs aren't lost. but there's often, you know, almost always a way to do that without compromising the investigation. if you can talk with the company's general council's office. they aren't going to notify the target. they're bound by the same nondisclosure obligations and i think the law should account for that. one of the things that was interesting in i was recently reading the electricityive history and one of the things that congress stressed in -- even though it got a fair amount wrong when it drew the 180-day line, one of the things that
they were trying to do and they made this clear is sort of promote the adoption of new technologies like that and without clarifying this and if law some of these other respects, you risk undermining option of these new technologies which provide a number of benefits, as greg was alluding to. >> and we talked a fair amount of content we've been using for content generally. obviously, both moeft and google and many other companies store an enormous amount of content other than e-mails including backed up content of phones. but there is plenty of stuff that may be less obviously content as opposed to that, some other kind of transashl record so if you create an event on the calendar, is that the content of a communication or is it some
out of -- >> the metadata even though you're hard pressed to distinguish. we mentioned location data. microsoft will have maps. repositories of somewhat detailed location data. in google's case they had to fight off privacy litigation involving ads in g-mail, scam the e-mail to provide key word ads. i don't know if anyones that done this, you can imagine a kind of creative prosecutor our law enforcement person saying you want a warrant for the content? we don't want that. we want the ad logs. we want to see if this user has been served as about searching for, i don't know, tax dodges or marijuana or something like that. and we're not asking for content. we're looking for your record of your ads that are searched. i'm curious if there are search
e situations where you're pressed to draw that line you found difficult or particularly where you're not sure whether you would be able to hold the line on a warrant. >> so, i can -- i think we talk a little bit about this in our transparency report. i mean, i can say broadly speaking we take a more expansive view of what constitutes content versus what's metadata. and julian as you allude to, there are certainly awe number of areas that are in the grey area and those are issues candidly that congress might need to tackle in the next wave of reform. given the challengetion we face just in terms of certain codifying this bright line warrant for content rule it's unclear when those issues might be taken up. when you talk about things that are not clearly content or metadata i can give you an example of searched terms or
photos. we consider those to be content. but as greg was alluding to, before there are pieces of data that congress didn't contemplate when it enacted this in 1986. i think as a result, you've seen the quartz, pellet courts, magistrates, all disagree to the extent for which location information requires a warrant what it reminds me in it being collected prospecifictively or red -- curve before the strictures of the fourth amendment apply. i think we'll continue to see those things top story up. >> i just wanted to kind of put in there a little distinction as we keep talking about electronic communications and privacy reform. there's a couple of different warm airs that fit into this broad umbrella. when we talk about content we talk about location and metadata is always one of the favorite grey areas. but i think your question about,
you know, subpoenaing the ad laws, awhat kind of information is that. something we really haven't talked about. when you talk about if two from information -- what's if matter david? who called who what time. you can go back and triangle and find out what the content is. content is going to be -- electronically communicated. so we have to talk about what this communication means like on outlook calendars. if i invite one other person. is that an e-mail? is that some kind of public communication. i would wagetory say that's content if you're inviting someone. and because i think most of us would expect it to be the same as if you sent a wedding ini have occasion in the mail. when you look other those things and e-mail and cloud starch and photos stored online, between one or two other parties. now when we get to the third party doctrine which is really where the crux of this is.
if i gave my information to david over at google but not david specifically, just google as a hold, is google considered the person i just gave that information to? what they're in doing is storing it like a file cabinet. they shouldn't be able to be subpoenaed. if i physically sent it to david, david could be subpoenaed because he has the other end of the e-mail. so just like very basic bare bones. when we're talking about electronic communication, content right now, talking about content and e-mails, that's what we're talking about. there's also location. there's pings and data dumps and all these other things but the warrant for content is kind of what we're talking about right now and i think the main question that we're really debating and what congress needs to address and what congressman powe alluded to is what is unreasonable and what's a reasonable search and seizure and that's where our debate is here and i think me, personally,
i think it is highly unreasonable to go through my e-mails, stored with stored with google, and not let me know about it. >> you mentioned an array of things before congress. maybe you can bring us up to today on where things stabbed now in terms of reform. and maybe why we're sort of not already there. i realize congress is in general, fairly dysfunctional. there seems to be a shacking degree of yanone moisturely. and it seems to be stalled. so can you sort of give us a sense of what the political planned scape is and what the sticking points are? >> sure. i don't necessarily think that congress is dysfunctional. sometimes the dysfunction is functional. it depends on which side your on. right? so looking at this particular
issue, and let's just talk about warrant for content on the house side, to start out with. you've got a bill that solves the e-mail problem. yay! also solves cloud documents. no one in here is excited about that at all. i don't know why your here. so we've got legislation that will do that. and moving forward, that's something that 220, someone correct me if we have more. 220 are in favor of this particular legislation that fixes electronic reform. >> but it's stuck in the jew dish your committee. j judiciary committee. i'm not quite sure how something with the broad support of
companies, coalitions, think tanks, individuals, how something that has such broad support can be stopped. and not move at all. wait -- wait, wait, wait. civil agencies don't have a probably cause standard. do you know what that means? that means that they can't get to your e-mail anymore once there's a warrant requirement because they can only have subpoena authority. they want to read your emaim so they want to carve out in the legislation that says oh of that's okay, i have aive wail warrant which is a lesser standard than probably cause. i'm going to read this anyway. o'be, since i do information share with the doj, i'm going to do that, too. this is si loophole and that's why it's not going anywhere. not in the house or the senate. it's not going anywhere because the government wants to read your e-mail without you knowing it and they want to subpoena.
that's it. >> there's one -- one of the perverseities here is often a sense that the fourth amendment applies strictly on the context of law enforcement and other regulatory purposes. sort of less relevant somehow although the originals were tpi impetus of the amendment. >> i can jump? >> yeah. >> it's gotten to the point of absurdity. i have to say. the government's power should be at its zenith when its investigating a crime. that's when it should be able to penetrate and get the most sensitive information. and yet we're on the situation where on the criminal side, there's a virtual -- there's a consensus, even do jaechlt says, we think that they need an
update and we can live with the warrant for content. >> and yet, there's this notion that on the civil side, when the government's pooir is not at its zee knit and not investigating the terrorists who are going to below something up 'something like that. and in that situation there ought to be a lower standard and it just seems absurd. >> absurd. >> i was wondering if -- i didn't realize you probably can't get into enormous detail but since both companies have been fairly transparent. what is your sense of fredding the kinds of information people come looking for? what sort of is the nature of those investigations? are you finding -- it shifts over as different agencies become more aware of the different kinds of capables that are being stores. >> now you run a location service and that's new information we can ask for.
>> i think you can have -- frankly, law enforcement is sometimes a little bit slow on the uptake. but the services are public they do get on and use them and they eventually figure out sort of how they operate and what data would need to be stored to operate the service. and so i think, they're becoming more and more sophisticated. you know, in terms of the types of investigations, yooerng that's changed much since so much of it is tied to the legal authorities and, you know, now that we're in a war shack world, postwar shack world where we require a search warrant for all content in all cases it tends to be things that you have to be able to get a search warrant to investigate. that sort of drives a lot of it. but the data types and the data fields that are provided are sort of incumbent on what data there is in existence and how
well it's stored and what specifically they ask for. you know, we typically require them to be very specific in saying what kinds of data. they're seek under i request. they can't send us a search war and sand say give us this data. they have to specify what fields they want. so -- >> do you get a sense of -- both of you got -- both of companies got quite a lot of requests for information for transactional data pap or activity logs, or the kinds of subscriber information. so that's actually the bull, of the request. i'm wondering -- oh what those tend to look like and whether that's something that usually is -- the number counts is significant live larger than the number of a requests for -- to both companies. so i wondered if that's in
general request for a couple of accounts or you occasionally see fairly egregious attempts to sort of rope if a whole lot of people at once. >> go ahead. >> quell, yeah. with the caveat that we can really only talk about what we get on the domestic side of things under ekba. there's not -- i mean, you mentioned the sort of bulk of the requests some of these are transactional information. not particularly exotic. basic subscriber information that users provide to us when they sign up for a google account. that could be name, gender, and information like that. that's the information that generally can be observe entertained with a subpoena. there's a significant percentage and you know, somewhere in the neighborhood of 25%, that we kend to get that does ask for -- in way case we'll ask for a search warrant.
so oeds is not generally speaking, the type of the information we get is pretty run of the mile stuff when you sign up for our services. ? i could build on wham greg and katy were alluding to. i want to be clear as far as if civil agency side of things. a warrant for -- there's a perception that a warrant for content would leave the civil agencies out of remedy, to do this sorts of things that civil agencies do, in the case, for example, of the securities and exchange commission, s.e.c., to investigate and pros sfraud. typically speaking, in nate was alluding to this before. when you're investigating someonessue inning a process you'll do it for the target of the investigation so
you won't be going to a third-party service provider. that's how civil litigation works. so if there is a person that's being investigated, that they're the target of an investigates and information is within their custody and control they're going to have a legal obligation to provide that information. to the extent that they're uncooperative or intransagainst, the s.e.c. and other agencies have remedies to enforce the subpoena and individuals that don't comply with the such can be hit with sanctions and at verse inferences. they can be prevented from suing claims. i think that civil agencies have sort of ensure that bad actors can't be -- perpetrating fraud. and so if we focus just simply on the means for which that happens, obtaining e-mail from third-party service providers and not theable of the
investigation. i think we're missing the boat. but i think there's other remedies, too. the extent that there's a concern about the destruction of evidence. you don't need to have any legal process at all to come to your provider and you have good insurance, too. serve a preservation request. it will ensure that any information that is destroyed isn't really permanently destroyed. and awe rot of these teg this may end up being a problem where civil agencies don't have a warrant requirement tend to framed in hypothetical or theoretical terms. there aren't actual examples of actual cases where these things have tended to create approximate. they tend to come up in sort of, you know, well, you can -- you can imagine the situation where, you know, x person is doing y thing. without real-world aexample of how it's impacting agencies it's
difficult to suggest a problem that she's race. can saw it get -- and there should be one for content standard. >> going off of that again, the next distinction, we're talking about criminal versus civil. on the criminal side you have the warrant which would be used to go to the third party at and i would be notified as the target. on the civil side you go to me this side over here, life, death, limb, children, women, all the scarey words, go over here. money and white collar things and, i don't know, other kinds of fraud, goes over here. so there are emergency exceptions for when someone is missing. there are emergency exceptions for when someone is getting hurt. that's taken care of. and the law enforcement domestic law enforcement has agreed that
that mairks sense. but if we want to find out stuff about you, like, i don't know, who is your affiliation as an organization when you file you're taxes an just read some e-mails. if you look at some of these things that this -- having the ability to circumvent the target, and subpoena the third pae party by civil agency what kind of door that opens and what kind of authority that gives the executive branch. >> and the indebt, my favorite, if fcc. maybe your favorite is the fda or the epa or the consumer financial protection euro, i don't know. it wouldn't apply to just one of the agencies it would ply to state ones as well.
let's talk about local law enforcement. so we're looking at the -- thinking to -- the section about warrant for content. another bill that's straight-up warrant for content. warrant for content in the senate. knows bills passed and we're good to go. if there's changes no, we're not good to go. it becomes worse than what the law is right now. >> again, there are dizzying array of bills out there. some are warning for content and some are about he occasions, specifically. bill or mix of bills as to moving them the both the furtherest? >> which are the ones with the best prospects right now and which are less. >> i think i'll jump in on that. i think the ones with the best
prospects are the ones that are strairt and the reason i'm saying that is because it's a relatively simple concept. it's been willing-day h debated on both sides. the house jew dish you're committee has had a couple of the senate has had hearings and it has moved a bill but once -- honestly, the other piece of data that i'm location information, it's not yet right particularly as this point too many hypos come umm and it's hard to akaunt for them that come umm and it's just going to weigh things down. if i had my drth they ares it would be that the -- the bill in the house with 2 2e cosponsors, straight up warrant for content. but that bill advances.
it's the kourncounterpart. it's identical to the bill that went through the senate judiciary committee. to respond to one of the questions that was asked of representative powe. the question was your doing e-mail. what about the other ways to communicate, you asked? he covers the other ways to communicate because his bill goes to all content and content is defined as substance, meaning or pu purport of a communication. he's covering all of it. it would be a warrant required for all of it. >> you guys have this word way of saying is it facebook massage and sort of functionally, obviously, like an e-mail does it matter if it's called a facebook message? it doesn't travel like the smtp vertical? >> no. >> since greg did bring up location, one of the ings that i
find particularly troubling is the growing pop layer did of a -- police don't necessarily want to go and say we have a suspect and we think he tid the crime and we want to know -- we want to confirm that he either was or wasn't -- his cell phone was or wasn't at the scene but rather we have three rosh ris we think were committed by the same person. give us every phone that was near each of those locations and we'll look for at all flee places gap is republicaning the information. that's not linked to any of them. but is that something that either of you are aware of having been attempted with ro respect to location data obtained by google and microsoft? >> not that i'm aware of. >> same here. >> i don't mean to give mored
ins. what do i hear? they're most concerned about content. there's other kinds of -- it seems like -- there's a lot of ways for example, the irs until recently had in their manual a section saying, by the way, if you're investigating and you wavt to read a tax filer's e-mail you may do so with a subpoena. i think they finally agreed they shouldn't do that anymore. but for a lot of things like, what's your affiliation or are you, perhaps, having too many communications with, you know, are tea party patriots having too many communications? a lot of that is information that will be revealed by metadata. is that something that -- if you're particularly concerned about aggressive regulatory agencies that you see as, at least in some quantity, rooiring some additional protection? >> so for me personally, and just speaking for myself as probably, more as katy and as
digital liberty, when we talk about i personally care much more about content and about location than i personally dobility metadata at this point because metadata is one of the checks that law enforcement can use to make sure that you've turned over all the e-mails that have been sent. so when you use a suppression order and say don't get rid of anything and they can check the log against what the provider has and say you delooeted this to so and so and i need to see that. that kind of thing right now is important. especially if we're talking about protecting content, which grant it, it's -- in a sense it's all content but we're talking about the actual -- the meat and potatoes of the e-mail. right? so i think -- i find that to be the most important and then, i also find location information to be very important and look forward to working on that a lot more as greg was saying. rite now it's become complicated with the riley decision that
just came out. you're dealing with gps location and tower location. these are different types of locations so you need a different type of law. i click this with you on the here and it goes into the cloud. this button searches my phone. these are the kinds of things that are being discussed types of decisions that are coming down into location space. that needs to be taken into account before kind of talking about what will be done with location and also, what is the future going o'look like? what is perspective and retrospeculative data going to look like? right now you might say prospective 7 days no big deal. retrospective seven days no big deal. i wouldn't say that about either one, personally. but it establishes a pattern of whether someone is going and what they're doing so talking about that you move closer and you say it's a one-time ping. it doesn't tell you that much. but if we keep going down this route that we're going.
when is one time going to be too much and we don't know that? so that's a discussion that's on going. and a lot of members are taking very sooirslynd looking into that as things change and the technology prooegs and we see things in the direction there will be a lot more discussion on that. >> i would be surprised, actually, if congress got to location information before the supremes, did. i say that because there's now a split in the circuition. the 11th circuit ruled that you need a warrant for location information stored cell site location information. and the third circuit said, you might need a warrant for it, depending on the circumstances. and one other circuit said, i think it was -- one sir ask it said, you don't need a warrant for it. so there's a split and so, it's ripe for the as you prooem supremes when they want to and when somebody feels the case.
part of tissue with a lot of this is that -- representative powe was pointing out, if there's a violation of the fourth amendment, you have -- your remedy is you get the evidence excluded. what does that mean? it means a lot of criminal defendants will claim their fourth amendment rights were violate and you'll get a body of law that develops about whether those rights were violated. they don't have a statutory exclusion heir rule. you don't get the same development of the law except when the person makes the fourth amendment claim. if you could make the statutory claim they violated the statute so i get to get this evidence excluded, you'd get a lot more cases coming up through the courts. we don't have that many cases because we're only in fourth amendment land when it comes to
the exclusionary rule. >> this is the perversity of fourth amendment law that -- you don't want to make adverse precedent. to dealt with turned down by a judge and you shrug your shoulders and maybe letter you ask another judge. as an investigator, some judges are issues some kinds of orders so fourth amendment law tends to be made almost exclusively by guilty people trying to overturn convictions which is, perhaps, not the most healthy sort structural condition for development of law. look at this in the context of when the metadata, when it took transactional records, they don't always require notice to the people whose data they obtained which means if data is obtained about you, data about what websites you're visiting and what people you're communicating with, if you're not indicted because there's no
evidence that you did anything, you may never learn that it happened and have no community to bring a bit of -- of your federal constitutional rights powerpoint incredibly rare. anyway, even if you wanted to you would lack the opportunity. part of the issue here is that was the everybodily a enormous amount of data gathering. leading the charge here. and not as much for purpose awareness of how incredibly frequent that kind of digital search is. much more frequent than traditional wiretaps. before we shift audience questions are there any sort of last remarks anyone wants to make? or can we jump to the audience in. >> i would just make one last comment. i've been in washington a long time and i've never worked on an issue where there was so much consensus. how often do you see google and microsoft sitting shoulder-to-shoulder advocating
the same position? how often do you see americans for tax reform and the aclu on the same letter? it's extraordinary. there's a website, you can read about this extraordinary coalition, it's digital due process.org. and you'll see just how many people have gotten behind these reform principals. how many comes and academicses and political groups. it's amazing. >> and i should say, we're thinking, you know, google and yahoo!, microsoft, companies that -- and kind of increasingly i never thought this would happen and even though the telecommunication's carriers in the last couple of years have begun voluntarily disclosing information that they're legally able to about the quantity of government requests for information. so you know, it's a positive trend that i hope we see
continuing. and i'm glad it's something that that these companies have been taking the lead on. so, yeah, let's let the audience jump in with questions. i will be less tolerant than representative powe in that i will enforce a three-sentence rule which is to say somewhere around your end of your third sentence if not before i'll hope that your voice rises in such a way as to suggest by that innext that an interrogive is being imposed. let's start there. >> just picking up on your last point. why does metadata seem to get such a pass? it strikes me that if i have a communication with julian, it doesn't say necessarily much about the content but if i had the same e-mail that was addressed to the five of you, that is somewhat indicative of
what the subject and the content of that e-mail is about. so whooi why the pass? >> i think it's partly a historic rules for what was going to be protected by the warrant requirement, you know, there was a case, smith v. maryland, where the issue was how about the numbers you dial on a phone? is that going to be protected by the warrant requirement when that information is stored with the telephone company? and the courts said, well, it's not as revealing as the content is. it doesn't even tell you whether the call was actually completed. doesn't say who you even talked to. it just says you dialed these numbers. and you know you're conveying these numbers to the phone company to make the call, so maybe it should be warrant protected. what's changed is there's so much more metadata now out there about us, and it can paint a much fuller picture of what our activities are. and i think there's a growing
consensus that metadata ought to be protected at a higher level than it is. one of the digital due process recommendations goes to metadata collected in realtime. requires a higher level of protection. i think that we're moving in that direction. and in particular, the non content i think most likely to be first protected by a warrant requirement is going to be location information, just because it's so reviewing. particularly when collected over a long period of time. >> and so i would jump on that and say, metadata is not getting a pass. it's ranking. right? so the content in my e-mail is -- this is in my mind, right? the content in my e-mail is more revealing than, perhaps, my gps location, and that more revealing than, perhaps, my communications. this is my personal perspective. i'm looking at what can be done and what can't be done. if i walk down the street and
say metadata to the next ten people, most of them will think i'm babbling. >> or you were at a "star trek" convention. >> yes. which i was -- no. so, that sort of thing, we've got to look at education, you've got to look at what people are ready for, you've got to look at where we are and what can be done. and then there's this great universe where everything is perfect, but this is politics, baby. >> a couple things. i tend to think any metadata sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from content, in the kind of most proximate scenario to what you're discussing, it's not that if you send all of us an e-mail, the content's obvious. there are things with no real analog in the telephone context. i might take out a craigslist ad looking for foot fetishes, let's say. corresponding only to that ad. in that case, the metadata, the
fact i'm contacting that e-mail address is telling you very specifically what the communication pertains to because the only purpose for which that e-mail exists is to communicate with respect to that specific ad. there are e-mail addresses that are in themselves in a sense a kind of content for action. i send an e-mail to subscribe at, you know, unitarian universalists.org or angrylibertarians.org. that tells you i'm attempting to join in effect a political discussion group that's maybe at first maybe more than a fourth amendment issue. if you're interested in following up on that, professor ed felton of princeton wrote a very interesting affidavit in one of the legal challenges to the nsa's 215 program discussing how in quantity metadata can, in fact, be effectively as revealing as content. because unlike content, it's structured and more attractable for analysis.
but that's -- this is sort of in a sense requires a level of technical understanding of really just how revealing that can be. and we may not be there in the courts yet. we've got time for a couple more. in the middle. >> what's the law or the situation now as standard mail? and if the post office uses electronic sorters, could it collect the addresses and names? because it does have them in the computer, so they're there forever? >> the intelligence agencies do that routinely. by statute, one of the first sort of federal privacy statutes was legislation, internal rules protecting the privacy of postal communication. as i understood, that people would not gladly use the federal postal system if they believed that the contents would be read indiscriminately. it appears that at least with
respect to, i guess, snail mail metadata, that is the external envelope content, that is routinely analyzed by the intelligence agencies. part of things we learned recently. greg? [ inaudible question sfch] >> i don't believe it's been challenged. greg, i don't know, is that -- >> even on the criminal side you get a mail cover, right, and it allows the fbi to get the addressing information on the envelope. i think that it probably hasn't been challenged of late. i think it's pretty much accepted. the issue that i guess we're talking about is what's inside the envelope, not what's on the outside. [ inaudible ] >> metadata for e-mail. >> the theory, sometimes you have to expose the address information to the government because you're asking the government to deliver the letter. and the analogy sort of, i think, works the same way in the
content side, the theory i think being, look, you're exposing the metadata to the company. you're asking them to use that information to convey your communication. whereas they don't really need to sort of inquire into the contents of the letter, itself. it's not a record they need to create to route your communication. how that works on the internet, which essentially has sort of a nest of seven envelopes, one inside the other, is a kind of interesting and difficult puzzle. one of the things we think nsa is probably doing is essentially looking a layer into the envelo envelope, looking at sort of information at the backbone level, that the backbone wouldn't formally look at. interesting legal challenge afoot there. a whole sort of array of fascinating legal puzzles, how these analogies apply. unfortunately, again, the courts are not always sort of super attuned to the technical details
that may make a sort of simple analogies break down when you actually start getting into the details. i think we can do one more? let's go there. >> this is good to hear the comments that sort of acknowledge the fundamental speciousness of the metadata versus content divide. my question is actually about the o'reilly decision which was preventing search of a telephone device just incident to arrest. and so does that apply specifically only to a device that has a cell phone radio in it or, for example, if i had my laptop there in the car, does it apply to that, too? >> oh, it would apply to that, too. >> yeah. a point from what roberts basically say, well, look, these are basically mini computers, could call them phones, call
them cameras. we aush trailash trailly picked. the thing i do with this at least frequently is make phone calls. it has an app for that? i didn't even realize. but, i mean, part of the decision does mention the network capability, but the essence of it is that the massive quantity of data stored on it is what makes a difference, and whether it has a, you know, an lte radio or only wi-fi capability or is, in fact, just a storage device doesn't seem to be the core of the logic of the decision. >> would somebody try that against just a simple laptop and somebody would have to bring another case to clarify it? >> no, i don't think that's really necessary. when you read that case, i just think there's no question that a laptop contents would also be protected. david, you had had some commentary about the case and what it means for the cloud.
there was a passage in the court's decision. >> julian actually alluded to this at the outset. i think there's some fairly strong and powerful rhetoric in the decision, you know, justice roberts' general admonition i think to law enforcement agencies in this context was i'm just going to read from it, our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone cease incident to arrest is simple, get a warrant. but the other thing that he discussed, and, again, that julian alluded to, is that most users of cell phones don't necessarily know whether the data is being stored locally on the phone, itself, or in the cloud. and he said, it generally makes little difference. i think that has enormous implications for the issue that we're talking about today. and while i think it's unlikely we'll see a case that comes before the supreme court in part because we don't see the challenges happening at the
lower courts, i think that just underscores the importance of congress codifying the warrant for content standard. but there's no question, i think, if you read the decision that it's more broadly applicable than just the contents of communications that might be stored locally on the device. there are implications for the cloud. otherwise that, you know, discussion that justice roberts went into in the decision, you know, would be necessary. >> well, as one of the political philosophers, jay-z would put it, i know my rights so you need a warrant for that. perhaps at some time in the near future, that injunction will apply equally in the cloud and on physical devices. please join me in thanking my panel, and join us in the garden for drinks and snacks.
federal reserve chair janlt janet yellen was on capitol hill today testifying about the economy before the senate banking committee. she told lawmakers that the fed will continue to stimulate the u.s. economy despite signs of improvement. here's part of her testimony. >> the fmoc is committed to policies that will promote maximum employment and price stability consistent with our
dual mandate from the congress. given the economic situation that i just described, we judge that a high degree of monetary policy accommodation remains appropriate. consistent with that assessment, we have maintained range for the federal funds rate at zero to one quarter percent and have continued to rely on large scale asset purchases and forward guidance about the path of the federal funds rate to provide the appropriate level of support for the economy. in light of the cumulative progress toward maximum employment that has occurred since the inception of the federal reserve's asset purchase program in september 2012, and the fmoc o's assessment that lar market conditions would continue to improve, the committee has
made measured reductions in monthly pace of our asset purchases at each of our regular meetings this year. also on capitol hill today, the president of the national center for missing and exploited children, jon ryan, testified about his organization's ongoing efforts to investigate crimes against children. this house education subcommittee hearing is an hour and 15 minutes. >> quorum being present, the subcommittee on early childhood, elementary and secondary education will come to order. good morning, everyone. we're pleased to hear today from mr. jon ryan. the president and chief executive officer of the national center for missing and exploited children. or ncmic, correct? mr. ryan will give us an update on ncmic's important look and a
number of legislative changes enacted in the last year are enhancing the efforts of this vital organization. at a ceremony opening, president ronald reagan said, quote, all americans and especially our youth should have the right and the opportunity to walk our streets, to play, and to grow and to live their lives without being at risk, unquote. spoken 30 years ago, president reagan's words are just as true now as they were back then. if we're truly fighting for all people to build better lives for themselves and their families, one of the key things we must be doing is everything we can to enhance the safety of the children. no child should be afraid to walk home from school, hang out with friends at the mall, or surf the internet, yet sadly we know that's just not the case. too often a predator is lurking in the shadows ready to do harm. each year, thousands of children go missing or fall victim to sexual exploitation and other heinous crimes. as the father of two young boys,
i cannot fathom the pain and suffering these families are forced to bear. no one can, but we can do something about it. for 30 years, a national public private/public partnership has worked to protect children and safely return victims to their families. ncmc is at the center of this vital effort. the organization provides services, resources and other assistance to victims of abduction and sexual exploitation as well as their families and those who serve them. the center's 24 hour cyber tip line provided law enforcement with more than 2.3 million leads of suspected child sexual exploitation. on its own, this would constitute a stellar record, but the tip line is only one part of a larger effort. the center also manages a national database on missing children, organizes case management teams to serve as a single point of contact for families, and offers training and technical assistance to law enforcement and professionals working in health care and the juvenile justice system. these are just a few of the services and support provided each and every day.
the only way to describe the work of ncmc's staff is heroic. they are making a difference in the lives of countless children and families. in fact, just this year i read in partnership with the fbi and deparent of justice, ncmc participated is operation cross country 8. this is a week long national campaign led to the arrest of 281 child traffickers and the rescue of 168 children. besting its work from the prior year. however, we all know that despite these achievements, more work needs to be done. to help support that effort, last year congress passed the e. clay shaw jr. missing children's assistance reauthorization act. this legislation extended our partnership with ncmc while providing additional accountability and oversight protections. the law also includes reforms to encourage greater coordination between law enforcement states and schools. as one of many partners, congress cannot stop there. there is more that can and
should be done on behalf of these vulnerable youth. toward that end, a number of important legislative proposals were introduced that will help strengthen our commitment to youth who are victims of sex trafficking. no legislation can provide a perfect solution, the bills put forward last week will move our country in the right direction. protecting children has been and must remain a national priority. mr. ryan, i would like to thank you and your staff, that yours and their hard work and dedication. as a committee, congress and nation, let's continue working together so we can, as president reagan said, puturn the tide on these hateful crimes. with that, i'll recognize the senior democratic member of the subcommittee, congressman david lovesack for his opening comments. >> i thank the chairman for convening today's important oversight hearing and thank you, mr. ryan, for joining us today to provide an update on the activities in ncmc.
as a father and grandfather, i, too, can only imagine the terror experienced by the parents of a missing child. parents in the midst of this trauma need the full support of laurmt, law enforcement, of schools, other programs designed to locate and recover missing or exploited children. of course, this is where the national center for missing and exploited children comes in. since its creation in 1984, through the missing children's assistance act, this private non-profit organization has provided assistance, outreach, and support to missing and exploited children and their families. ncmc is tasked with coordinating federal efforts to locate, recover, or reunite missing children with families as well as efforts to reduce and end child sexual exploitation and trafficking. founded in response to several high profile child abduction, the center works with law enforcement to rapidly respond to the approximately 10,000 to 13,000 missing children reports they receive each year. ncmc is also a partner in the
amber alert program. the nation's child abduction alert system. named for amber higerman. the alerts are driblt deliberat widely. just last week, three missing girls in iowa were recovered thanks to a swiftly dispatched amber alert. further, ncmc offers training and technical assistance to law enforcement in identifying sex offe offenders, provides guidance and information to community partners on how to effectively locate and identify missing children and operates a tip line for reporting missing children. in recent years the center has seen its workload increase dramatically, unfortunately. in fact, the number of complaints of child sex trafficking increased 1,000%
from 2004 to 2008. additionally, the internet has increased the risk of youth exploitation and internet crimes against children and child pornography cases continue to rise. last september, congress reauthorized the missing children's assistance act and updated the roll of the national center for exploited and missing children to reflect this landscape. one a requirement that ncmc coordinate, to address the high number of homeless youth who are victims of sex trafficking. runaway and homeless youth are particularly vulnerable to sexual exploitation and trafficking. last year one in seven endangered runaways reported to ncmc were living sex traffic, or likely sex trafficking victims. many of these youth were in the care of social services. or foster care when they ran away and may have experienced sexual abuse before they left their homes.
these children are at an increased risk of falling victim to sexual exploitation, or engaged in what's called survival sex in exchange for food, shelter, or money. i'm eager to get an update on how ncmc is coordinating with services for homeless and runaway youth to prevent children from ending up in these devastating circumstances. i also recognize there's still more we must do to prevent children from becoming victims in the first place. despite the best effort of ncmc, more than 10,000 kids still go missing each year. and scores of children are forced into sexual exploitation and trafficking. i look forward to hearing from you, mr. ryan, on what federal supports you believe needs to be to change this. it's also important to note that runaway and homeless youth act is up for reauthorization this year. but at this point, there's been no movement in this committee to carry out that reauthorization. this law complements the missing children's assistance by providing targeted assistance to homeless youth through initiatives like the basic
center program, which provides youth with emergency shelter, food, clothing, and medical care. by reducing the number of runaways and homeless kids on the streets with nowhere to go, we can lower the risk of exploited children. as we move forward, it's critical that we provide ncmc with all the resources it needs to carry out its mission including adequate funding. thank you, again, mr. chair, for convening this hearing. as we can see, we have a lot of challenges ahead of us, and i look forward to hearing from you, mr. ryan, about how we can address those challenges. thank you. >> i thank the gentleman. pursuant to committee rule 7c, all members will be permitted to written statements. without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 14 days to allow such statements and other extraneous material to be submitted for the official hearing record. it's now my pleasure to introduce our distinguished witness, mr. jon ryan is the president and chief executive officer of the national center for missing and exploited children here in washington, d.c. he has served in that position
since december of 2013. mr. ryan, before i recognize you to provide your testimony, let me briefly explain the lighting system. five minutes to summarize your written testimony. when you begin, the light will be green. when there's one minute left, it will be yellow. please make sure you're finished up by the red light. that's more of a reminder for us up here. sometimes than it is for you. but after you're done, i'll recognize members who will each have five minutes to ask their questions and out of deference to my colleagues, aisi'm going offer to make my questioning last so we can get theirs in first and accommodate their schedules. with that, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. i welcome this opportunity to -- continually expanding to respond
to a threat of our nation's children. as you know, the national center is a private non-profit organization designated by congress to work in partnership with the justice department and funded by both the public and private sectors. the national center's unique publish/private partnership. government agencies, military branches, private industry, other non-profits and public communities to build a coordinated national response to the problem of missing and sexually exploited children. in april of this year, we commemorate 30 years of operation during which our national toll free hot line has handled more than 4 million calls. we've distributed literally billions of missing child posters, assisted law enforcement in the recovery of more than 160,000 missing children, coordinated the secondary distribution of amber alerts, leading to the recovery of 695 abducted children and
provided emotional support to families. we trained more than 300,000 law enforcement, criminal justice, military prosecutors, and health care professionals. processed more than 2.6 million cyber tip line reports of suspected child sexual exploitation and reviewed more than 115 million images and videos of apparent child pornography to assist law enforcement in identifying these victimized children. to date, nearly 6,000 children have been identified through clues gleaned from these images. the national center's done a lot to make our children safer, but this organization is needed more now than ever. the world is a different place than it was 30 years ago. the internet has transformed life in many positive ways, but it has also fostered an explosion of child pornography, literally images of violent sexual assaults against children
that are traded amongst offenders from all walks of life. the internet has inspired new crimes with names like online enticement, and sextortion and has become a thriving marketplace for selling children for sex. many children today have cell phones which function the same as computers. this is why it's vital that we work even more closely with our nation's schools to help educate them about the dangers on the internet and the real world. as part of our recent reauthorization, you gave us the authority to provide more resources to state and local educational agencies. we have started to use this new authority to expand our programs to protect more children. among our expanded initiatives with schools are new prevention curriculums, such as our kid smarts prevention curriculum which includes lesson plans and teaching tools set to launch this summer in time for the new
school year. we've also been working to develop more age-specific, grade-level appropriate online curriculum and related educational resources for teachers to download from our website to use directly in their classrooms. when i became president of ncmc two years ago, i was appalled at the number of children being openly sold for sex on websites like back page. technology has changed the playing field. a customer can shop online from the privacy of a home or hotel room and a child will be delivered to their door. as part of our work to combat child sex trafficking, we assist the fbi with operation cross country as has been mentioned. that was headquartered at our center and led to the recovery of 168 children over a 3-day period and the arrest of 281 pimps and predators. one example was a 16-year-old
who reported to her mother that she ran away from a group home because she was being recruited by gangs. the mother took the initiative, looked up back page, saw the phone number advertised, called the national center. we were able to track that phone number to three states in the span of less than three days. we passed that on to law enforcement. that girl was recovered during operation cross country. with respect to those children missing from foster care, there are current laws before congress now that we urge congress to pass. right now, only two states have laws mandating the reporting of children missing from foster care. as has been pointed out, one in seven missing children are also being sexually exploited. 67% of those are coming from foster care children. no one is looking for these children. they cannot be found until they are looked for. so i want to first thank this committee for focusing your efforts and giving us the
ability to work more closely with schools, with teachers, with communities. especially those children with special needs. 1 in 68, according to the cdc, suffer from autism. these children go laundering 50% of the time. that's not the right term. they are bolting. where are they bolting to? unsafe environments such as bodies of water. 45 children with autism have drowned in the last two years. we've set up new protocols for first responders because the behavioral characteristics are quite different for these children. parents need to be educated. first responders need to be educated. and we believe schools will play an important role in the prevention and awareness of this new phenomenon. it has reached epidemic proportions. so, with that, chairman, i've devoted more time for q&a
because i think that's more important to focus on what is happening now and how we think we can partner further with this committee. i want to thank you, though, for the reauthorization and the ability to meet these emerging challenges. >> and i thank mr. ryan. as i said earlier, i'm going to defer my questions to the end, and the chairman of the full committee is now recognized for five minutes. mr. klein. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, mr. ryan, for being here. it was a pleasure to meet you and work with you when we were doing reauthorization, and as you know, i think that the center just does amazing and almost unimaginable, unimaginably difficult and challenging work. so we thank you for that. i'm looking at a couple of things here. i've got a, i think probably provided by your office, a nice little chart talking about the national center's statistics for
minnesota, and looking at statistics since 1990 in minnesota, alone, ncmc worked on 1,699 endangered runaways. family abductions. 67 loss, injured, or otherwise missing and so forth. that's one state. and not that big a state where you're working all the time. and doing as i said, unimaginably challenging and difficult work. speaking of minnesota, in minneapolis we have a little company there called life touch. it's a school portraits company. you've arranged to work with them to help law enforcement and the media. how did that come about, and how does that work? >> life touch actually approached us back in 2004, as you say, they're based in minnesota. they are the largest national
school photographers. and they are now global. as they grow. they stepped up on a voluntary basis, offered to take free photographs for families of their children that families could use and with the assistance of life touch, form what they call a smile i.d. card which the families can hold and it has all the relevant information plus a photograph of their child. in addition, life touch with the parents' permission digitizes that photo and information. so when law enforcement is called upon to find a missing child, and we get that notice, the first thing we do to see if we have that photo and information on file, invariably we do now because of life touch. with this program, we found missing children in over 20 states because their child's photo was in life touch, digitized inventory. >> thank you.
again, another example of great innovation and progress. you're one of those agencies that where everybody is busy all the time coming up with new ideas and new approaches because you're on a mission. and it's reassuring to know that you're there and you have the relationship that you have with law enforcement. you mentioned autism. and the increasing numbers of children with autism and the things that you are doing. can you expand a little bit -- sort of my remaining time here -- and tell me how this is different and how you've developed partnerships to make this work? it's got to be fairly challenging. >> it is, congressman. we learned from the first responder community that the characteristics of a typical search for missing child weren't
applied in certain cases and the common denominator they found was these children suffered from one of the syndromes of autism. these children are attracted to high-risk environments. when we use the term launder, that comes from the discussion dealing with the elderly, when they go off and, you know, it typically is a benign situation. but with these children, they're literally bolting in a blink of an eye, and they are attracted to bodies of water, to high density traffic areas. and within seconds, they can be thrust into these environment s despite the best care of parents, despite the best response of the first responder community. so we have learned that it's critical to educate the parents in terms of what measures they can take to safeguard this child, both within their home and within the schools because
these children are bolting from schools. we saw these in new york city, one last year literally bolted from the classroom and later turned out went right into the east river. and what's the lesson learned there? schools need to know what measures they can take to prevent a child like that from having open access and egress from that school. who should be notified, you know, when these incidents occur? so we are focusing a lot of our attention and partnering with organizations like autism speaks. we are engaged on a psa campaign to educate the community at large. because the awareness level is not where it should be. the public will turn out to be the eyes and ears and first responders to this problem, but they need to know what to look for and how they should respond. >> thank you. i see my time has expired. i yield back. >> gentleman's time has expired.
the ranking member is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. ryan, thank you for being here, again. i really appreciate this and the wonderful work you folks are doing. i want to talk about how the reauthorized missing children's system act is working and what more you might need from us. you know, we're often having discussions, arguments about funding and all the rest. i like to say we're in a very highly constrained fiscal environment here in washington, d.c. i think we can probably all agree to that. but, you know, is there more that you can do, and if there were more funding, and is there more that you could do, or are you pretty much at a point here where you recognize the reality that funding is in short supply? and chances of maybe giving more probably aren't so great at this point? what's your sense of that? >> one of the things ncmc does well is do more with less. for instance, in the area of designing educational
curriculums, we have our own in-house studio. we create the content that we use. we don't have to use third-party vendors. that can be very expensive. we leverage our partnerships with a number of companies. they serve as the distribution platforms. again, we're cutting into those costs. but where we need to be further engaged is getting in front of the schools on a nationwide basis. not on a community-by-community, even state-by-state, but on a nationwide approach because we have the age-appropriate messaging. it's not a one-size-fits all. we can track these kids from kindergarten through high school because the nature of the problem is different. but we have, because we're the clearinghouse, we know the trends and patterns. we have the ability to design preventative messages. we have the ability to create the format, whether they be games or lesson plans. so we need, you know, partnered
with the organizational committee to push this message out. >> i think it's great. the idea of a public/private partnership, we're as a country moving more in that direction all the time as well giving the limited resources we have at the federal level, whether it's on transportation or any number of other things. this is an area that, you know, clearly that seems to be working well. i'd be interested in finding out from you if you can provide us some information, writing, at some point sort of how it is that you judge how you're doing your job. what the metrics are. that kind of thing. you know, i can get that from you, if i get that from you in writing, i think we'd all probably appreciate that. i have no doubt you're doing a great job. you're doing your job and doing it about as effectively as you possibly can. can you e will be ralaborate a on the educational aspect of this? you already mentioned a number of things you're doing with schools. there may be more things you'd like to do with schools, with public schools, and private schools for that matter as well. can you elaborate on that a little bit?
>> sure. where we think we could make a difference is train the trainers. in this case, the trainers would be the teachers. >> right. >> we know that they are in position to be an early alert system. we learned here close to where we are now, fairfax county, with one of the better school districts in the country, over a y three-year period, there was a major operation where gangs were recruiting high school students from the schools and trafficking them commercially through a neighborhood and community hotels. these children were going home at night. they were going to school for the most part, but nobody was picking up on the signs. so we learn from that. we work with law enforcement. we then have the conversation with the teachers. what did you see that was different? performance dropping off, coming in late, maybe bruises? it could have been very well-dressed, flashy jewelry. a whole range of symptoms that
if the teachers were made aware of what to look for, they then could intervene at an early stage and pass that information on. >> i know in some places, in iowa, for example, my wife taught second grade for a long time, teachers are mandatory reporters, too. that's something that is really important because teachers are in a situation, as you just said where they're right there on the front lines. school counselors, school nurses, a number of those folks are really critical. >> that's right. >> if we can continue to do that across the country, i think it makes a heck of a lot of sense. maunk y thank you so much mind time is almost up. i'm going to yield the rest of my time. >> i thank the gentleman. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, thank you for what you do every day, and i have to tell you that with our human trafficking bills that the congress passed in a bipartisan way just a few weeks ago, it really helped educate me about the enormity of this problem. i had no idea it was as large as it was. and i look at this graph that
you have on your cyber tip line, and do you think -- i mean, down here from 1998 or 2000, now there's just an astronomical increase. >> right. >> and what's the reason for that? is it because of better awarene awareness, do you think? because i can tell you, i was clueless about how enormous this problem is and how you just very well described it could be in a school if you're not really paying attention and don't know what to pay attention to. somebody could be right there in front of you carrying on an apparently normal life. >> that's right. >> and they're not carrying on a normal life. >> i think one of the critical factors that has caused the increase is the online classified ad platforms on the internet. the back pages of the world. this has provided a relatively inexpensive business model for pimps and predators to advertise their clients, minors, for sex.
and for a modest investment, they are trafficking these children around the country. usually under the radar of local law enforcement because they're moving them from community to community, state to state. and these are children from all walks of life. the majority of them start off as endangered runaways. but some of them come from stable households. they're applying for jobs that they think may be modeling or something in the entertainment business. then they're lured by these predators and taken then across the country. so it's in everybody's backyard. if people are not aware of it, they're not looking for it. >> what's the way to -- i didn't even know what back page was three months ago or four months ago. >> sure. >> how do you go after those folks? one of the bills we passed was to go after the people who advertise on -- is that an effective method to do it, because it's cheap, as you said, to put up a web page?
>> and currently there's no regulations that they fall under, so unlike the responsible electronic service providers who have a legitimate business model, they choose not to know who their customer is. they turn a blind eye. if they see something that may look like potentially child pornography, they may make a preliminary report, but they're not searching their systems. if they see a phone number associated with potentially illicit activity, well, search your system. that's not an isolated occurrence. that child associated with that number has probably popped up in multiple states as we saw in operation cross country. so they are doing the bare minimum. >> a wink and a nod. >> exactly. >> that's all they're doing. >> precisely. >> and one of the things we did, i think, in the bill, that's extremely important, is to take the victims, not make them criminals but make them victims and so they can turn themselves
in and not be prosecuted. some of the fear is they're probably afraid i'll go to jail because i'm engaged in something illegal. i thought that was a huge issue to take these children -- they're not. they're victims of these crimes. >> you're 100% right, sir. when they were treated like victims, they were not reporting because they felt that law enforcement was not a potential ally, potential threat. and the gap still exists, though, when these minors are recovered, for instance, in operation cross country. where do they go? where are they placed? they're not in the criminal justice system now which is good. but there's no hold over them. we don't want them going back to the same environment because the rate of recidivism is very high. that 24, 48-hour period is critical to put them in the right hands to get them the ter puttic care that they need. i think this committee is well situated to identify those resources and aswrgencies we ca partner with.
>> there's a real shortage as i understand. the other thing i want to in my short time remaining is to talk about the missing from foster care. i would think that that would be -- that's amazing to me that only states have any requirement if a child walks away from foster care that no one would know that. what can we do, or what should states do to alleviate that? >> presently there is legislation in front of this congress with bipartisan support that would require social service agencies, those foster care facilities to report every instance of a child going missing to law enforcement and then on to the national center. we know the two states that currently do that, florida and illinois. we received over 4,000 reports over the last year. we can intervene with law enforcement at an early stage. we can find out, because they frequent lly run away. it's not an isolated situation. we know where they're likely to go, who they're with. law enforcement gets that information, they can intercept them before they're exploited. so a mandatory uniform program of reporting will be
immeasurably an improvement. >> thank you for what you do. you're making a difference in this country. i yield back. >> gentleman's time expired. now introduce a legislator who is a dear friend to everyone on this committee, the gentle lady from new york, representative mccarthy for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you ranking member loebsack. just listening to, reading your testimony, but a few things bother me, especially on the foster children and also the children that are in the schools. my sister is a school nurse, and she does report an awful lot of things to social services. if it's not a high-level case, they can't take it and they just let it go. this is one of the biggest complaints that i hear from her when she knows something is going on. and, of course, the child does not open up. so i think that is something that we really need to look at,
you know, because you're talking about social workers which we don't have enough of them. we don't have enough school nurses to be able to have, like -- everybody does go to her. the children. you wear that white uniform, that's safe. so i don't know how we're going to, you know, solve that problem, but the children with disabilities, you know, i'm sitting here -- they already got two strikes against them, especially those that have a hoa hard time communicating and that's going to be a real problem and that is a real problem. and i'm thinking of some people my age, little bit older, some of us have pendants, so if we fall or something, it has a gps so it can respond. i don't know what the privacy laws would be, but especially with children that can't communicate well, can like a gps watch help them to recover? >> absolutely. and there are some programs in place based on gps tracking, and
it's a voluntary process where their family decides to, you know, implement that device. it can be something in their school bag so it's not, you know, visible. it's not going to be something that's going to, you know, cause any alarm or, you know, undue, you know, discussions. and some police districts have signed on to support that. so that device will only be triggered when a family member activates it. it goes directly to the police agency. we had a case here recently in montgomery county where actually the child of one of the autism speaks executives, their young boy traveled to school back and forth on a school bus. inadvertently was put on the wrong school bus, gets lost in the system for many hours which is a nightmare for a child. that child had that device in his school bag. they called montgomery county. it was activated. they found that child within 15 minutes of the activation.
>> to follow up, the programs you're doing in the schools, are you also reaching out to the pta so the parents are also educated? one of the things we found especially with trying to educate parents on they should know what their children are looking on on the internet. there's so many good programs out there, but we're finding a lot of parents don't take advantage of that. >> you're right, congresswoman. we provide -- our website is our principle resource for parents and the community. but if they don't know about us, they're not going to go to us. so we have to do a better job of getting out to the communities, raising awareness of what services and resources we can provide, all of them for free. i think, again, that's why the schools are the nexus. >> yeah. >> because the parents are connected to the schools for a range of services and guidance. so i think if we can, you know, get our foot in the door there, we can do a better job dealing more directly with the parents.
>> now, have you been doing a lot of work with some of the social workers? especially for those children that are placed into a foster home? because you hear and you read about so many cases where these children are put into these foster homes and there for a number of years but the turnover, or the runaways are extremely high. is there any way where the social workers are actually the key to really see that these abuses are going on, but a lot of times a social worker comes in, the child is petrified, doesn't want to say anything, especially depending on the age. by the time they get to be a teenager, they bolt. >> that's right. we have -- in connection -- in addition, i should say, with the two states that are reporting, we have made outreach efforts to a number of states through social service agencies and law enforcement agencies to form partnerships and protocols of
reporting, and we've had some success in a number of states where, again, social service workers are the key. they are the ones outside the classroom that have the most contact with these children. and even if they're not getting the information from the child, they know something's wrong. they're not being told something. what is that? if they know that the national center may be able to provide additional information, what could be happening, then we form that link that kind of closes that gap. you is social services, you have law enforcement, you have the national center. we may know where that child is going from because with the dialogue of social workers, does that child have a phone? what is that phone number? we have access to all the public databases. the social media platforms. like that mother did of that 16-year-old. she looked for her daughter's phone number on back page. we can look up that number.
we may see where that surfaces and it may not be a good story, but we can pass that information on so there's intervention before exploitation. >> thank you for your service. >> gentle lady's time expired. gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. ryan, thank you for being here, for one of our most crucial missions. keeping our children safe. really appreciate your work. i was pleased to learn of your initiative, safe to compete. >> yes. >> which raises awareness of child athlete sexual abuse and provides training and preparedness opportunities. i'm sure we can all agree that putting forth a set of best practices will ensure our children will be safer when participating in sports. can you briefly describe what is currently being done to ensure our athletes are protected and how as policymakers we can further assist with those efforts? >> as a result of that safe to compete conference where we drew together most of the nation's
largest youth sports entities and mental health professionals as well as community leaders, they signed on to what you have referred to as best practices which includes that critical stage when an organization is taking on either a volunteer or a paid staff member who will have close contact with these children. many of these organizations have overnight, weekend stays, even week to a month stay. so parents need to know who they are entrusting their children over to. who is literally going to be responsible for their children? these organizations now are doing background checks. they're doing criminal history checks. so they are able to detect red flags before they turn over the care and custody of these children to these, whether they be volunteers or staff members. now, more needs to be done. and that's where i think congress can help because we need a nationwide uniform program of background checks.
the larger organizations can afford it. they can, you know, pass that on through dues or other, you know, grants that they get, but the small local community-based organizations, and there are thousands of them, they cannot. so we need to supplement their ability to do the same background checks. because it's equally as important. because there's a gap then. and predators find the gaps. they're not going to go to an organization where they know they're going to be vetted and checked out. they'll go to a smaller organization because as long as they have kids, that's all they need. and if they're not going to be properly, you know, vetted, then they get in the front door and that's where the problems are. so we need a nationwide uniform approach of background checks. fingerprints have proven to be the most reliable and comprehensive. there is a cost associated with that. but there are ways to spread
that cost around. we've worked with some of our partners like lexus nexus. they have, as a result, a safe to compete. they actually helped fund that conference, congressman. and they offered a discount rate to community organizations to provide those necessary checks, to ensure the cost was not a prohibiting factor. so we're prepared to work with congress. we can identify some of these corporate partners who could help defray some of these costs, but it needs to be done. >> thank you, as always. you do such great organization. i wanted to zero in on your workshop which seems like a valuable tool to teachers, parents, and students. can you talk a little more about this program, and how will the new initiative, kids smarts, deliver from your main education program? >> well, we're expanding -- net smarts started out as primarily a web-based platform where we provided the access to teachers and educators to come to our
website, download the resources, and then utilize them in their school. because we've grown, as i mentioned, we have our own in-house studio now. some of them get carried away. they think they're like disney animators. they created characters and formats, again, that are age appropriate. so you don't want to scare kids at the age of 5, but yet some of these kids have access to ipads. so you can't neglect them and say, well, wait until they get a little older. you have to approach them and address them as soon as they're starting to access these devices. so, but yet the same message, the same cartoons, you know, a high school student is going to say, obviously not for me. but they are still vulnerable. sexting. sextortion. those are new offenses that are targeting what we call tweens. they're the ones who are socially adept at utilizing the technology much more so than i,
but yet they don't know the real-world problems that are being facilitated through those devices. so, again, we now have the ability to target these messages, and we have the platform now, but we still need that entree. you know, i think we need a committee like this and other partners to get into this discussion because it's free. at the end of the day, it's free. this kids smart program we're going to launch in september, totally paid for by honeywell. not a dime of taxpayer funds. and they are committed. if this is successful, as we hope it is, they're not going to just say this is a one-time release. they will stand behind it. and other partners will step up. we've been in touch with the rotary association. i didn't realize how strong they are. 1.2 billion members.
and they are -- all the sta stakeholders that we would hope to deal with, business leaders, educators, political leaders, you know, the schools. they are adopting now some of our challenges. they're about to take on child sex trafficking as maybe their next national campaign after polio. that is huge. because they touch all the important sectors that we need to touch that we couldn't do without support like that. so, again, we look forward to the partnership with this committee because you have the same charter, and we can, i think, with our subject matter expertise in this area, work well together. thank you. >> thank you. gentleman's time expired. the gentle lady from ohio is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. ryan, for being here today. mr. ryan, i represent the 11th district of ohio where news, national news was made last year when we found three young women had been held in a home for more
than ten years. but we also found that there was a great amount of change needed within our police department because there are practices in some ways made the problem worse as it relates to how we search for and find missing exploited children. how much work do you do with local police departments to prepare them to look for these young people? >> we actually worked -- we worked very closely with that community. we have ongoing training, we call it the ceo training course. we bring in national law enforcement leaders to the national center. usually a class size is about 50 to 75. and it's train the trainers. we teach them and expose them to the resources that the national center can provide so when they go back home to their respective agencies, they become our ambassadors. cleveland is a good example. we held, it wasn't a ceo
training course, but we held what we called a long term missing children's summit in the aftermath of the cleveland case because there were a lot of lessons learned and takeaways. >> absolutely. but these police departments are not but these police departments are not required to do it, correct? they just do it because in cleveland's situation they only did it because they had to. because of the situation that existed. >> it is voluntary. >> what do we do to make sure that every single local police department has the proper training? because i'm telling you, that's a major part of the problem. >> i think it should be built into the training curriculum of every police academy. because it's going to become a critical part of their mission. it only takes one missing child case, and if they're not familiar with how to deal with that case, what resources are available, who to partner with, we will see what happened ten years ago in cleveland, where those cases, you know, fell through the cracks. so, that should never happen again. we actually had the cleveland girls, we had the chance to talk
with them. we learned from survivors what can they teach us? what can they teach law enforcement? because they have a powerful story to tell. >> let me take this one step further. just this year, a year later, our local paper ran an editorial titled put a face on greater cleveland's faceless missing children. i was shocked to realize how often the descriptions of these missing kids aren't accompanied by a photograph of some sort. and/or they are not put on police websites or websites of nonprofits. how do we encourage nonprofits, as well as our police departments, to make sure that these -- the faces of these kids are on their websites? >> we have a photo distribution partnership with well over 1,000 corporations including the social media platforms, facebook, and google. they have dedicated websites for missing kids and they profiles
of who these kids are, age progressed photos of these children. >> right, i understand that. i'm talking about police departments and local nonprofits. because a lot of times people don't go to those sites. if i live in cleveland i want to go to my cleveland police department and see it. let me gist ask you my last question. what is the recovery rate for, as it relates to demographics with your agency, certainly at least from our experience at home, we find that minority children are not recovered nearly as quickly as nonminority children. do you find that to be true? >> well, we don't keep recovery rates based on, you know, any of the demographics like race, gender. we have an overall recovery rate. i agree with you, congresswoman, that more needs to be done because we do know that over 50% of those children who go missing are from minority communities. >> precisely. >> they do not get the same level of media attention that is
warranted. we have taken a number of steps to, you know, actually convene major networks, and publications to do what we think is a more responsible effort to keeping these cases alive. because it is critical. as these cases age, out of sight, out of mind, and that should never happen. >> thank you very much. i yield back. >> thank the gentle lady. the gentle lady from indiana is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. and thank you, mr. chairman, for holding this important hearing. i actually had the opportunity when i was u.s. attorney and i now don't recall what year, we toured your center. and learned it was sometime between i would a '02 and '06. that i toured the center, and was very involved in our internet crimes against children task force with assistant u.s. attorney steve debroda who i know works a lot withs center.
and my question is, how -- when we have icap task forces all around the country, as well as local jurisdictions have child exploitation task forces, when kids come up in their investigations and photos, but you don't know enough, you don't know who the child is, or even where the crime is taking place, how are the photos or the images of those children shared with you so you can figure out if you have information in your databases about what law enforcement is looking at? >> that's a great question. well, we get our images from a number of sources that the principle one is our cyber tip line, which again, we've received over 2.6 million reports, many of them do contain images of yet to be identified children. we populate our databases with those images, and through the support of some of the technology companies, like google and facebook, and
microsoft, they help us with what we call tools, visual aids, that we can go through these reams of images, millions in number, what are the common lings? where have we seen that before? because many times these images are part of a series, and some of the series may be innocuous, benign images. but we have to match that up with that illicit scene of that same child, and we're able to do that, but we're actually working now -- the problem is this, is we cannot be a state actor. if we are a state actor, then we harm law enforcement's prosecution of these cases which we make referrals to. so, we don't accept images from law enforcement. we push out to law enforcement. having said that we have a
fairly robust and comprehensive inventory or library, so to speak, because we're being fed by the largest esps. >> that's my -- that's my concern about this. is that you do have this huge database of images and yet it seems that law enforcement, and the cases would benefit, and their investigations would ben pit if they were required to push the image to you, you might be able to make the match. >> well, they have access to ours. they have access -- and we coordinate through interpol, so there are common databases, that have access points. but again we have to segregate what we receive from law enforcement to ensure it's not tainted for potential fourth amendment challenges when these cases are prosecuted. >> okay. i'd like to talk to you about that a bit further offline as to how we can help resolve some of this. >> absolutely. >> because i think that your
center, and all of these task forces, maybe we should talk about how they can work in even closer cooperation. and i know because i work on emergency preparedness issues that there are platforms where red cross and where fema and others monitor twitter feeds and facebo facebook. are you in a position, either working with google, pallentier, facebook, where you are monitoring twitter feeds and facebook, maybe in geographic areas to try to find out what's going on in some communities? >> we don't monitor but we do have links. and both through the -- all the companies that you mention, they actually partner with us, provide access to their software applications, and more importantly their audiences in the case of google, and facebook. so we have an active dialogue through all those social media
application applications. we don't monitor them per se. we encourage an active engagement, though. >> are you familiar, though, with what i'm talking about that fema and red cross actually monitor for maybe public health outbreaks or after emergencies, cries for help and so forth? >> sure. we actually partner with fema because as you know congress has designated the national center as a national relocation center for when children go missing in a mass disaster. and so we work closely in establishing protocols with fema, and the red cross, in the event of a potential crisis so we kind of piggyback on their resources and programs, and they bring us in when they see the need. >> thanks so much for your incredible help and learning if there are legal impediments you have. >> look forward to that dialogue. >> gentle lady's time's expired. the gentleman from kentucky is not on the subcommittee but
without objection i'd like to recognize him for a line of questioning if he'd like regarding this matter. mr. guthrie. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate it very much to allow me to do so. i'm over on this side of the room. >> good to see you again. >> i apologize i'm not on the subcommittee so i'm down here. i think they had a new member come in. i apologize for that. before i get to what i was going to ask on the question of not requiring to report there's only two states required to report, that's reporting to law enforcement, right? they have to report if they have somebody in their foster care leaves theirs foster care they report it to social services or somebody. they just don't have any reporting -- >> that mate be the case. it varies by state. i'm referring specifically with referring to law enforcement. >> and i was in the center and i did the authorization last year, and you know, it shows that when we find common ground in the house and senate we can work together, senator leahy and i were the primary sponsors of your reauthorization, and so i came to tour the center, and i
recommend it to all my colleagues to do that, and the techniques that you have to go true tlo find one, who the child is in the image, and who the person is creating the image, who we want to find is interesting how you do that, and it's something we need to know, and it certainly is a skill, and ability and there are things going on in this world most people can't even get their minds around that happens. and the issue with me, i'm from bowling green kentucky and this always happens in the big city you think, when we're home on our work working in august i'm trying to highlight the fact this does happen everywhere. anywhere that has a computer, it's not just somebody out on the street sore so forth. so we're going to try to do roundtables or conferences in different parts of my city. what kind of things do you think, just advice for us, we should let make sure people know what's going on in their communities? because you see it everywhere. you see what's happening. what kind of thing do you think people don't know in