It is great to see so many members of a Law Enforcement who are here today. Many of you have come a long way and we appreciate your presence. You are joined by those from the ngo community, industry, and capitol hill. Perhaps this is the first time that so many stakeholders in the lawful access conversation have been in one place. I am especially thankful to be joined by two good friends from abroad, our staunchest allies, the australian minister for home affairs, and the home secretary of the united kingdom. I think each of you for coming, accepting my invitation to be here. Constellationce a of Common Security concerns, but we dont face them alone. We have always stood shoulder to shoulder in the fight for freedom, peace, and security, and we will continue to do so. Night, freddie and i on behalf of our governments signed the first ever agreement under the cloud act, which became law last year thanks to industry support, bipartisan congressional action, and the president s leadership. That act greatly facilitates criminal investigations by allowing Law Enforcement from each country to obtain evidence directly from each others commercial providers pursuant to Legal Process that safeguards privacy rights. Todays summit, bulletproof encryption, is from the cloud act. Excellentas an example of how much we can all stakeholders come together in pursuit of common goals. To address the lawful access issue, it will take that kind of commitment, along with an honest public discussion. As individuals and as a nation, we have become dependent on a vast digital infrastructure. That, in turn, has made us vulnerable to cyber criminals and foreign adversaries that target the infrastructure. Encryption provides enormous benefits to society by enabling secure communications, data storage, and online transactions. As the federal government, we welcome these improvements to privacy and security and will work to preserve and strengthen them. But the Digital World that has proven such a boon in many ways has also empowered criminals. Like everybody else, criminals of all stripes increasingly rely on wireless communications, handheld devices, and the internet. In todays world, evidence of crime is increasingly digital evidence. As we work to secure our data and our communications from recognize thatt our citizens face a far broader array of threats. Danger, but so are violent criminals, terrorists, drug traffickers, human traffickers, fraudsters, and sexual predators. While we should not hesitate to deploy encryption to protect ourselves from cyber criminals, this should not be done anyway in a way that eviscerates societys ability to defend itself from other types of criminal threats. In other words, making our Virtual World more secure should not come at the expense of making us more vulnerable in the real world. Enjoyment of all our personal rights, all the rights we cherish, whether to life, liberty, property, speech ultimately depends on our ability to maintain a safe society. Whether you agree with john locke about everything, he was certainly right about that. The founding document of our public, the constitution, states at the outset that one of the principal reasons we have it politic is toy provide justice security, or as it states, to provide for the common defense. That is, security from foreign enemies, and to ensure domestic tranquility. That is protection from creditors within society predators within society. Unless society as a whole has the ability to preserve this peace and security, our rights ultimately become a meaningless. The essence of all political thinking is about how to reconcile the claims of the individual with the interests of the broader community. In all the great countries represented right now on the stage, we have erected strong protections around our individual rights. There are none stronger in the world. But while at the same time we have placed some constraints on which are necessary to protect the safety of society as a whole. Apart from life itself, liberty is our greatest value. And yet, limits are placed even on this core right when necessary to protect the safety of society. We deprive people of their liberty. We arrested them. We take them arrest them. We take them into custody when we have probable cause to believe they have committed or are engaged in a crime. If we could wave a magic wand right now and conjure up some technology that would enhance all of our liberty individually, by absolutely insulating every individual from being physically hindered, even preventing any wesibility of arrest, would want to deploy this technology . It might protect the innocent from being mugged, but would also insulate all criminals from being arrested. Is thathappening here some Companies Want to say to the individual, hey, we can make you invisible to Law Enforcement. But do we want to live in a society where everyone is invisible to Law Enforcement . These considerations apply to privacy. That right has never been absolute. The Fourth Amendment strikes a balance between the individual conductingnterest in certain of their affairs in private, and the general publics interest in subjecting possible criminal activity to investigation. It does so on the one hand by securing for each individual a private enclave around his persons, house, papers, and effects, a zone bounded by the individuals own reasonable expectations of privacy. As long as an individual acts within that zone of privacy, his activities are shielded from reasonable government investigation. The fourthr hand, amendment establishes that under certain circumstances, the public has a legitimate need to gain access to an individuals zone of privacy in pursuit of Public Safety. It defines the terms under which the government obtains that access. When the government has probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime is within the individuals zone of privacy, the government is entitled to search for and seize that evidence. The search usually must be judicialby a determination that probable cause exists and be authorized by a warrant. As you heard this morning, some Companies Want to deploy endto end encryption on Consumer Products that would completely prevent Law Enforcement from gaining access to data or communications, even when there is probable cause. Essentially, this would establish privacy as an absolute right without regard to the safety or impact on society as a whole. It is hard to overstate how perilous this is. By enabling dangerous criminals to cloak their communications and activities behind an essentially impenetrable digital shield, the deployment of warrant proof encryption is already imposing huge costs on society. It is not just the reprehensible behavior of sexual predators on children, but married additional form myriad additional forms of crime protected by encryption. This technology is quickly extinguishing our ability to protect and prevent a wide range of criminal activity, from terrorism, to largescale drug crafting drug trafficking, to transnational gang activity. And the clock is ticking. One further point about the costs imposed on society by warrant proof encryption. It is not just about the crimes that could have been avoided, or the criminals that escaped punishment. Converting the internet and communication platforms into a and zone, a law free zone, thus giving criminals the means to operate free of any lawful scrutiny will inevitably propel an expansion of criminal activity. If you remove any possibility that the cops are going to be watching a neighborhood, the criminals already in that neighborhood will commit a lot more crimes. Let me address some of the canards that are floating around in this discussion. First, it is claimed that Law Enforcement is asking to in hinge impinge on privacy. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are not seeking to move the goalposts at all. We are seeking to preserve the degree of privacy to which we have always been entitled under our constitution. It is not a degree of privacy that is absolute and impervious under all circumstances. It is a right to privacy that allows for lawful access when society can demonstrate a sufficiently compelling need. Tothis regard, i was amused see the impassioned statement of a leading Digital Rights activist two days ago. Secured messenger platform should provide the same amount of privacy as you have in your living room. Thats right. We agree. Thats exactly what Law Enforcement is seeking. As you should all know, with a warrant, Law Enforcement can get access to your living room, both physically and virtually where there is probable cause to do so. Ed is also said that the government is seeking some secret backdoor to all data and communications. That sounds very nefarious, but it is false. We are seeking a front door. We would be happy if the Companies Providing the encryption keep the keys. What we are asking is that some responsible party have the keys so that when we can demonstrate a lawful basis, probable cause that crimes are being committed, we can gain access to that evidence. It also seems to me that the argument of companies that want to deploy warrant proof encryption rests on an unsustainable premise. The companies seem to think that the debate is over once they show that their technology will achieve some incremental increase in privacy, regardless of the impact on welfare of society. But our whole history shows that the extent of the rights has always depended on a balance between the claims of the individual and those of society. Think of it this way. In the hierarchy of rights and values, the right to life is at the top. There are many technologies available that could provide more security for my personal right to life. I would be much safer cruising tank,he highway in an m1 but the risks that would be invariably posed to all other drivers would be too great. Optimizing the value of one value only is not the end of the inquiry. The externalities of achieving that isolated go at all costs are just unacceptably high. The heart of the matter heart of the matter is this. Due to security advantages of a warrant proof encryption offered to the individual outweigh the risks posed the public by the same technology . Not a decision for the companies to make themselves. It is a decision for society to make. The public can enjoy the benefits of encryption while still allowing for lawful access. There is no doubt that we all benefit from encryption. Andllows for ecommerce many other online applications, but those are not the applications that we are talking about. We are talking about consumer interactions with Online Enterprises arent talking about consumer interactions with Online Enterprises such as banks or retailers. Law enforcement can go to those institutions with a warrant and obtain the information that we seek. And we are not talking about encryption for Enterprises LikePower Companies or banks that they use protect their operations. What we are concerned about is consumer to Consumer Communications and Consumer Devices and data storage. Made that tois achieve perfect protection against that actors, it is societysto override interest in retaining access to evidence. Some hold this view dogmatically, claiming that it is technologically impossible to provide lawful access without weakening security against unlawful access. In the world of cybersecurity, we do not deal with absolute guarantees, but in relative risks. Ll systems fall short of optimality and have some residual risk of a vulnerability , a point which the Tech Community acknowledges when they propose that Law Enforcement can satisfy our by exploiting vulnerabilities in their products. The real question is whether the residual risk of vulnerability, resulting from incorporating lawful access mechanisms, is materially greater than those already in the unmodified product. And the department does not believe that can be demonstrated. We are confident that there are Technical Solutions that will allow lawful access without materially weakening the security provided to consumers by encryption. Such encryption regimes already exist. At that point the Tech Community regularly implements new features that affect the potency of encryption and other security protocols. They do so because it is because those teachers benefit consumers. Provide us design their products to allow access for Software Updates providers designed their products to allow for access to software up to software pets using security keys. Even if it resulted in theory and a slight risk differential, its significance should not be judged by the fact that it falls short of the theoretical optimality or perfect protection, the platonic ideal. The significance of any incremental should be assessed based on its practical effect on consumer cybersecurity. As well as its relation to the net risks that offering the product poses for society. That analysis must also take and account alternative less socially injurious ways of mitigating the risk. If one already has an effective level of security, say one that protects against 99 of foreseeable threats, is it reasonable to an curve further cost to move slightly closer to 99. 5 lity and obtain a level of protection even when the risk addressed is extremely remote . A companys shareholders would not allow the company to incur the costs of imposing that change. And society should not allow companies to inflict those costs on society itself. At the end of the day, we must make these choices based on the net benefit to society. If the choice is between a world where we could achieve a 99 assurance against Cyber Threats to the typical consumer while still providing Law Enforcement 80 of the access it needs to protect society. Or a world where we have boosted our cybersecurity to 99. 5 but at a cost of reducing Law Enforcements access to zero, the choice for society should be clear. A point about freedom and our privacy. Throttling the ability of Law Enforcement to detect and actors doesiminal not advance either privacy or freedom. Are two ways of protecting society. Either detect and neutralize the as guys, or regiment society a whole. Anyone who has gone through security line in an airport,emoving your shoes, belts having your clothes spewed out on the table, toiletries for all to see, knows firsthand that regimentation places the burden on our privacy rights. I call it the curfew concept. When i was first attorney ago, there wass a lot of violence in our urban areas. That induced by gang activity. Some cities empower their police to identify and neutralize the gangs and get them off the streets. Regimentation the approach, the curfew. Everyone was kept off the streets. The two approaches to protecting society. Principalan ever, the tool we have in Law Enforcement to identify and neutralize the criminals is to listen to and read their communications. There is no substitute. Ability toose the conduct electronic surveillance or access digital records we will inevitably be driven to greater and greater regimentation of society in order to secure ourselves. In turn we will lose our liberties as well as our privacy. That is an extremely high price to pay if we prioritize impenetrable encryption above all else. Credit wheregive credit is due. Some Tech Companies have taken significant steps to help detect and report criminality. When it comes to preventing hope industry will continue to be an ally, not an adversary. We hope that the power of technology will provide greater safety to the public, not place us at greater risk of harm and exploitation. We think the tax ester the tech sector has the ingenuity encryption providing while providing secure legal access. It is past time for those in the Tech Community to abandon the indefensible posture that a technical solution is not worth exploring and turn their talent and ingenuity to developing ducts that will recognize reconcile good cybersecurity to the imperative of Public Safety and national security. Observed,tes has theres no question of ability, its a question of willingness. Obviously the department would like to engage with the private sector in exploring solutions. The time to achieve that may be limited. As this debate has dragged on warrant proof of encryption has accelerated, our ability to protect the public is deteriorating. The status quo is exceptionally dangerous, unacceptable, and only getting worse. Its time to stop debating whether to address it and Start Talking about how to address it. Thank you. [applause] for 40 years, cspan has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and Public Policy events from washington, d. C. And around the country so you can make up your own mind, created by gable in 1970 nine, cspan is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. Cspan, your unfiltered view of government. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2019] President Trump addressed members of the young black leadership summit in the east room of the white house. The event was part of turning point usas black leadership summit in washington, d. C. , featuring conservative leaders and activists. [cheering] pres. Trump boy, oh boy. This is a group