House Judiciary Committee to Hold Hearing on Encryption

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

Washington, D.C.  – On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 1:00 p.m., the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing titled “The Encryption Tightrope: Balancing Americans’ Security and Privacy.” The House Judiciary Committee previously held member briefings on encryption, which included a briefing from technology companies and a classified briefing from the government. 

As encryption has increasingly become much more widespread among consumers, there is an ongoing national debate about the positive and negative implications it poses for consumers’ security and privacy. Encryption is used to strengthen consumers’ privacy but it also has presented new challenges for law enforcement seeking to obtain information during the course of its criminal investigations. For example, following the December 2015 terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California, investigators recovered a cell phone belonging to one of the terrorists responsible for the attack. After the FBI was unable to unlock the phone and recover its contents, a federal judge recently ordered Apple to provide “reasonable technical assistance to assist law enforcement agents in obtaining access to the data” on the device.

Below is a statement from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Ranking Member John Conyers (D-Mich.) on this hearing.

“The widespread use of strong encryption has implications both for Americans’ privacy and security. As technology companies have made great strides to enhance the security of Americans’ personal and private information, law enforcement agencies face new challenges when attempting to access encrypted information. Americans have a right to strong privacy protections and Congress should fully examine the issue to be sure those are in place while finding ways to help law enforcement fight crime and keep us safe.

“Next week, the House Judiciary Committee will continue its examination of encryption and the questions it raises for Americans and lawmakers. As we move forward, our goal is to find a solution that allows law enforcement to effectively enforce the law without harming the competitiveness of U.S. encryption providers or the privacy protections of U.S. citizens.”

Witnesses for the hearing are:

Panel I

·         The Honorable James B. Comey, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation

Panel II

·         Mr. Bruce Sewell, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Apple, Inc.

·         Ms. Susan Landau, Professor, Worcester Polytechnic Institute

·         Mr. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York County

This hearing will take place in 2141 Rayburn House Office Building and will be webcast live at http://judiciary.house.gov/. Camera crews wishing to cover must be congressionally-credentialed and RSVP with the House Radio-TV Gallery at (202) 225-5214.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Senior House Judiciary Committee Democrats Express Concern Over Government Attempts to Undermine Encryption

Washington, D.C.—Earlier this week, through a court order, the United States government demanded that Apple Inc. help the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) develop software in an effort to break the encryption on an iPhone that was recovered after the recent shootings in San Bernardino, California.  The government cited the “All Writs Act,” enacted in 1789, to demand that the technology company create a new version of the iPhone operating system to circumvent several security features on the device.  Apple has five days to respond to the court’s order.  The House Judiciary Committee will hold an oversight hearing on the encryption debate on March 1.

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

Senior Democratic Members of the House Judiciary Committee, Reps. Conyers, Nadler, Lofgren and Jackson Lee, released the following statement in response:

“The terrorist attack in San Bernardino was a tragic event.  We agree that heightened vigilance is necessary to combat the threat of home grown extremism in all of its forms.  In this effort, we commit our full support to law enforcement agencies at the local, state, and federal levels and hope to provide them with the resources and tools they require to perform their jobs. 

“But there is little reason for the government to make this demand on Apple—except to enact a policy proposal that has gained no traction in Congress and was rejected by the White House.

“Properly understood, strong encryption is our best defense against online criminals—including terrorist organizations.  It is the backbone of the Internet economy and vital for the protection of both free expression and privacy.  The government’s demand on Apple would coerce a private U.S. company to hack its own device, threatening the trust of millions of customers and placing our technology industry at a significant disadvantage abroad. 

“In a September 2015 article, the Washington Post  cited an email from a top intelligence community official which stated: ‘the legislative environment is very hostile today . . . it could turn in the event of a terrorist attack or criminal event where strong encryption can be shown to have hindered law enforcement.’  We are concerned that the heartbreaking event in San Bernardino is being exploited to undertake an end-run around the legislative process in just this fashion.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS at Gompers Elementary-Middle School along with State Reps. Sherry Gay Dagnogo, Brian Banks, and LaTanya Garrett during the Detroit Public Schools Legislative Tour.

This morning I had the pleasure of meeting and joining students in the classroom at Gompers Elementary-Middle School along with State Reps. Sherry Gay Dagnogo, Brian Banks, and LaTanya Garrett during the Detroit Public Schools Legislative Tour.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. on H.R. 699, “The Email Privacy Act”

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

“As of this morning, the bill has earned 304 cosponsors—191 Republicans, 113 Democrats, and 27 members of the House Judiciary Committee.  What do all of these members have in common?

           

“First, we all agree that the Electronic Communications Privacy Act is outdated and provides unjustifiably inconsistent standards for government access to our stored communications.

           

“This statute continues to serve as one of the main guarantees of our digital privacy.

           

“But the law was designed in 1986, when few of us used email, and fewer imagined a world in which we could so freely share information online.

            “The consequences of applying a thirty-year-old understanding of technology to modern communications are inconsistent, at best. 

            “For example, the law seems to apply different standards for government access to the same email at different points in its lifecycle—when it is drafted, when it is transmitted, when it opened by its recipient, and when it is archived in the cloud.

            “We are not well-served by a law whose application is unpredictable, and that the courts have had great difficulty interpreting. 

            “Because of the rapid pace of technological change, this situation will only get worse if we do not act.

            “Second, the sponsors of this bill agree that the government should be obligated to show probable cause before it can force a provider to disclose the content its customer’s email—no matter how old the message is.

            “This standard is consistent with the holding of the Sixth Circuit in U.S. v. Warshak in 2010.  That case motivated the Department of Justice to voluntarily adopt a warrants-for-email standard. 

            “It also effectively ended the unconstitutional use of subpoenas to compel third parties to produce content in civil enforcement actions.

            “Current law requires the government to show probable cause and obtain a warrant only for email that has been in storage for 180 days or less.  But the government can use an subpoena for the same email if it is stored for one day longer.

           

“This is no longer acceptable to most Americans.  As the Sixth Circuit rightly observed, citizens have the same reasonable expectation of privacy in their email before and after the 180-day mark.

            “And as the Department of Justice testified soon thereafter, “there is no principled basis to treat email less than 180 days old differently than email more than 180 days old.”

            “Third, the sponsors of H.R.699 all agree that current law is not adequate to protect new forms of digital communication.

            “Content is content.  Our expectation of privacy does not diminish merely because Congress didn’t think of the medium when it last visited the statute.  The law should protect electronic communications across the board:  email, text messages, private messaging of all sort, and other forms of digital information stored in the cloud.

           

“Finally, the sponsors of this bill agree that we must act without delay.

            “We have an obligation to provide clear standards to law enforcement with respect to emerging technologies.

            “We should also recognize that American businesses cannot sustain these new technologies if consumers cannot trust them.

            “As the Committee takes up this bill, we should ensure that it does not conflict with the basic notion that the government’s seizure of our email without a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment.

            “But we should note that this principle has already taken hold across the federal government.  The Department of Justice already uses warrants for email in criminal cases. 

            “The government stopped using lesser process in the civil context years ago.

            “In short, Mr. Chairman, this legislation accomplishes two vital tasks: it updates the statute for modern use, and it does so without any significant interruption to law enforcement.

            “We should come together on this bill as soon as possible.

            “I thank the witnesses for their testimony today and I urge my colleagues to give this measure their full support.”    

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Congressman Conyers Kicks Off Congressional App Challenge

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (MI-13) announced the launch of the second annual Congressional science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) academic competition, the Congressional App Challenge (CAC), for Michigan’s 13^th Congressional District.  The competition runs from today, November 16 to January 15, 2016.

Designed to promote innovation and engagement in the STEM education fields, the U.S. House of Representatives established this competition in 2013 as a nationwide event that invites high school students from all participating congressional districts to compete by creating and exhibiting their software application, or “app,” for mobile, tablet, or computer devices on a platform of their choice.

Local judges will evaluate each app based on the below criteria:

1.      Quality of the Idea (creativity and originality);

2.      Implementation of the Idea (User experience and design); and,

3.      Demonstrated coding skills.

The judging will occur in late January – early February, and the winner will be announced on February 22, 2016.

How Can I Participate?

The Congressional App Challenge is open to all high school students in Michigan’s 13^th Congressional District.  Please note the app competition is only open to students who are eligible to attend high school in the 13^th District.  Individuals submitting on behalf of teams must meet the eligibility requirements for individual contestants.

Students can enter individually or on teams of up to four.  At least two of the team members must reside or attend high school in the district in which they are competing. 

Students participating must submit their app source code between November 16, 2015 and January 15, 2016 (11:59 PM). 

How Do I Register?

To enter, the student must create an account on www.challenge.gov and then register for the House Student App Contest under Congressman Conyers’ profile during the competition submission period.  All entries must be an original in concept, design, and execution. 

For More Information:

For more information, or if you have any questions or concerns, please email Devin Armstrong at Devin.Armstrong@mail.house.gov, or visit congressionalappchallenge.us or https://conyers.house.gov/congressional-app-challenge.

Congressional App Challenge (CAC) Background:

The CAC was created in response to recognition that STEM skills are essential for economic growth and innovation, and that the U.S. has been falling behind on these fronts.  STEM occupations are projected to grow by 17% between 2008 and 2018, compared to 9.8% growth for non-STEM occupations and according to some estimates; the U.S. may be short as many as 3 million high-skilled workers by 2018.  To maintain American global competitiveness, it is crucial that we invest in our youth now and help them acquire these necessary STEM-based skills. 

The CAC highlights and encourages students to pursue those skills.  In its first year, the CAC received submissions from students in 84 districts.  This year, the Challenge is striving to double that number.  Recognizing racial, gender, and other disparities in the tech sector, the CAC focuses on inclusivity and making the Challenge accessible to students from all backgrounds. 

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Conyers: Cops should get warrants to collect phone data

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

U.S. Rep. John Conyers, D-Detroit, is co-sponsoring legislation that would require the Michigan State Police and other local law enforcement agencies to get a warrant before using cellphone snooping devices.

The Cell-Site Simulator Act of 2015, also known as the Stingray Privacy Act, was introduced Monday, following a new U.S. Justice Department policy that requires federal agencies to get warrants to use devices known as Stingrays that track the location of mobile phone users.

The bill comes about a week after The Detroit News reported that the Michigan State Police has been using the devices since at least 2006. Conyers and others are concerned that, while federal policy requires warrants for the FBI, there is no such requirement for local departments.

“The government’s expanded use of new surveillance technology, such as cell site simulators, greatly concerns me as their operation has not been sufficiently constrained by appropriate legal standards,” Conyers said in a statement.

“Our citizens have a fair expectation that the government will generally not use such devices to track their whereabouts, or to acquire location of mass numbers of cell phones operating within range of such a device, without a warrant.”

Conyers is one of two co-sponsors to the bill from U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah. It includes penalties of fines and up to 10 years in prison for misusing the technology.

The News last year reported that Oakland County Sheriff’s officials used federal grant funds to acquire a Hailstorm device from Florida-based defense contractor Harris Corp. Last month, The News reported that the Michigan State Police have spent nearly a $1 million since 2006 on similar equipment.

The technology has raised privacy concerns and reform efforts nationwide because it collects information from not only criminal suspects, but also anyone with cellphones within range of the devices. The suitcase-sized contraption is installed in cars and pulls cell data for police. Its exact capabilities, though, aren’t fully known because Harris Corp. requires that police agencies sign confidentiality agreements.

Oakland officials told The News they have secured warrants since “Day 1,” while State Police said they get warrants or court orders before using the devices except in “exigent circumstances” such as kidnappings.

State Police officials have met with the ACLU to discuss policies and are reviewing the U.S. Justice Department’s new rules, officials told The News.

Documents show the equipment was used 128 times last year in cases from homicide to fraud and 82 arrests.

Legislation introduced last year in Michigan to require warrants to use the technology went nowhere. This year, California and Washington passed laws requiring police to get warrants to use Stingray-type devices, joining Virginia, Minnesota and Utah in regulating the devices.

Nationwide, the ACLU has identified 57 police agencies in 22 states and the District of Columbia that own the devices known as cell site simulators. They masquerade as cell towers and send signals to trick phones in the area into transmitting their locations and identifying information.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Medical Discoveries Through Creative Commerce

Here is an excellent example of what is meant by "creative commerce".  Gamers were able to scientifically solve a protein structure simply over the internet, for free.


We need to recognize that the time has come to unleash the spirit of creativity and innovation for the world to share, online.

One point for crowdsourcing: Gamers solve protein structure of AIDS-like protein

A small group of enthusiastic gamers on a site called Foldit recentlysolved the structure of a protein found in an AIDS-like monkey virus. The structure had stumped scientists for over a decade; the gamers, incredibly, cracked it in less than three weeks.

Despite using advanced crystallography technology, scientists at the University of Washington kept encountering roadblocks while trying to discern the protein’s structure. This led them, in a self-proclaimed “last ditch effort”, to begin an online protein folding competition. They offered several potential molecular structures on Foldit’s 3-D interface, and then asked players to tweak them so that, just as in real life, they emitted the lowest possible energy. Within days, a group called The Contenders submitted an answer that fit the X-ray data almost perfectly. The scientists, in an article in Nature last week,proclaimed that this was “the first instance that we are aware of in which online gamers solved a longstanding scientific problem.”

This development has huge implications for the future of crowdsourcing, or of using large groups to perform tasks typically done by individuals. In this case, gamers applied critical reasoning and spatial intelligence to a problem traditionally dominated by subject matter experts. Seth Cooper, lead designer and developer of Foldit, said in an interview on MSNBC that the players’ lack of biochemistry backgrounds may have actually worked to their advantage. Unaware of traditional rules governing biochemistry, Foldit players were able “to be really creative and come up with a lot of different interesting solutions.”

Scientists may even be able to study the gamers’ unconventional folding techniques to improve existing crystallography software. Bradford Graves, a protein crystallographer at the pharmaceutical company Hoffmann-La Roche, believes this is at least as important a contribution gamers can make to science.

Before scientists start opening a suite of unsolved mysteries to gamers, however, there are several issues to keep in mind.

A screenshot of a protein structure on Foldit

First and foremost, we must consider the value being generated through these crowdsourced molecules, and how that will eventually translate in monetary terms. Who owns the intellectual property on a collaborative, crowdsourced protein structure? Ben Sawyer, co-director of theSerious Games Initiative, warns that in the worst-case scenario, these puzzles could be “exploitative” to gamers who do not fully understand the financial value of their discoveries. This question will prove especially relevant in cases where a pharmaceutical drug is developed from a Foldit discovery (that is unlikely to be the case with the AIDS-like protein). Sawyer advises both Foldit and the scientific community to think carefully about what an optimal risk-reward ratio would look like.

We should also determine the audience for which a crowdsourced protein structure would be valuable. Many scientific groups, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry but also at the university level, tend to keep their work secretive. Sawyer asks, “How do you get people to solve [protein structures] without having your competitors also see it?” In such instances, open-source software could actually prove counter-productive. Bradford Graves contends that in addition to the secrecy issue, the pharmaceutical industry may see limited value because “the structure may not get you anything in and of itself; it’s what you do with it that really counts.” Given this, Foldit may see limited application to institutions focused on basic science.

Finally, we do not yet know if this concept can scale. If we open countless scientific puzzles to the general public, Foldit will also need scientists at the back end to evaluate the answers that come in. The only way games like Foldit will work is if you have a dedicated team to parse out the good molecular structures from the bad. In an ideal scenario, the scientists should also be able to give gamers feedback, thereby educating them in the process. It is yet to be determined if Foldit can develop the capacity to do this.

These caveats aside, Foldit is in many ways a game-changing (pun intended) concept. It provides a platform for gamers to interact, and potentially solve, pressing issues in the real world. Game designer Jane McGonigal said in a 2010 TED talk that most games today are played to escape from “real world suffering,” from “everything that’s broken in the real environment.” Serious games like Foldit show us that a meaningful bridge can in fact be created between the online gaming world and the real one.