SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Following a recent attempt in New York to legislate backdoors or ban encrypted devices, a California lawmaker is trying to do the same. Only this time, the boogeyman is human trafficking:
A second state lawmaker has now introduced a bill that would prohibit the sale of smartphones with unbreakable encryption. Except this time, despite very similar language to a pending New York bill, the stated rationale is to fight human trafficking, rather than terrorism.
Specifically, California Assemblymember Jim Cooper's (D-Elk Grove) new bill, which was introduced Wednesday, would "require a smartphone that is manufactured on or after January 1, 2017, and sold in California, to be capable of being decrypted and unlocked by its manufacturer or its operating system provider."
If the bill passes both the Assembly and State Senate and is signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown (D), it would affect modern iOS and Android devices, which enable full-disk encryption that neither Apple nor Google can access. AB 1681's language is nearly identical to another bill re-introduced in New York state earlier this month, but Cooper denied that it was based on any model legislation, saying simply that it was researched by his staff. He also noted that the sale of his own iPhone would be made illegal in California under this bill.
Cooper himself, a 30 year veteran with the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department, told Ars that allowing local law enforcement to access unencrypted phones through the warrant process was not the same thing as allowing the National Security Agency or the CIA free rein. He also noted that "99 percent" of Californians would never have their phones be implicated in a law enforcement operation, implying that they should not have to worry.
Engadget puts it best: "The bill would put every Californian's digital security at risk to prosecute a few pimps."
In other Crypto War news, NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers recently said that "encryption is foundational to the future," staking an opposite position from that of FBI Director James Comey.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 25 2016, @11:24AM
Who's bribing these crooks?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 25 2016, @12:17PM
Nobody is bribing them. They feel that government & law enforcement - local, county, state and federal - should always be able to take any right or liberty from individuals at any time for any reason. This is their mindset; that they are always smarter than the constituents they intend to oppress. They are in office to gain a financial advantage and to force their will upon everyone else.
Of course, they will probably sneak a provision into their bill that exempts lawmakers, their staffs, and all of law enforcement (the same group that is always in the news for lying and hiding evidence about their own wrongdoings).
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 25 2016, @02:58PM
No you moron, they don't want law enforcement to be at a disadvantage to the criminals. You can argue all you want about whether that is rational, or smart, or whatever, but dipshits like you who always bend this into a shrill "oppressive government wants to control you" whine is the reason this stuff gets as far as it does. You sound like an alarmist dolt, probably because you are one, and it is easy to ignore your concerns. Here you have a lawmaker or police officer who goes after bad people and they see a wealth of potential information available with a cell phone, and they can easily imagine scenarios where they would be able to find the missing, pretty white girl if it weren't for the phone being encrypted. From where they sit, they see the crime numbers, they worry about hidden terrorists and sex trafficers and all sorts of other things that they get held accountable for. Now here come idiots like you who start screaming at them that all their only goal is to oppress The People and gain Mighty Power. If I were them, I'd say "fuck you" too and ignore you. You would have much better success if you actually explain the ramifications of these policies to them and the public instead of simply spewing all the shit that you do because, quite frankly, the general public is going to ignore you too from both your demeanor and your accusations. The fact that your comment is up-modded, particularly with "Insightful" is pretty sad because there is nothing "Insightful" about what you say.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 25 2016, @03:50PM
No you moron, they don't want law enforcement to be at a disadvantage to the criminals. You can argue all you want about whether that is rational, or smart, or whatever, but dipshits like you who always bend this into a shrill "oppressive government wants to control you" whine is the reason this stuff gets as far as it does.
How do either of you know what they want? I cannot know with certainty what these people in power are truly after as I cannot read minds, but either way, their actions will conveniently result in them having much more power, result in the reduction of fundamental liberties, and result in the violation of the constitution. Even if their intentions are actually noble, they are still dangerous and evil.
You sound like an alarmist dolt
I disagree. All the government of abuses of power throughout history show that there is no reason to trust the government with such massive power in the first place, and many good reasons to distrust it. However, since the general might be ignorant of this or think it magically doesn't apply to our government as it is now, I'm not sure if bringing up history is necessarily a powerful strategy.
and it is easy to ignore your concerns.
People who dismiss the argument itself merely because it sounds alarmist surely must also be doing the same thing with the government that constantly uses fear to grab more power (whether intentional or not), right? Surely they are not inconsistent morons.
From where they sit, they see the crime numbers, they worry about hidden terrorists and sex trafficers and all sorts of other things that they get held accountable for.
Again, I'm not sure how you know what they feel. Or do you just trust what they say? Very foolish, if so. There is a possibility that they actually worry about such things, but also a very strong possibility that they are simply using it as an excuse to grab more power. You are too naive, but playing the perceived 'reasonable man' seems to be more important to you than actually being correct or considering all the possibilities.
If I were them, I'd say "fuck you" too and ignore you.
Then you're an idiot. But you're an idiot with a point. You have to be very careful when you actually deal with the ignorant majority, as logical fallacies and distractions fool them easily.
But posting on SoylentNews is not an example of dealing with the general public. I wonder how you know that the one you replied to uses the same tactics when out in public as he does here, if he's even an activist at all.
The fact that your comment is up-modded, particularly with "Insightful" is pretty sad because there is nothing "Insightful" about what you say.
And playing the arrogant One True Reasonable Man is insightful? Please. It's getting old.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday January 26 2016, @04:08PM
Please explain how preventing me from protecting myself from the criminals gives the criminals a disadvantage...
The only thing these sorts of laws would accomplish is a massive outbreak of identity theft.
(Score: 2) by gnuman on Monday January 25 2016, @07:23PM
They feel that government & law enforcement - local, county, state and federal - should always be able to take any right or liberty from individuals at any time for any reason.
They can arrest someone and take their phone and require them to decrypt it via court order. And if the detainee fails to do that, they can be detained until they do. But apparently that's not enough now? Sounds like police state is getting more real every day.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 25 2016, @09:04PM
In Britain, yes. In the USA, not yet, because of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 25 2016, @11:34AM
Slashdot doesn't use encryption. Why should Soylent be special? Soylent News......is paranoid!
News flash, boys. Everybody knows about your torrents.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 25 2016, @11:40AM
I suppose you also use megaphone when talking in public and conduct all your private conversations with friends and family as loud as your lungs will let you.
Also, that setup I'm sure you have that pipes all the sound from your house out to the street must be marvelous.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 25 2016, @11:43AM
I suppose you also use megaphone when talking in public and conduct all your private conversations with friends and family as loud as your lungs will let you.
YES I HAVE NO INDOOR VOICE
Also, that setup I'm sure you have that pipes all the sound from your house out to the street must be marvelous.
I LEAVE MY WINDOWS OPEN ALL THE TIME TOO
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 25 2016, @11:53AM
Hey, I didn't know my 4-year-old nephew was on SN
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 25 2016, @12:05PM
We attract a very special variety of troll at SN. Bored, lame, and probably autistic.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 25 2016, @12:15PM
I'M SPECIAL JUST LIKE LOUD HOWARD
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 25 2016, @12:21PM
"Good fences make good neighbors", Robert Frost.
"Love thy neighbor, yet don't pull down your hedge", Benjamin Franklin.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday January 25 2016, @12:22PM
It's not about torrents, it's about device encryption. They want cops to be able to seize your phone and look at the contents without a warrant. Or even look at the contents successfully with a warrant.
http://www.cnet.com/news/supreme-court-cell-phones-protected-from-warrantless-searches/ [cnet.com]
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/victory-california-gov-brown-signs-calecpa-requiring-police-get-warrant-accessing [eff.org]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 25 2016, @12:03PM
Oh, the KaliFornicators will get it passed. Those assholes are so afraid of not being regulated, legislated and taxed that they'll slobber all over any chance to be further enslaved by their government masters. They're a testing ground for stripping away American liberty and Freedom.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 25 2016, @05:10PM
Let them pass it! I'll continue to encrypt my facebook posts while I rip the tags off of my mattress that is stuffed with substances known to the state of kalifornia to cause cancer if fed in huge quantities to gerbils. I'll drive my cancered up gerbils in my '68 non-CARB compliant vw beetle, spewing nasty carbons into the air and laugh at their silly rules.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 25 2016, @12:21PM
It would be lovely if Apple were to say, OK, so iPhone cannot be sold in California and New York, because those states have stupid lawmakers.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Monday January 25 2016, @12:26PM
Together they comprise over 18% of the U.S. population [wikipedia.org].
These two states don't have a monopoly on stupid lawmakers. Other states will be watching these outcomes closely and introducing their own legislation.
Apple is not a fan of your privacy. If privacy can help them market their encrypted phones, then privacy is good. If privacy is banned, so be it.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by opinionated_science on Monday January 25 2016, @01:53PM
the UK introduced a "Tell us your password or you'll rot in jail" law. Here in the US, hasn't the SC already ruled, they cannot compel your password (5th amdt).
I suspect that backdoors with a warrant will be the flag carrying to get past the 4th amendment.
Fortunately, for us all, the PGP code was already ruled protected by the 1st amendment, so I suspect these laws will not last long.
Am I too optimistic?
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Monday January 25 2016, @02:02PM
The issue is not fully tested:
http://www.uclalawreview.org/the-fifth-amendment-encryption-and-the-forgotten-state-interest/ [uclalawreview.org]
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/09/forcing-suspects-to-reveal-phone-passwords-is-unconstitutional-court-says/ [arstechnica.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 25 2016, @02:38PM
First link, sixth paragraph. That dude is twisting logic beyond recognition. A password cannot be considered either a key, or a combination? It most certainly is a combination, in that it resides in your head, and nowhere else. Forcing it out of your head requires torture, or some equally compelling coercion. A physical key, on the other hand, only require physical access - that is, if you're arrested, the cops can search you, and take the keys. An encryption key, on the other hand, can only be found inside of your head, unless you have committed it to paper, in which case, you're screwed. More likely, that encryption key has been saved to a flash drive, in which case, if it is on your person, you're screwed again. If it is well hidden, then maybe you're screwed, and maybe you are not.
The whole rationale around the state's ability to access an encrypted volume is entirely beside the point. Balancing the state's "needs" with the individual's RIGHTS is a meaningless exercise. The entirety of the Constitution of the United States is concerned with limiting the power of government, not empowering government.
But, let's consider that "balancing" nonsense for a moment. The state can lock it's secrets away in musty old buildings, encrypted, on servers behind locks, and guarded by armed guards. The private citizen? Probably can't afford the armed guards, may or may not have a decent lock and key, but he can most certainly afford good encryption. Balance? Well, if the state pays for the citizen to buy the very best locks and vaults and armed guards, then we might have "balance".
Let us remember, that just like police interactions, every single interaction of a prosecuter, detective, or investigator with a private citizen is an ANTAGONISTIC interactin. Cops don't waste their time stopping you to wish you a happy birthday, or some other such nonsense. When any of those aforementioned people barges into your life, they intend to imprison you, if possible. There is no "balance" between citizen and state. Be paranoid - they are out to get you. And, the constitution limits their power to get you.
He goes on to blather about the "doctrine" of the fifth amendment, stating that the 5th only applies when three conditions are met. More bullshit. Bottom line is, government can only get information out of your head by means of coercion. Government is forbidden to coerce testimony from you, end of story. If government is so very desparate to gain whatever information is hidden away in your encrypted volume, they can offer IMMUNITY from prosecution. Or - they might instead do some actual investigative work. Imagine - police actually solved crimes long before there were computers. Perhaps police weren't as reliable as we might wish, but they did solve crimes with old fashioned detective work.
Balance. Tell the state's prosecutors to take a hike. Unless they live in Dick Cheneystan, torture and other forms of coercion are not permitted.
I said what I said. - Sophie Cunningham
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday January 25 2016, @02:48PM
The Supreme Court doesn't always do what is "right". It is divided politically and by interpretation of the law and Constitution. I would not be surprised if 1st, 4th, and 5th amendment protections for encryption are struck down by the Court. It will (could) be like "oh, it's not really speech, law enforcement has a warrant, and you're not being forced to incriminate yourself." And then another freedom will be dead.
If Crypto War II is lost, many people will continue to use encryption in various ways. You'll just have to evaluate whether it is worth it to resist law enforcement if you should be so unlucky to cross paths with them.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Entropy on Monday January 25 2016, @03:53PM
Same with car engines, to avoid stupid CA emissions that screws up everything else.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 25 2016, @12:27PM
The Dumb... it hurts, it hurts! Make It Stop!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 25 2016, @12:38PM
Buy a phone in Cal without encryption. Install encryption. End result, no one reads the crap on your phone unless you wimp out while they are breaking your knees.
Alternative plan - you can't buy an encrypted phone in Cal, so you drive to Vegas for the weekend, and purchase your encrypted phone there. Once again, no one reads your messages, unless you wimp out.
FFS people, you have two knees, don't you?
I said what I said. - Sophie Cunningham
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Monday January 25 2016, @12:44PM
Reading the contents isn't the only motive. It could also allow law enforcement to tack on an extra charge when they try to throw the book at you.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday January 26 2016, @04:59PM
For what? It's only illegal to sell them with encryption enabled. If the user chooses to modify it later, that's perfectly legal even if they do so from within California. All the phone manufacturers really need to do is change the encryption functionality from a checkbox in the settings menu to an app downloaded from the app store. So an unmodified phone, they can always decrypt. It's not their problem if you choose to modify that phone, the law doesn't say you can't, and it also doesn't say they can't help you do it.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 25 2016, @12:58PM
Criminals might hide behind them.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Monday January 25 2016, @02:08PM
Freedom isn't safe. Creating a society where order and subservience to authority (whether that authority be governmental, religious, familial or firepower) leads to a less free/liberal society.
This isn't a partisan issue, it's one of liberty vs. order. I, for one, prefer liberty. That includes the liberty to live my life without worrying about law "enforcement" or other bad actors trampling on my privacy.
That includes strong encryption and the ability to tell some McCarthy [wikipedia.org] wannabe to go pound sand, if and when they want to root around in my private life.
Is it possible, even likely, that this approach will allow bad actors to hide their misdeeds from the evil gub'mint? Yes.
Is it possible, even likely, that this approach will result in the success of those same bad actors in carrying out their misdeeds? Yes.
Is the derogation of the ideals of liberty worth the small advantage provided by acting on such authoritarian impulses? No.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Monday January 25 2016, @04:05PM
I didn't know California had a human trafficking problem. If you want to stop pimps, legalize (and regulate) prostitution.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by mendax on Monday January 25 2016, @08:05PM
Oh, there is, but it's not any different than human trafficking elsewhere. It's called prostitution, most of which is controlled by pimps. A few years ago another well thought out proposition made human trafficking a sex offense, in blatant disregard of the purpose (or lack thereof) of sex offender registries, with the idea that somehow making the penalty that much worse would actually stop it.
Ironically, and this is interesting in relation to this discussion, that same proposition also included a provision that required all sex offenders to essentially reveal to the police their Internet logins along with the e-mail address. Understandably, that provision was killed [latimes.com] in court a couple years ago. People do have the right to anonymity, even when it concerns people who have committed a crime. Thus, it follows that people should be able to scramble their phones. After all, many if not most people have a legitimate reason for doing so.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by Bobs on Monday January 25 2016, @07:56PM
FYI: This bill is dead on arrival.
In CALIFORNIA the tech lobby will never allow this to pass.
The schmuck who introduced this stupid bill is either a moron (there are many is State legislatures) and/or he or someone else will be using this as an excuse to shake down the tech industry for contributions to kill the bill.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 25 2016, @09:55PM
He'll be in the good graces of where it counts, though, and will have demonstrated that he's "tough on crime". It could be that such notes are later used to look the other way when certain evidence of wrongdoing comes up.
Wasn't it the tea party that created a searchable database of all that opposed them, and sought to deny government jobs to people that signed petitions and voted for issues that they did not like?
We know the powers that be are good at databases; we know that some political groups are not above taking names and punishing people long after the single issue was a memory.
This is a case about data retention, we can presume no one will forget, and he'll go on the record as being a good citizen.