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.