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: 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]