Exactly! I've been saying a long time now, that Cali, unfortunately, is the tail that wags the dog.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New Bill Introduced in U.S. Congress to Block State-Level Efforts to Weaken Smartphone Encryption
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And hackers still can't get access to my phone, which if there was backdoor that they or the government could use would be much more likely to hurt me or any other innocent person than anything that might be on that phone.
While I agree with you it would be hard. I think between NY and Cali they account for a very significant portion of overall iDevice sales globally and domestically. That would be a tough market to just "drop".
[doublepost=1455122875][/doublepost]
Yes. One is an application of state vs. federal drug laws, the other is the ability of the state to define exclusions to constitutionally granted/alluded privacy.
Last edited:
From what I understand this bill only blocks the states from being able to pass laws like this, it does not prevent the Federal Government from passing it's own law requiring backdoor access. I think some people here are mistaking this to mean no backdoors at all.
yeah, the old "the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many" argument. Then again folks always have an non-proportional reaction to things involving children. That's why the agencies always use that "example" in some fashion.
If they can get into another country's databases, then I'd be willing to bet my pinky toes that they can get into a smartphone.
I was wondering if anybody was feeling the FBI directors pulse or check for a fever virus for that statement.
Maybe he was hallucinating?
Apple, Google and all are marketing smart phones to consumers.
The fact that the gangsters amongst those consumers are always steps ahead of the FBI is none of their business.
and if the government came by and "borrowed" my work HDD they too would be looking to still get into it.
It is encrypted and unless they have a back door or a handy quantum system... That is what "investigation" is for. If it comes down to one item being the "all", there is a problem with the investigation itself.
Just like they would if they didn't have the phone in hand.
[doublepost=1455123560][/doublepost]
The Cali law proposal will die. There has been a significant amount of negativity to it. Curios as to will JC just let this die or try to move it a bit.....
[doublepost=1455123724][/doublepost]
I'll be the first to enter the iPhone smuggle trade.
![0.jpg]()
Gain some weight. More surface area to cover in iDevices.
[doublepost=1455123780][/doublepost]
That is correct. It keeps the question at the federal level where it needs to reside. Just MO
[doublepost=1455123832][/doublepost]
Cue cards.
At least sometimes.
The bill is short and to the point and is only three pages.
[doublepost=1455124477][/doublepost]
The funny thing is that the encryption used was co-developed by the NSA for secure communications.
SHA256 IS NSA -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA-2
Farenthold is an interesting character. He narrowly defeated an incumbent Representative that had been in office for 28 years, in a district that was 70% Latino. But his political "ancestry" is actually Democrat -- his family was well-known in state politics.
[doublepost=1455124852][/doublepost]well, those of you that respect your privacy and believe in personal liberty better vote Republican then. just because this is co-sponsored doesn't make it right. they work for us, we don't work for them...and they seem to forget that. I'm surprised that Apple is against this considering how liberal they are.
Makes me wonder if now they are treading these waters to make it just look better for them...They likely have their own decryption tools for it already.
Its called privacy & get a warrent! These law makers think they are above the law!
I don't think Apple or Google would have to actually stop selling. All they would have to do is announce they were going to do so, on the effective date of the legislation.
In the unlikely event that the legislation wasn't repealed by then, they could easily take the hit to revenue for the short time that it remained in effect.
[Addenda:] The real danger is that only one of Apple or Google would chose to comply with the law, in order to gain a market advantage over the other in CA or NY. If that occurred, it's likely that the holdout would eventually concede -- because there are enough people that wouldn't care and buy the compromised phones.
[doublepost=1455125063][/doublepost]
If that was the only evidence, he wouldn't even be a suspect.
But, you win today's award for the worst strawman argument.
Last edited:
Take it down a notch, Venkman.
This proposed bill is a double edged sword. Yes, it supersedes State laws on encryption -- and replaces them with a future of federally-mandated rules. My prediction is that clever politicians and lobbyists will write a follow-up bill to amend it and place the decisions in the hands of unelected bureaucrats.
Bye bye 4th Amendment -- it was nice while it lasted. Benjamin Franklin said as much 229 years ago:
A question to Franklin as he left the Constitutional Convention in 1787: “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?” To which Franklin replied “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
Looks like we couldn't keep it.
My fears exactly.
Perhaps this fed bill AND those state proposals will be put pasture?
Who is contacting whom is pretty valuable information. They can always get that. Errr.... They already have that.
Really? You wonder?
The article contains a link to the full text of the bill: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2708079-LIEU-027-Xml-ENCRYPT-Act-of-2016.html. It is all of three pages long, insanely wide margins and large font. You can read it in its entirety in about a minute.
Wonder no more.
Now, this slim bill might come out of committee (if it even gets out of committee) with a bunch of riders and attainders, which you will be right to be wary of. Look at it again if/when that happens to see what kinds of poison pills the anti-privacy "law and order" types threw in there. But, at the moment, it is slim and to the point.
[doublepost=1455126879][/doublepost]
Well, if they wanted to they would make owning such a device criminal, and perhaps require some external signifier of compliance with the statute. But, the California law, at least, only covers selling such a phone in California, not owning. However "selling" is defined as having either end of the transaction in California, and so no, you would not (legally) be able to buy them online in California if this ill-considered bill becomes law.
(http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=bpc&group=22001-23000&file=22760-22761)
As with sales tax etc, there is not any real obvious enforcement mechanism for this other than rifling through peoples' mail, yet all respectable companies would follow the letter of the law to avoid a massive lawsuit and $2500 per device sold fines.
The full text of the California bill (which references the above definition of "sold in California") is at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/asm/ab_1651-1700/ab_1681_bill_20160120_introduced.html
[doublepost=1455127047][/doublepost]
Frankly, I wish that Apple would make them useless immediately after installation of a potentially-compromised home button rather than waiting for the next software update (although that might be the case if you start on the latest iOS version). The reason behind it is exactly the same as why they will not build in any way for anyone (them, the Government, another government, hackers, etc) to decrypt your phone. There is no inconsistency there at all.
As someone pointed out, if the only evidence to prove who did it was on the suspect's phone, how did the suspect become a suspect in the first place?
Blocking that bill is like saying no to drugs.![]()
A new bill introduced in U.S. Congress today by representatives Ted Lieu (D-CA) and Blake Farenthold (R-TX) would attempt to block state-level efforts to ban sales of strongly encrypted smartphones, reports Ars Technica.![passcode-250x312.jpg]()
The federal bill will need to pass the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, and be signed by the president, in order to become law. If passed quick enough, the bipartisan legislation would set precedent over state-level bills.
California and New York assemblymen have introduced new bills over the past year that would require smartphone manufacturers like Apple and Google to create devices that can be decrypted or unlocked, or be subject to fines.
The virtually identical bills would require any smartphone manufactured after January 1, 2017 and sold in New York or California to "be capable of being decrypted and unlocked by its manufacturer or its operating system provider." Apple and others would face a $2,500 fine per phone in violation of the proposed law.
Apple is strongly against government efforts to weaken smartphone encryption. The company ceased storing encryption keys for devices on iOS 8, making it impossible for the iPhone maker to unlock content on passcode-protected devices under police request. Both iOS and Android share these default encryption settings.
In September, FBI Director James Comey expressed concerns that Apple and Google are "marketing something expressly to allow people to place themselves above the law." Meanwhile, Apple CEO Tim Cook believes providing the U.S. government with back door access means the "back door's for everybody, for good guys and bad guys."
Read the full text of the "ENCRYPT Act of 2016" for more details about the new house bill.
Note: Due to the political nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.
Article Link: New Bill Introduced in U.S. Congress to Block State-Level Efforts to Weaken Smartphone Encryption
