New Bill Introduced in U.S. Congress to Block State-Level Efforts to Weaken Smartphone Encryption

[2457282]

[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.

I really have no idea what you are saying here.

Obama is big on getting access to our information. Gov Christie has stated that this is important on his plank as well. So has several of the other candidates. This is not a republican v democrat issue.

 

[Tech198]

Apple does make them useless if u try and do a iOS update after a third party company fixes your phone.. Haven't u seen the news

https://www.macrumors.com/2016/02/05/error-53-home-button-iphone-brick/

Encyption still falls under the same "this is mine, and you can't touch it" type of issue with privacy as well..

Before encryption on phones, things were much easier to deal with... Never had anything to worry about... "just give the cop ya phone, and be on your way." Apple and others should destroy the encrypted keys as soon as phones are encrypted with them..

Apple always says they cannot decrypt phones.... so prove it .... I would do exactly the same ting if the cops arrested me for something they may have found something encrypted on my NAS.. First thing i would pull the plug. second, would be to wipe the keys on "<insert secret place here>

 

[MacLawyer]

I'm afraid the president will veto this, if it reaches his desk.

 

[Tech198]

in actual fact it may not be too bad if users are responsible enough to also "erase all content & settings"

but in any case, the NSA (in theory) could get through anything u throw at them.

Besides, how can u legally prove something u do not have ?

 

[Fender2112]

I wonder how these lawmakers will feel when it's their phones that get cracked and their privacy is breached?

 

[macs4nw]

Good to see this come up as a bipartisan bill. Hopefully it passes and Obama is willing to sign it.

I expect Obama to sign it; I'm more worried about Congress nixing it. Keep those emails and phone calls in support of this bill coming folks. If they're inundated, the House and the Senate will get the message.

 

[ggibson913]

As a NY resident, I am glad to see this. Not having my phone subject to hacking by the gov't Apple or anyone is very important to me. Easy enough for me to travel to a different state to buy my phone there.

 

[VulchR]

Let us hope Congress passes this and the President does not veto it. and let's hope the EU do the same (actually, I first wrote 'the sane').

 

[macs4nw]

As a NY resident, I am glad to see this. Not having my phone subject to hacking by the gov't Apple or anyone is very important to me. Easy enough for me to travel to a different state to buy my phone there.

Unless this new bill is signed into law, buying in another state will at best be a temporary solution. Other states could, and probably will, follow NY and CA by introducing their own unlocking/decrypting laws.

 

[IzzyJG99]

Considering our government lost around 2,000 firearms in a "sting" that they forgot about? I don't want them having the keys to unlock everyone's phones. How long till a disgruntled employee sells those "keys" to the highest bidder?

 

[Wondercow]

If passed quick enough

The word you want is "quickly", an adverb, not "quick" (an adjective).

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

240 years after telling the King of England to take a hike, and there's still government agencies trying to take control over U.S. citizens and their privacy...
[doublepost=1455120339][/doublepost]
Yeah, but if 1 child molester, murderer, or whoever else they drag out as an example gets away, they'll say it's not worth protecting the privacy and rights of the other 300 million of us.

It's strange, but I thought that the was the entire purpose of "innocent until proven guilty" (i.e. The idea that it's better that a murderer get away with it than one innocent person be imprisoned or executed unjustly by the government). Somewhere along the way we turned into a country that fought for FREEDOM against the British (where there is now a camera on every street corner in London and even the police can't carry guns so if a terrorist did show up, they couldn't stop him short of the military stepping in) into a bunch of whining wusses that cower in fear because a few people got shot in some two-bit town in the middle of nowhere when 100,000x that many die in traffic accidents every year and no one worries about that....

The media controls your FEAR and therefore your lives. They can brainwash people into simple-minded propaganda spouting morons. Just take a virtual walk over to Fox News' site and look at an article that allows comments, the further from politics the better and watch how the comments quickly devolve into brainwashed political drivel even when the topic has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. That's your average IQ in this country. That's your "peers" when you're on trial. That's why DNA is showing we've put so many innocent people to death despite our "innocent until found guilty by a bunch of toothy low IQ hicks" (that would be "toothy low IQ gits" in England). And if you don't "love" America being that way, well MOVE OUT! Yeah, don't try and fix the corrupt broken system where 80 people out of over 9 BILLION control 50% of the world's wealth.

Hey, it worked in the Middle Ages peasants! Get back to work for $6 an hour while I make $250 MILLION a year sitting on my arse in an office with top shelf brandy and a girl named Brandy under the desk.... That's precisely why I need to know what the peasants are doing at all times to ensure they never revolt! The genius of it all is that I get them to post their entire lives on Facebook WILLINGLY! Who needs the freaking NSA!?!? Privacy...how quaint. Kids today think privacy means someone not watching them while they're taking a dump and that's it.

 

[bradl]

[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.

Yet it was the last Republican Administration that stripped a lot of our freedoms and privacy away from we, the people, in the name of security and keeping us safe. It was also a Republican POTUS that signed the EO to allow the expansion of data collection of its citizens.

Respect privacy and believe in personal liberty? Hardly.

BL.

 

[rdlink]

Good to see there are still a few sane bodies in Washington.

I like the fact that there will be some checks put on the states who are going insane, but I am still nervous about this. I'm sure that, regardless of what happens with this legislation, even if it passes there will be plenty of morons in the federal legislature that will want federal rules that cripple the encryption protections we now enjoy. The war is only starting.

 

[jettredmont]

Serious question. If your daughter, wife, mother etc is raped or murdered and the only evidence to prove who did it was on the suspects phone, how should they handle it?

Serious question. If the same thing happened and the only evidence to prove it was surgically attached to their brainstem and extracting it would involve killing the suspect, how should they handle it?

In my opinion, if "evidence" exists only in a place which requires violating basic human rights to investigate, there is no evidence. It just does not exist from a practical perspective, just as surely as if that evidence had existed on paper which had since been burnt and the ashes scattered in the ocean. Clinging to "but that evidence is there!" like a child who can't grasp the finality of death is something I'd expect from severely immature and emotionally stunted people, not from our country's leadership.

Moreover, why would you think that such evidence existed there in the first place? Meaning, if you don't have that evidence, what makes you think that violating this person's rights will give you evidence?

There are always and have always been limits to what an investigator can determine. If anything, the limits have drastically shrunk in the past couple of decades due to technology - we can now track where someone has been, who they have been communicating with, and for how long, with much greater accuracy than ever before in the history of modern detective work. Why should this small area - an area which has not at all been fruitful in the types of investigations proposed for it to date (this data has been available and has not been used to collapse terrorist rings or child pornography rings in any way which its proponents have been willing to describe) - be so important to us as to surrender basic personal security in the name of giving law enforcement one more overlapping tool?

 

[mingoglia]

I like to see how these things unfold. As a pro 2nd amendment supporter, I see this as very similar. Everyone's all for liberty when it affects them, in this case their privacy but turn their head to liberty when it comes to someones right to protect themselves. Putting a backdoor into a smart phone could potentially save another 911 and thousands of lives. If you have nothing to hide, why would you care? It's for the greater good. I'm of course playing devil's advocate here as I believe the federal government's role should be defined on the equivalent of about a half sheet of paper (common defense, common money, roads and other infrastructure, etc.

 

[aloshka]

I'm not sure I'd trust FBI Director James Comey's advice to allow backdoors when his own damn department got hacked 3 times last year and once already this year revealing 20k employee and agent information on the internet.

Imagine how well protected these keys will be or the information they extract. Geniuses
[doublepost=1455134044][/doublepost]

I like to see how these things unfold. As a pro 2nd amendment supporter, I see this as very similar. Everyone's all for liberty when it affects them, in this case their privacy but turn their head to liberty when it comes to someones right to protect themselves. Putting a backdoor into a smart phone could potentially save another 911 and thousands of lives. If you have nothing to hide, why would you care? It's for the greater good. I'm of course playing devil's advocate here as I believe the federal government's role should be defined on the equivalent of about a half sheet of paper (common defense, common money, roads and other infrastructure, etc.

Don't do the "if you got nothing to hide". I had a background check and a clearance bump from the FBI 2 years ago. I had nothing to hide. My info LEAKED into the internet including my SSN, information, known associates when they were hacked the first time last year. It was very sweet that they wrote a letter saying, oops, sorry, we might give you a year of protection. Thanks!!

It's NOT saving thousands of lives like you say. That's a selling point. Just like the NSA collection has prevented how many terrorist attacks?

You need to stop eating everything up that is being handed to you and think for yourself. America was great because it was the country of freedom. You are saying it shouldn't be, just so you can have a false sense of safety.

Our founding fathers weren't morons. In the good words of Ben Franklin ”Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.” Clearly they foresaw this BS and supporters of this BS

 

[bradl]

I like to see how these things unfold. As a pro 2nd amendment supporter, I see this as very similar. Everyone's all for liberty when it affects them, in this case their privacy but turn their head to liberty when it comes to someones right to protect themselves. Putting a backdoor into a smart phone could potentially save another 911 and thousands of lives. If you have nothing to hide, why would you care? It's for the greater good. I'm of course playing devil's advocate here as I believe the federal government's role should be defined on the equivalent of about a half sheet of paper (common defense, common money, roads and other infrastructure, etc.

A quote (and its derivatives) from a certain US Postmaster General and de facto first Secretary of State of this country comes to mind:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.

Having nothing to hide is no reason to give up the freedom from persecution. If there is a problem, the government needs to follow the law that this country is based on, not circumvent it. It's either all or nothing; government included.

BL.

 

[InfoTime]

How about CA and NY just **** and drop their legislation?

 

[bradl]

How about CA and NY just **** and drop their legislation?

Because any state could come up with the same thing and pass it, because 10th Amendment.

BL.

 

[manu chao]

Since we aren't all criminals, no, we are not placing ourselves above the law. However, the FBI is by implying that the well established right to privacy in this country for innocent people doesn't exist.

Demanding that something that was/is legal so far to remain legal, is placing yourself above the law? That's quite rich. Using measures that ensure your privacy is placing yourself above the law? Maybe in China.

 

[louiek]

Serious question. If your daughter, wife, mother etc is raped or murdered and the only evidence to prove who did it was on the suspects phone, how should they handle it?

I don't know, maybe like they used to handle it pre-1990?

 

[manu chao]

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.

Maybe the difference is between the NSA and the FBI, ie, the NSA could do it but the FBI cannot (possibly because the NSA wants to keep some of their tools secret, not necessarily from the FBI but from the wider world which either would learn about it when the FBI announces that the did get into the phone or simply because the more people with lesser security clearances know about something, the likelier is it will leak out).
[doublepost=1455139403][/doublepost]

(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.

What makes something a 'second-hand market'? If a retailer sells something on E-Bay, is that second-hand?
[doublepost=1455139666][/doublepost]

Considering our government lost around 2,000 firearms in a "sting" that they forgot about? I don't want them having the keys to unlock everyone's phones. How long till a disgruntled employee sells those "keys" to the highest bidder?

I don't remember the details but I remember a report of China not too long ago breaking into a Google server that held a collection of security flaws that Google had collected for the NSA.

 

[0007776]

As a NY resident, I am glad to see this. Not having my phone subject to hacking by the gov't Apple or anyone is very important to me. Easy enough for me to travel to a different state to buy my phone there.

Apple and Google will either comply everywhere if NY and or CA pass the law, or completely ignore it in those states if they think they have a good chance of getting it overturned in the courts. Buying in another state won't be an option.

 

[AdonisSMU]

Great! It's about time.

Since when has having privacy become "placing yourself above the law?"

It's not about putting ones self above the law. If Apple adds a back door for governments it will be used by criminals for nefarious purposes. That is the point. Our congress doesn't even understand the technology and how these things work and then don't even consider all of the implications that could result because of bad policy. Law enforcement can do their job without back doors into people's phones. They've been doing it for a long time now. They can continue.