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 York Bill Would Force Apple and Other Manufacturers to Decrypt Smartphones
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Problem here is that this isn't just an iPhone issue.
Every physical device capable of encrypting data falls under scrutiny with this law: Every iDevice, every Android, every Mac, every PC, every router, every Smart TV, everything.
BL.
You said it perfectly. I get the feeling that most people's attitude to this blatant invasion of privacy by the government is "I have nothing to hide."
Google's former CEO Eric Schmidt is on record for saying in response to a question about privacy that if someone had something that they didn't want anyone knowing about, then they probably shouldn't be doing it in the first place. A person with that kind of attitude about privacy is still in a position of power at Google. That speaks volumes about how rotten that organization is. Despite this, Google is a media darling. It is held up as an example of a corporation that is more interested in "changing the world" and "making the world a better place" than making money.
Facebook isn't as much of a media darling as Google but its "Internet.org" or whatever it is got quite a bit of positive press. Zuckerberg hasn't been as blatantly uncaring about user privacy but his company is built on data-mining users' search habits in order to send targeted advertising.
You're absolutely right that in an age where people post every detail about their personal life for the whole world to see, people won't have much regard for privacy. It will be thought that those who care about privacy are probably doing something that they shouldn't be doing and that's why they
Same thing, if those companies didn't sell their products in that state it'd be an even bigger issue.
Follow the money. It's not naivety; they know exactly what they're doing. The NRA isn't all bad. In fact, I believe a lot of what they stand for, including personal freedoms, etc. We are never going to ban firearms, it just won't happen. However, that doesn't mean give everyone unfettered, unrestricted access to as many guns as you want. There's a grey area here. And the NRA is fighting/lobbying to make sure there's no grey area.
If you want to own a firearm, I believe you should be able to do so—with certain restrictions (bg checks, registration, firearm education, etc.) People go through months of education just to drive a car (more or less a slightly different deadly weapon), we need the same burden of proof on gun ownership. Prove to me you're not just a crazy person who wants a gun and you have a legitimate purpose (hunting, sports, etc). However, their position is not 2A rights; it's always more guns. That's why I mentioned they are akin to a terrorist organization. It would be like car manufacturers lobbying to say "you can go a fast as you want, anywhere you want. No education needed. We don't need proven technologies like air bags or seat belts. Let the consumer decide if they want them or not..."
It was ruled that his code (arms) was considered free speech, thus while 2A may have applied then, at the time, it really doesn't apply now since those export restrictions were lifted. I think you'd have a hard time convincing a judge—much less a jury—that the encryption on your iPhone is still considered a munition.
And this is a damn shame. It's the same people who think only guilty people need lawyers when it comes to interrogating people. If cracking some case is dependent on what's on a person's phone, you don't have enough evidence IMO.
Last edited:
True, but if I were doing something illegal, and doing it "well," I'd probably keep my sneakers on.
Absolutely no argument here.
Again, no argument here.
Again, no argument here, as you summarize my perception of the NRA clearly. My point is that the NRA's and most other people's perception of the 2A is that it must only apply to guns or other tangible weapons to be deemed arms. That isn't the case.
I understand that completely. A lot of those restrictions that made his code munitions have been lifted, but it is still the fact that it would apply under the 2A that is the crux of my argument.
No argument there either.
BL.
Typical? I seem to remember the Republicans falling all over themselves to get the Patriot Act signed into law, by a Republican president. Don't act like the problem is Democrats.
Agree to disagree here. This is comparing apples to oranges. Driving a car is something you do in public around thousands of people every day, only feet away from death. If every person was shooting guns in public around thousands of people (which is illegal, and rightfully so), yes you better have hundreds of hours of practice and training! But if you drive a vehicle on your own property, you need no license, no training and no registration. You can drive as fast as you want and do whatever to it/with it you want. (My dad legally learned to drive a full-size unregistered manual pickup at the age of 9 on his family's farm.)
Likewise, what I do with my firearms on my own property is my business. The government should have no say or control. But as soon as I wanted to carry my concealed weapon in public, I DID have to go through additional FBI checks, get fingerprinted (like a criminal), take hours of training classes and even more time practicing on the range. So in that regard, I guess it is similar to driving a car in public.
I'm a strong 2nd amendment supporter, but I can see both sides of everyone's views. Like most "hot topics", there are valid points on both sides, but unfortunately no simple solution. I'm fine with background checks (even though anyone who wouldn't pass a check will just get a gun illegally). But any "proof" of reason to need a firearm is rubbish. The bill of rights doesn't say you can only have a gun if you "need" it. Everyone's right to self protection and self preservation is more than reason enough.
The biggest problem with any kind of gun registration is what it can (and has) lead to. Every nation that has confiscated its citizen's guns started by registering them (typically in the name of safety and security). Sure it wouldn't happen today, or tomorrow, or even next year. But look at how far NY's politicians have gone (and are going!) Sooner or later they will pass another law, then another and another until it is near impossible to exercise your constitutional right. (Look at DC before Heller!) Eventually they will follow other countries and go door to door confiscating all those registered guns.
When reading about gun control, be sure to get ALL the facts. Most news outlets only tell part of the story. Like when comparing "firearm homicides" in the US to "firearm homicides" in nations who have outlawed firearms, of course the US will be higher! But if you look at total violent crimes and murder rates per capita of the same countries, you'll find them very comparable. Violent criminals will use whatever is at their disposal to commit crimes - if it's not with a firearm, it will be with something else. (But at least having a firearm I know I can defend myself). And of course the news outlets won't tell you that twice as many children die every year playing football at school than are murdered with a firearm. That doesn't make good headlines nor does it tug at our parental emotions)
Sorry for the long post, just wanted to share my opinion.
The problem with legislators is they believe the laws are almighty, where is not, their simplistic mind they believe that enforcing decrypt phones will actually enable they to decrypt criminals files or messages.
Encryption technology is widely known, and extended beyond the reach of either individual by definition to be safe, encryption should be unbreakable.
what would get the NY police ?(and any police at all) if they enforce device decrypt from the manufacturer thru backdoors? Criminals will use 3rd party solutions to encrypt sensitive content impossible to decrypt also detected ( as the steganography), this software also didn't need to be installed, there are tons of java-script solutions on that, so any useage of the advanced encryption is covered, untraceable and virtually doesn't leaves evidence available.
the only affected here is the consumer, enabling a backdoor is the same as open the hell's doors, this will give the hackers a target and eventually every device with the backdoor will be exposed to some tenacious hacker it's only matter of time.
I'd suggest to these morons legislator to take time to go to the Computer Science school before propose those abominations.
Encryption technology is widely known, and extended beyond the reach of either individual by definition to be safe, encryption should be unbreakable.
what would get the NY police ?(and any police at all) if they enforce device decrypt from the manufacturer thru backdoors? Criminals will use 3rd party solutions to encrypt sensitive content impossible to decrypt also detected ( as the steganography), this software also didn't need to be installed, there are tons of java-script solutions on that, so any useage of the advanced encryption is covered, untraceable and virtually doesn't leaves evidence available.
the only affected here is the consumer, enabling a backdoor is the same as open the hell's doors, this will give the hackers a target and eventually every device with the backdoor will be exposed to some tenacious hacker it's only matter of time.
I'd suggest to these morons legislator to take time to go to the Computer Science school before propose those abominations.
Last edited:
Uh. No it doesn't. Literally nothing that you said is correct. So yes, there's definitely someone who looks dumb in this conversation.
An amendment to the constitution means that it was a change. Not that it's a free-form, "change this statement at any time" appendix.
Even if I agreed with your sentiment (I don't), this law would not help in the situation you describe. There is plenty of information online talking about how ISIS deals with cyber-security for communication and storing data. They actually have a technical helpdesk instructing people how and which third party tools to use for added security.
While some small fry may not be following all of these rules, Any terrorist you capture with enough knowledge to be useful will be using these enhanced methods.
Exactly, which is why opening up pandora's identity theft box is the dumbest idea ever.
**** this goddamn country with its barbaric surveillance laws. This is the United States, not Saudi Arabia god dammit.
I'm hearing what you're saying my friend. Hopefully little things like this will make people realise that they are far from free in the US. The US is much like Saudi Arabia in respect of its all surveillance. The only difference being is they wrap their fist up in a silk glove. The UK is much the same and as we speak the scumbag corrupt tax robbing scumbags in the HoP are trying to get this b****ks pushed through our system too. However it is most likely like your own politicians that their phones will not be privy to the same back door request as the general publics. If iOS and Android do shaft the people over then there should be a firm warning on their devices that their systems are open to back door entry from government. Welcome to America and the UK - the land of the free, apparently.
You're not right, I come from a long tradition lawyer family (actually I'm the exception not being a lawyer in my family) I've a sister wich is a retired judge (as was my Dad), she was close to be nominated to supreme Court.
This conversation is not new, as matter of right any law at any time can be changed if the society agrees, laws (the Constitution is the mother of all laws) are agreements made by the participants in the society, as long all the involved parts agree (or the required quorum as defined by the ruling law) the whole constitution can be changed or amended word by word or just fully rewritten.
Of course doing so is dangerous and extremely difficult but in case the society needs it can be done, nothing prohibited a change in the law as any law can't be perpetual.
To finalize the comments, there is no law if there is no people obeying it, all we born free, all other thing are just subjective.
What the heck are you talking about? Literally nothing you said made any sense, nor did it have any relevance to what I said.
You have to go to the law school, I suggest to read "state foundation" it's a long theme to discuss.
Once again, you're posting things that don't make any sense. Are you a bot?
This is basic stuff. The constitution can only be changed by an amendment, and once an amendment is added, it can't be changed. It can be repealed or modified, but only via ANOTHER amendent (see the 18th/21st amendment).
That's it. Those are the ONLY ways the Constitution can be changed.
Technically the society can vote for an amendement calling for a full constitution rewrite, this is legal an doesn't break the Constitution process,as have been done by other countries recently.
This amendment for calling for a full constitution rewrite then should be ruled legal by the Supreme Court, and finally the house should implement it drafting the required procedures for such rewrite according the Democratic mandate ruled by the people (which is the one they serves).
That's literally what I just said.: "The constitution can only be changed by an amendment..."
Unfortunately the US government doesn't give 2 toots about your Constitutional rights and ether does the police so no point going to them for help or relying on them to back you up. they work for the government now and it basically "Do as your told" The police have forgotten who they where established to serve and protect. Keep hold of your guns is the best advice for any American now.