New York Bill Would Force Apple and Other Manufacturers to Decrypt Smartphones

[Mago]

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.

Before the cellphone and the stingrays the police have to work, now they just don't want to loose the "comfort" that gives the stingrays and similar when chasing for criminals, this is also self delusional, since the bad boys actually know they're watched and implement tactics to avoid being catched, the only thing the police does by using the stingrays is to catch dumb criminals not the informed ones.

Also there is a bit or propaganda and a way to self justify in a position where the legislator have nothing really good to propose, as they are dumb simple the propose barbaric things like this just following opinions without the right analysis backing it, this is an good case to identify those legislators that doesn't have the intellectual performance required by times we live.

 

[gnasher729]

even if they have a convicted terrorist, they cannot access his/her phone because apple doesn't even have access to it.

do you think that's okay? i don't. we could potentially find more information and get to the root cause of the entire situation, but with the current scenario, we can't.

But now they don't have a convicted terrorist, they have you, caught speeding. If they could access your iPhone they could find any kind of evidence against you. For speeding in other places. About having an affair. About not paying all your taxes. About making nasty comments about the local police chief. Do you think your local police chief will not take advantage of the opportunity? Once the information isn't protected, it is as good as in the open.

Can you be legally compelled to use your fingerprint before the time limit runs out and the phone requires a passcode? (Or the phone battery dies, or the phone is rebooted by you, or you use the 'wrong finger' a few times).

Well, nobody knows really. If the police is at your front door with a search warrant, do you have to let them in? I don't really know, I only know that they will get in anyway, the difference is whether your front door will be in one piece or not. Since it doesn't make a practical difference, nobody knows. With an encrypted iPhone, suddenly it makes a difference. Or if you bought a used bank safe with 36" steel walls that they cannot get into.

 

[zioxide]

The police have forgotten who they where established to serve and protect.

No they haven't. The police were created and always have existed to serve and protect the assets of the state, not it's citizens. Police are nothing more than government-sanctioned mafioso revenue collection agents.

Since our government has been corrupted and is now controlled by the oligarchy instead of the people, the police serve them.

 

[thermodynamic]

If this passes, its bad news for our right to privacy nationwide. As soon as the first domino falls it won't be long for the other 50 (49 states and Federal) to follow.

Wait, with social media that even the most overzealous privacy advocates love to use, and every time you go to a store and the receipt shows what you buy and the store has a copy of said information and people are only worried about rights over a toothless regulation??
[doublepost=1452876045][/doublepost]

If it passes, it's because New Yorkers allowed it to pass. It's time for NY residents to start writing their State politicians.

Ask any one of them on the street, and most will disagree or not know of what was passed. They didn't allow it. The people they voted for had, and sometimes those that get voted in don't or can't do what the people electing them want them to do and for any number of even fair reasons.

 

[UnfetteredMind]

Here's a story on how lawmakers react if they themselves become surveillance targets:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/30/lawmakers-privacy-nsa-congress

Yeah, not at all surprised.

 

[Breaking Good]

If this goes through, I'm keeping my 6s for a LONG time.

Why don't you use that iPhone 6s to contact your elected representatives and voice your opposition?

 

[dannyyankou]

Why don't you use that iPhone 6s to contact your elected representatives and voice your opposition?

Like they'll listen to me anyway

 

[Breaking Good]

A Democrat...figures. Typical.

Jeb Bush said in the last Republican debate that he supports this.

Don't fool yourself. There are plenty of Republicans who would vote for a law like this under the guise of "making you safer".

After all, if it saves just one child's life, isn't it worth it to give up all of your freedoms?
[doublepost=1452886983][/doublepost]

Like they'll listen to me anyway

With that attitude you've already lost.

Unfortunately, it is the attitude that many take and then have the audacity to wonder why everything has gone to the crapper.

But hey, just go back to playing candy crush on your iPhone.

 

[Breaking Good]

No they haven't. The police were created and always have existed to serve and protect the assets of the state, not it's citizens. Police are nothing more than government-sanctioned mafioso revenue collection agents.

Since our government has been corrupted and is now controlled by the oligarchy instead of the people, the police serve them.

Thank you, zioxide. It seems that you and me are the only two people in the world who understand this.

The police serve and protect the interest of the state, not the people. They always have and they always will.

 

[jlc1978]

Again, I refer you to post #70:

https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...rypt-smartphones.1950365/page-3#post-22465020

The courts in the US have determined that cryptography and encryption are munitions (arms), and are pursuant to the rights granted to the people under the 2A of the Constitution.

This just doesn't apply only to iPhones. This applies to any product or program that uses encryption. Browsers are included. email clients are included. fax machines are included Anything that has a means of gathering entropy for use for encryption is included with this.

Would you like the government to have a back door to your bank/debit card? with the EMV rollout currently going on, each swipe and use of the chip i your newly-issued credit card is encrypted.

Not to date myself, but I was around and fairly involved with and using PGP during the whole Zimmermann debacle. This is just a repeat of that issue, but 25 years later.



That same EFF back in 1996 supported Philip Zimmermann in regards to the use and publishing of the source code used in many encryption processes today (PGP, GnuPG, etc.), as well as supported Daniel Bernstein in his case against the United States concerning munitions export. As mentioned before, since they were considered arms, they were pu
BL.

Again, I refer you to post #70:

https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...rypt-smartphones.1950365/page-3#post-22465020

The courts in the US have determined that cryptography and encryption are munitions (arms), and are pursuant to the rights granted to the people under the 2A of the Constitution.

This just doesn't apply only to iPhones. This applies to any product or program that uses encryption. Browsers are included. email clients are included. fax machines are included Anything that has a means of gathering entropy for use for encryption is included with this.

Would you like the government to have a back door to your bank/debit card? with the EMV rollout currently going on, each swipe and use of the chip i your newly-issued credit card is encrypted.

Not to date myself, but I was around and fairly involved with and using PGP during the whole Zimmermann debacle. This is just a repeat of that issue, but 25 years later.



That same EFF back in 1996 supported Philip Zimmermann in regards to the use and publishing of the source code used in ma processes today (PGP, GnuPG, etc.), as well as supported Daniel Bernstein in his case against the United States concerning munitions export.

Except the case you refer to, Berstein v US, was decided on 1st, not 2cd amendment sounds.

 

[bradl]

Except the case you refer to, Berstein v US, was decided on 1st, not 2cd amendment sounds.

Here you go.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy#Criminal_investigation

I'll scan the article I have on this being dropped, and post it here as well.

BL.

 

[jlc1978]

Here you go.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy#Criminal_investigation

I'll scan the article I have on this being dropped, and post it here as well.

BL.

Also a 1st amendment decision per your link...

As for munitions, it was an expert prohibition, not a prohibition from his owning or using it so no 2cd amendment issue is raised.

 

[bradl]

Also a 1st amendment decision per your link...

As for munitions, it was an expert prohibition, not a prohibition from his owning or using it so no 2cd amendment issue is raised.

The decision isn't the issue. The very fact that they were classified as arms makes them pursuant to the 2A.

BL.

 

[Mago]

The decision isn't the issue. The very fact that they were classified as arms makes them pursuant to the 2A.

BL.

Both are right, and both are wrong.

Developing and distributing encryption actually is 2A matter, since cryptography is considered a strategic militar asset.

But USING encryption software is an 4A matter, since involve the right to privacy, as well is an 5A matter when providing passcodes implies the right to not self incriminate.

So the dumb legislator, violates 1st, 4A and the 5A both when violates the suspect privacy and when violates the right to keep an secret password on their encrypted files (depend on the kind of backdoor wanted, if just decrypts the phone content is an 4A issue, but if this backdoor allows thru some naive action from the user to expose their passcodes is an 5A issue (as could be to enable some exploit that requires specific action from the phone user to trigger the passcode reveal).

And finally is an 2A when the right to build self-defense systems, tactics or strategic assets is compromised.

 

[pika2000]

Party line voting
Low information voting
Voting by familiar incumbent name

I wouldn't be so sure about NY'ers getting what they want.

Then they can vote off the current politicians and vote in new ones. Not a foreign concept.
At this information age, you cannot pretend to be ignorant anymore. If people keep voting for the same politicians, they get what they deserve.

 

[Mago]

Keeping up the thread, California also has moron representative, confirmed!