Slashdot Mirror
NY Bill Would Force Decryption of Smartphones On Demand (onthewire.io)
Trailrunner7 sends word about New York Assemblyman Matthew Titone's bill that forbids the sale of smartphones that can't be cracked by their manufacturers. On the Wire reports: "A bill that is making its way through the New York state assembly would require that smartphone manufacturers build mechanisms into the devices that would allow the companies to decrypt or unlock them on demand from law enforcement. The New York bill is the latest entry in a long-running debate between privacy advocates and security experts on one side and law enforcement agencies and many politicians on the other. The revelations of the last few years about widespread government surveillance, especially that involving cell phones and email systems, has spurred device manufacturers to increase the use of encryption. New Apple iPhones now are encrypted by default, as are some Android devices. Apple, Google, and the other major manufacturers have said that user privacy and security is their main concern. The bill that is now in committee in the New York State Assembly makes no equivocation about what it is designed to do. 'Any smartphone that is manufactured on or after January First, Two Thousand Sixteen, and sold or leased in New York, shall be capable of being decrypted and unlocked by its manufacturer or its operating system provider,' the bill says."
Just stop selling phones in New York, and sell them in every where else. Make consumers order them via Amazon.
Any smartphone that is manufactured on or after January First, Two Thousand Sixteen, and sold or leased in New York
So it looks like it will be an ex post facto law then.
Time to offend someone
If you want to see an entire political organization lose their seats, refuse to sell compliant phones.
Can you imagine what would happen to NY's political apparatus after telling their constituents that they cannot buy an iPhone/Pad/Pod or Google Android device anymore? Next election would be more than fun.
Expect to see disclaimers on smart-phones that they are not for sale in NY.
[Insert pithy quote here]
I wonder how popular this politician will be when he realizes that this will ban the purchase of iPhones in the state of New York.
China would be so proud.
There value of old smartphones will go up if the bill passes.
Corporate & business users who want safe communications will seek out those old phones.
If I had access to the backdoor, I could sell it, for more money than I would make in my entire career, by orders of magnitude. Repeatedly.
Why would I not sell it? How could they ever catch me?
If passed, New York Assemblyman Matthew Titone's smartphone should be the first phone to be unlocked and decrypted on demand for the whole world to see (LIVE on CNN).
"New York Assemblyman Matthew Titone"
Let's see, no "R", "Republican", etc., so I guess we know which one it is.
Do you have ESP?
Do you think this is truly limited to NY? Or do you think it's part of a larger issue the entire country is facing?
Since when did America support such massive erosion of privacy and liberty?
In less than 20 years the US has gone from "give me liberty or give me death" to "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear".
That shit ain't unique to New York state.
Increasingly the populace will vote for stuff which a generation ago would have drawn outrage and (correctly) been compared to fascism. America is becoming everything it used to stand against.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
You seem to be missing the point where they don't care, and aren't there to protect phones being "secure".
They don't give a crap about your security. Not even a little.
And, of course, since some animals are more equal than others, they'll insist it's OK if they have things which can't be decrypted ...or at the very least will moronically make it a crime for people other than them to exploit this now useless encryption.
Do not make the mistake of thinking this is about anything other than a government who wants to exert control which defies both logic and technology ... logic isn't a factor here. Fear, paranoia, and a desire to control the world around them is what drives this.
If they can't spy on everything you do, they will try to fix that with badly written laws.
Papers please, comrade. Failure to comply is not one of your options in the new America.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I thought Congress gave exclusive authority to regulate the communications spectrum and communications devices to the FCC. States have been trying to regulate some apps, but this bill mentions 'devices'.
If your keys are between your ears, the 5th amendment protects you from "witnessing against yourself". You simply need to shut up and invoke the protections of the 5th amendment when asked for your encryption keys.
So, from now on all cell phones in NY are free, not sold or leased, and are not subject to the law as worded.
Of course, cell phone plans will go up to $100 per month/line, but you can get a small discount by selecting a formerly expensive phone, or a larger discount by selecting a formerly cheap phone. Oh, and don't forget more heinous early termination fees...
The thing is, of course, that nearly everyone has something to hide, not because there is anything necesarily wrong, but because there are things that are private.
For example, what percentage of Americans wear clothes in public? Is there something wrong with all of these people's bodies that they feel they should conceal them from view?
The question is, of course, rhetorical... but I think it illustrates the point: having something to hide does not mean that anything is wrong.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Oh no it is still part of America. In fact NY is a trend setter - they are going and the rest will follow.
Now could you guys please use that 4th amendment to overthrow the government?
You never shut up about your right to do it but everyone overseas is still waiting for it to happen.
If this passes, I'll never enter NY state again
Just don't buy, order while in, or take delivery of, a phone there. Get your non-backdoored phone with all aspects of the transaction occurring out-of-state. Let "The Invisible Hand" slap them up alongside the head when it comes time to collect sales taxes. B-)
If they try make non-backdoored phones contraband (like drugs or untaxed cigarettes), THEN don't set foot there anymore.
(Of course not setting foot there - or, more importantly, spending any money there or with companies based there - will also help to get the message across. B-) )
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Or some flavor of the sentence "I plead the fifth." as the password.
Trusting software vendors is no smarter than trus
I can just see the argument here: "The Supreme Court ruled that "limited Copyright terms" are still limited even if they expire in 100 years. Therefore, our encrypted phones can be decrypted as far as the law is concerned. Yes, it would take 100+ years to decrypt, but that's a finite period of time and thus should be allowed."
Then, we can either throw out "all phones must be able to be decrypted" or "100+ year Copyright is still 'limited'."
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
I love it when Democrats whine that Republicans are too zealous with police powers, then turn around and try to one-up them.
And here I thought that the standard was "If a technology has a substantial legal use, it's considered legal even if some people use it for illegal purposes."
I look forward to the ban on automobiles. After all, "even though cars may help some people get around, they are used by some criminals to outrun police pursuing them on foot and thus the criminals will act with impunity."
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
I love it when Democrats whine that Republicans are too zealous with police powers, then turn around and try to one-up them.
It's all a game: we're tricked into blaming each other, instead of actually fighting back against ever-growing state power. Any general election of "establishment Democrat" vs "establishment Republican" is an election the voters have already lost. The real battle is at the primaries, and the primaries are happening soon. Look's like we'll be spared "Bush vs Clinton" but "Rubio vs Clinton" is about the same.
I don't like Trump. I don't like Sanders. I'd take either of them in a heartbeat over "more of the same"! (Cruz looks less crazy than I'd figured - maybe it's just the contrast with Trump but I'm re-considering him).
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Apple: Sure, I can decrypt this phone. Just tell me the password.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
New York City is small enough and close enough to New Jersey that traveling to another state to buy a phone may be reasonable.
New York state is a bit over 300 miles wide (estimated from Albany to Niagara Falls on a more or less straight route) and at its tallest about 330 miles tall (estimated from New York City to Champlain.) If you're in the center of the state (in the vicinity of Syracuse, roughly) I'd estimate you're looking at a two to three hour drive one way to get to Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, or the Canadian border.
Since this bill is in the state legislature, I'm not so sure I'd call a four or five hour round trip an easy way to skirt the law for Syracuse residents.
I think zip ties might actually be more secure than TSA locks.
The T&B nylon ones are more durable than the cheap-ass ones and when wrapped tight, you pretty much have to use a wire cutter to cut them off. I've been without one when I wanted to remove some and found a pair of conventional scissors and a pocket knife inadequate. This means that opportunistic people without tools are SOL.
I've used them on luggage and I mark mine in a surreptitious way. If they're completely off, I know the bag was opened for sure, and if there's some other type of zip tie on there, I know it was opened and resealed.
4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Perhaps, as an American I would rather die than comply, rather than give up my rights.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
Just dont sell any phones in ny anymore.
Cruz looks pretty bad, when you actually pay attention
I have started paying attention. I was favorably impressed by his ad on the illegal immigration problem: it was humorous, it showed the "DC elite" in a bad light instead of showing immigrants in a bad light (it didn't show immigrants at all, let alone try to paint them as bad people). That's good stuff.
I want a candidate who can say the words "illegal immigration" and "Islamic terrorist", but is making rational points about those real problems, not playing up racism for votes from the cheap seats. I want someone to say "we're all immigrants in America, it's not about immigrants, it's about securing the border" and presents some plan that recognizes we need immigrant labor, but maybe we want to control how much. I want someone to say "Islamic terrorism is a growing problem, that doesn't mean we hate Islam, that means we'll be rational about how we address terrorism as a whole", and presents some plan that Bruce Shneier would like (man, he nails it in that article).
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I don't like Trump. I don't like Sanders. I'd take either of them in a heartbeat over "more of the same"! (Cruz looks less crazy than I'd figured - maybe it's just the contrast with Trump but I'm re-considering him).
I would not vote any at all. If I am asked to choose to eat one of different kind of poo, why should I pick one to eat if I am also allowed to pick none of them? It is stupid to "must pick" one if you can simply "not do it" instead.
Because someone's getting elected whether you vote or not. In your analogy, you have to eat something. Are you going to let everyone else determine what that is for you, when the most popular option so far is poo?
my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
Bill Nye is great. But, his evil doppleganger from the 25th century, NY Bill, sounds fucking horrible.
Yeah, this. When people like the guy above who says he doesn't like anyone - Who does he like? You've got the entire gamut running right now. You've got literal Fascists to literal Socialists and everything in-between. No one will EVER, never ever, never ever ever line up exactly with what you want out of a candidate unless you run yourself. Most people are old enough to know this and vote based on who closest matches their own ideals.
I would not vote any at all. If I am asked to choose to eat one of different kind of poo, why should I pick one to eat if I am also allowed to pick none of them? It is stupid to "must pick" one if you can simply "not do it" instead.
You seem to be confused, thinking that you must choose one of the poos in front of you. You can always write in filet mignon. Sure, you prolly won't get it, but you can still write it in.
Unless you're in a non-swing state. Then it might be possible, but only if voters of the less popular poo color realize that their poo cannot win that state, so all they are doing is voting for who the runner up will be.
Or to get rid of the analogy... voting Democrat in a solidly red state, or Republican in a solidly blue state, is pointless. The person you are voting for can not and will not win your state. So might as well vote for some third option. If the polls read 60% D, 39% R, and 1% Other, that's just business as usual. But if they read 60% D, 1% R, and 39% Other, then people start to go "WTF??".
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
Then do like I'm planning on doing: Find a 3rd-party candidate you can live with, and vote for them, even if they don't get elected, and suggest to as many people as you think are ready to listen that they do the same. The only way we're going to effect REAL change in our political system is to make a statement with our actions, and I believe it has to start with things like this. Neither the Republican or Democratic parties are really suitable anymore but they're so entrenched that hardly anyone realizes that we can still have other political parties (or NO political party even) in this country. You'll also have the perhaps dubious honor of being able to say, 'Hey, I didn't vote for so-and-so, it ain't my fault!' when shit goes wrong, rather than having to hang your head in shame because you backed another bozo.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
"In 2016, the crime rate in the United States rises four hundred percent. The once great city of New York becomes the one maximum security prison for the entire country. A fifty-foot containment wall is erected along the New Jersey shoreline, across the Harlem River, and down along the Brooklyn shoreline. It completely surrounds Manhattan Island. All bridges and waterways are mined. The United States Police Force, like an army, is encamped around the island. There are no guards inside the prison, only prisoners and the worlds they have made. The rules are simple: once you go in, you don't buy an iPhone."
You really think they care? Ever called your representative? You get hours of wait and then arrive at a call center where you get read a standardized response.
I did send an email once to a rep in regards to the DMCA and the response: "My office has received a high number of calls not to support this law however I personally think it's in the best interest of local businesses to vote to support this law".
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
If the Supreme Court has held in Riley v. California that a much less intrusive law is unconstitutional, then shouldn't their reasoning apply here? If the requirement for obtaining any private information held in a phone is a search warrant, and an owner can be compelled to provide access when that search warrant is presented, then just do that. The most likely application of this proposed law is a way to avoid obtaining a search warrant. And wouldn't any argument that timeliness of access is important require probable cause, which, again, the likely application of this law would not have?