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."

Comments

Easy Fix

[Anonymous Coward]

Just stop selling phones in New York, and sell them in every where else. Make consumers order them via Amazon.

Re:Easy Fix

[david_thornley]

Apple can continue to offer iPads and Macs in the stores, along with a large explanatory sign where the iPhones would normally be. In the meantime, New York residents will have to get their iPhones somewhere else, and most will. I don't think Apple will be as hurt by this as the residents.

Re:Easy Fix

[ganjadude]

exactly, ill just get my phone in PA, areacodes are fairly useless these days anyway

Re:Easy Fix

[Dredd13]

It would, in fact, be a selling point.

We care so much about you that we're not going to cave in like our competitors whose phones you can buy.

Where it would become interesting is in how the carrier-stores (Verizon Store, Sprint Store, etc.) would choose to deal with it, since Apple would be unwilling to ship them product to sell in NY.

Re:Easy Fix

[Altus]

New York sales will not likely outstrip the losses in sales everywhere else in the world. Being the one company to not fold would be worth a fortune in people who will buy the only phone without a back door.

Might seem like a good idea on paper, but--

[LichtSpektren]

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.

Re:Might seem like a good idea on paper, but--

[gstoddart]

There's two outcomes which seem plausible to me:

1) Another state comes along and demands that all phones sold can't have backdoors -- hilarity ensues.
2) The feds get in on the game and decree all phones have backdoors -- and America stops pretending it's a free country and embraces the New World Order.

Oh, and of course if all iPhones ever had to have a back door in them, the rest of the world stops buying US technology products because they can't be trusted. (Which is already becoming an issue for US tech companies who can't comply with both US law and the laws of the countries where they do business.)

China would be so proud.

[Bamfarooni]

China would be so proud.

Time to play "guess the party"

[Trailer Trash]

"New York Assemblyman Matthew Titone"

Let's see, no "R", "Republican", etc., so I guess we know which one it is.

Re:no, just no

[gstoddart]

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.

Re:uhm...

[gstoddart]

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.

Re:no, just no

[mark-t]

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".

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.

Re:Every phone can be decrypted...

[Jason Levine]

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'."

Re:Brutus

[lgw]

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).

Am I the only one that read it like...

[3vi1]

Bill Nye is great. But, his evil doppleganger from the 25th century, NY Bill, sounds fucking horrible.

Re:The 5th amendment protects your keys

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that this bill is about requiring the manufacturers of smartphones and their operating systems provide a way to unlock them without the keys between your ears.