California Bill Would Require Phone Crypto Backdoors

Trailrunner7 writes with this except from On The Wire: A week after a New York legislator introduced a bill that would require smartphone vendors to be able to decrypt users' phones on demand from law enforcement, a California bill with the same intent has been introduced in that state's assembly. On Wednesday, California Assemblyman Jim Cooper submitted a bill that has remarkably similar language to the New York measure and would require that device manufacturers and operating system vendors such as Apple, Samsung, and Google be able to decrypt users' devices. The law would apply to phones sold in California beginning Jan. 1, 2017. Of course, "smartphone vendors" wouldn't be able to decrypt voice calls sent using VoIP software that was encrypted outside their domain of influence.

Comments

Playing the game again

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't see a (R) after a politician's name? Must be a Democrat. Want to see if I'm right?

DING! Winner winner chicken dinner.

Not that both big parties aren't corrupt as hell, but this is such a petty affectation...

Re:Playing the game again

[Tulsa_Time]

Funny how you never see the "D" next to their name in stories like this....

Re:Playing the game again

[Swampash]

It's cute how you imply that there's a difference between (D) and (R).

Re:Playing the game again

[cfalcon]

He's not. He's implying that when stories come down that involve (R) doing something shitty, it's next to their name, and when (D) do something shitty, it's usually not. You don't have to believe that the parties are different- just that the reporting / summary / writing / whatever is slanted when you see that shit.

Re:Only needs to be *sold* without encryption

[The-Ixian]

Also, the vendor could encrypt something of no consequence with reversible encryption. Then, when the phone gets back to them, they can say truthfully that they decrypted it. Oh wait, you wanted the user's data? Oh, that is encrypted with their own system... we don't have access to that...

The land of the free?

[gstoddart]

Land of the free? Home of the brave? How's that working out for you?

Oh, wait, is it brave to cower in the corner jumping at shadows in case the bogeyman comes along? I've lost track?

Now cue a bunch of people telling us how they're still free. Go ahead, I love a good laugh.

Papers please, comrade. If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

Re:Not for sale in the state of California.

[Firethorn]

By the same token, California would also be a good spot to have a 'hold the line moment'. Warn all the consumers that new phones won't be available there after Jan 1, 2017. Watch the state explode when people realize they can't get the latest and greatest phones. The bill would be yanked so quickly...

Re:Hmmm

[v1]

If this theoretically passed and you buy a cellphone from another state or country but use it on a plan in California, and the phone doesn't support decryption, would that work?

"The law would apply to phones sold in California beginning Jan. 1, 2017"

So, that'd be OK. They don't block possession, use, or carrier registration, just sales by vendors that are located in the state. This may also prevent mail-order purchase from the Apple Store in say, Michigan, because Apple has a "business presence" in California. (collection of sales tax usually works that way) OTOH if you get one off ebay from someone whose store is outside CA, you're fine.

I'd personally like to see Apple very publicly give the finger to the CA legislature and make it extremely clear in very blunt terms that iPhones not being for sale there is the direct and exclusive result of the residents of the state electing retards and shills to make their laws. Losing CA for a year or two won't hurt them much, and will pay off big in the long run for future sales in CA as the voters stomp to the polls to vote with their iphones.

This isn't like most of the "extreme" legislation they pass on things like emissions, product safety, and other consumer protection. The public gets NO direct or clear benefit from this legislation, and results in a noticeable impact to a huge portion of the voters in the state. The legislature will try to justify it of course, but there just isn't enough spin available to keep that top from falling on its face.

Re:Doesn't matter

[cheater512]

'Operating System' is giving it a bit more credit.

And the protocol between the SIM and the phone is public, well known and very simple.
You can see exactly what it's doing.