Slashdot Mirror


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.

36 of 251 comments (clear)

  1. Only needs to be *sold* without encryption by The-Ixian · · Score: 5, Informative

    During initial set up, flip on encryption... there you go, you can have that one for free Apple...

    --
    My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    1. Re:Only needs to be *sold* without encryption by The-Ixian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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...

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    2. Re:Only needs to be *sold* without encryption by master5o1 · · Score: 2

      Heh, reversibly encrypt the call log data. They already have access to the call log through the mobile service provider.

      --
      signature is pants
    3. Re:Only needs to be *sold* without encryption by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      What would stop third-party encryption? I mean other than warranty support and so on.

    4. Re:Only needs to be *sold* without encryption by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      During initial set up, flip on encryption... there you go, you can have that one for free Apple...

      Even if they close that loophole (which it looks like the current proposals do) an even simpler way is to just not carry them in stores in those states. So you just take online orders and ship from states without these laws. And if that's not practical, (i.e. they need foot traffic in the stores) just have two separate SKUs: One for NY/CA, and another for everywhere else. If those people want an uncompromised device, they can just order from elsewhere, and electronics stores would operate kind of like Tesla showrooms when it comes to smartphones.

    5. Re:Only needs to be *sold* without encryption by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Even if they close that loophole (which it looks like the current proposals do) an even simpler way is to just not carry them in stores in those states.

      That's not going to happen. I admit it would be effective, though.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  2. Not for sale in the state of California. by sims+2 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wouldn't be the first time you couldn't buy something in CA.

    --
    Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    1. Re:Not for sale in the state of California. by twotacocombo · · Score: 3, Informative

      CA is too big of a market to lose, so they'll just make 49-state and CA-only SKUs, as they have with cars, motorcycles, lawnmowers, weedwhackers, etc, due to CARB and their fuckstickery. We even have CA-only guns (M&P Shield CA-compliant model comes to mind). Nothing new to see here, comrades.

    2. Re:Not for sale in the state of California. by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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...

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    3. Re:Not for sale in the state of California. by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      It would. Unfortunately, I have little faith in Apple having the cojones to make that move, and unfortunately, they're the only ones who could. Google might try, but I don't think they have the ability to stop all the other Android manufacturers from selling weakened phones in California, so anything they could do would have minimal impact.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  3. Playing the game again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

    1. Re:Playing the game again by Tulsa_Time · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      --
      5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
    2. Re:Playing the game again by erapert · · Score: 2

      Yes, that's what the GP was pointing out.

    3. Re:Playing the game again by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      I have always figured that the reason they don't tell you the party affiliation when its a Democrat is because that isn't news, everyone knows that Democrats are petty, corrupt, authoritarian politicians. However, when a Republican does it, it is an exception and therefore news. OK, I don't really believe the latter part of that, but the press clearly does. Otherwise, what possible reason would they have for only mentioning party affiliation when its about a Republican?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    4. Re:Playing the game again by Swampash · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    5. Re:Playing the game again by cfalcon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  4. Re:Corrupt politicians by turkeydance · · Score: 3, Interesting

    the NSA probably paid nothing. the vendors "paid nothing" as well. this is a $hakedown of the vendors. campaign donations or else.

  5. Re:First guns, now smartphones. by aaron4801 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Encryption is known to the State of California to cause cancer.

  6. The land of the free? by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:The land of the free? by nytes · · Score: 2

      We have one of the largest economies in the world, but we also have $450 billion in debt.

      --
      -- I have monkeys in my pants.
  7. Leave it to an ex-cop by Mal-2 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Leave it to an ex-cop to seek powers for law enforcement at the cost of individuals. I am disappoint. Not the least bit surprised, but disappoint. If this passes, I would be completely in favor of both Apple and Google saying "screw you guys, we're picking a new home".

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  8. Re:Fuck it i'm voting republican by erapert · · Score: 2

    Don't just vote Republican. Vote for someone who has a record of keeping promises to increase our liberty and decrease government power, taxation, and spending.

  9. China would be so proud! by Bamfarooni · · Score: 2

    China would be so proud!

  10. Re: More proof the Republicans rule CA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I work with about a 120 people at a startup in downtown SF, and we have 4 known Republicans. They've infested everything here.

  11. Re:Hmmm by v1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  12. Won't Stop TRUE bad guys. by BoRegardless · · Score: 2

    This just catches the low level criminals and normal people. Mafia, KGB & Israeli Mossad will just use older iPhones and other methods.

  13. Re:First guns, now smartphones. by The-Ixian · · Score: 2

    Yeah.... but if even *one* Californian makes it to the Nevada shore... the cycle will start all over again...

    --
    My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
  14. Re:FeinSwine by nytes · · Score: 2

    Feinstein is a senator in D.C.

    This is being introduced in the state assembly (essentially the equivalent of the House of Representatives, but at the state level).

    --
    -- I have monkeys in my pants.
  15. In related news... by seven+of+five · · Score: 2

    Lawmakers pass a bill declaring pi = 3, saving the world many thousands of hours of tedious calculation. Hooray!

  16. Re: Technically feasible, probably already done. by omnichad · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When I take out my SIM card, my phone still boots.

  17. Works good against average people by OrangeTide · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But fails to penetrate a device used by organized crime, terrorists, a technologically adept pedophile, or a well connected businessman.

    Is Joe the Plumber the threat here? because that's about all this regulation will stop.

    PS - I usually buy my smartphones on aliexpress and import them to California.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  18. Re: Back door for Criminals by omnichad · · Score: 2

    Just wait until they figure out that this enables hackers to ransom/post photos of them with their mistress.

  19. Bring back (East-Euro) Communism by seoras · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I miss the cold war.
    Back in the good old days the "free west", would tout it's political and social freedom as why it was on the side of humanity.
    Something for the oppressed behind the iron curtain to dream of attaining and seeing their over lords for the tyrants they were.
    Then down came the Berlin Wall.
    Today you'd think the history books on the communist era in east Europe were the manuals/manifestos for state control in the West.
    The only thing our governments needs to be better than today is IS.

  20. Re:Doesn't matter by cheater512 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    '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.

  21. so, no phones sold to Caliphonies then, either by swschrad · · Score: 2

    if I was making cellphones, that's what I'd do. cut 'em off like Murderistan. the people would rise up and throw those asshats out of office in two days. probably throw them off a cliff into the sea. pity, some poor shark would die of a tummyache.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  22. Re:Corrupt politicians by hambone142 · · Score: 2

    It's another example of California "me too" politicians attempting to appear that they are bettering society.

    Take a look at Leland Yee for similar tactics.

    His sentencing is scheduled to occur next month.

    (Anti gun dude that was caught by FBI trying to ship in illegal firearms in containers from the Philippines).

    He plea bargained to corruption and they dropped the firearms charges.

    This fuggin' state is run by a bunch of nuts.