Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.computer.security > #5698
| From | Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> |
|---|---|
| Subject | "Progressive" black California democrat lawmaker wants to ban phone encryption in 2017 |
| Message-ID | <6b9294c39655df58b4dbd930f5e7e773@dizum.com> (permalink) |
| Date | 2016-01-22 23:43 +0100 |
| Newsgroups | alt.computer.security, alt.privacy.anon-server, alt.california, alt.politics.democrats, comp.sys.mac.advocacy |
| Organization | dizum.com - The Internet Problem Provider |
Cross-posted to 5 groups.
The bill would put every Californian's digital security at risk to prosecute a few pimps. http://www.engadget.com/2016/01/21/california-lawmaker-wants-to- ban-phone-encryption-in-2017/ http://o.aolcdn.com/hss/storage/midas/883c8e8e479c86904d867a63dc 305962/203296030/Screen+Shot+2016-01-21+at+1.22.04+PM.png California lawmaker, State Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Elk Grove), has introduced a bill that would effectively ban the sale of mobile devices that have encryption on by default beginning in 2017. The bill, AB 1681, demands that any phone sold after January 1, 2017 be "capable of being decrypted and unlocked by its manufacturer or its operating system provider." Should this bill become law, manufacturers found in violation would be subject to fines of $2,500 per phone. Cooper's reasoning puts a novel spin on the same, tired "The police can't do their jobs unless tech companies do it for them" argument. This time, he used human trafficking as the boogeyman that needs defeating and which can only be accomplished if the government has unfettered, disk-level access to its citizens' cell phones. "If you're a bad guy [we] can get a search record for your bank, for your house, you can get a search warrant for just about anything," Cooper told ArsTechnica. "For the industry to say it's privacy, it really doesn't hold any water. We're going after human traffickers and people who are doing bad and evil things. Human trafficking trumps privacy, no ifs, ands, or buts about it." Apparently human trafficking also trumps the 4th Amendment as well. Comments: BoBoDev34 minutes ago Score one for liberal state making "liberal" decisions. 00ReplyFlag BiAryabout 8 hours ago The legal system is broken, and this is a proof... You do know that Law Enforcement are notorious for spinning facts to fit any theory they have, now imagine if they can cherry pick personal data ?!! Now they can pretty much accuse anyone of anything...i guarantee you that i can find something incriminating in ANYONE'S data...i am even willing to take a bet on it..anyone? +50ReplyFlag JerzeyLegendabout 8 hours ago I understand the frustration here, but I think everyone is kind of over-reacting. It says the ban will be on phones which have encryption on by default. It is not asking to remove encryption all together. Although it says it requires phones to be able to be decrypted. So once you purchase your phone, simply enable encryption. I think they are hoping that they'd catch the idiots who would not enable it. However, all this is going to be irrelevant as this will simply create a larger atmosphere for 3rd party encryption. Also I don't think many corporations would appreciate the police having access to sensitive data that will be on many people's work phones. 0-2ReplyFlag utilitybeltabout 14 hours ago This guy can go to hell. Fund the police so they can afford a cryptographer if access to private data is that important. +50ReplyFlag dragonherderabout 15 hours ago This isn't really about trumping 4th amendment rights. You have the right to privacy, but that only extends so far. During a criminal investigation your right to privacy is diminished by federal law (which has been in place forever) and warrants are issued, they can search anything they get a warrant for and if your phone happens to be something that is used in you illegal activities and they have a high enough belief that it does and are able to convince a judge of this you get a search warrant based around law that trumps the fourth amendment in these specific cases... This isn't blanket "ohh we wan't to spy on everyone" stuff... 0-5ReplyFlag batukhanabout 11 hours ago Yes but this is about technical security. You either do the encryption right and have only one key do the decryption, or you implement a backdoor and in 2018 there will be a data breach and 20 million people have their phones hacked. +20
Back to alt.computer.security | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
"Progressive" black California democrat lawmaker wants to ban phone encryption in 2017 Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2016-01-22 23:43 +0100
Re: "Progressive" black California democrat lawmaker wants to ban phone encryption in 2017 "Wayne" <mygarbagecan@verizon.net> - 2016-01-22 19:11 -0800
Re: "Progressive" black California democrat lawmaker wants to ban phone encryption in 2017 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 00:01 -0500
Re: "Progressive" black California democrat lawmaker wants to ban phone encryption in 2017 Anonymous <anonymous@hoi-polloi.org> - 2016-01-24 07:34 +0100
Re: "Progressive" black California democrat lawmaker wants to ban phone encryption in 2017 "Wayne" <mygarbagecan@verizon.net> - 2016-01-24 08:45 -0800
Re: "Progressive" black California democrat lawmaker wants to ban phone encryption in 2017 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 13:52 -0500
Re: "Progressive" black California democrat lawmaker wants to ban phone encryption in 2017 Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 13:49 -0500
csiph-web