New York state considers bill mandating backdoors in smartphone encryption

Posted:
in iPhone
A bill up for consideration by the New York state assembly would force Apple and other smartphone makers to ensure their products can be decrypted for the sake of law enforcement.




The bill was formally introduced by Assemblyman Matthew Titone last year, but was only referred to committee just last week, according to The Next Web. Language in the document proposes that any phone made as of Jan. 1 this year and sold or leased in the state "be capable of being decrypted and unlocked by its manufacturer or its operating system provider."

To ensure compliance, smartphone makers could be fined as much as $2,500 per device breaking the law.

The sort of encryption available in iOS 8/9 and more recent versions of Android may help privacy, the bill argues, but "severely hampers" law enforcement, since it can block access to evidence.

"Simply stated, passcode-protected devices render lawful court orders meaningless and encourage criminals to act with impunity," the bill suggests. It has yet to be voted on by the state assembly or senate.

Apple has vocally opposed any sort of weakened encryption, going so far as to hold the position in front of White House officials. The company's view has been that if it leaves deliberate gaps in its security, that will simply make it easier for hackers to gain access to people's devices and data.

Some government officials, such as FBI director James Comey, have claimed that Apple's position could potentially cost lives if it interferes in preventing acts like kidnapping or terrorism.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 45
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    If state, fed, foreign governments all want a back door, Apple might as well close its door because no one, especially those abroad, will want to buy their phones.

    Most of those people are fracking MORONS.
    A bill up for consideration by the New York state assembly would force Apple and other smartphone makers to ensure their products can be decrypted for the sake of law enforcement.




    The bill was formally introduced by Assemblyman Matthew Titone last year, but was only referred to committee just last week, according to The Next Web. Language in the document proposes that any phone made as of Jan. 1 this year and sold or leased in the state "be capable of being decrypted and unlocked by its manufacturer or its operating system provider."

    To ensure compliance, smartphone makers could be fined as much as $2,500 per device breaking the law.

    The sort of encryption available in iOS 8/9 and more recent versions of Android may help privacy, the bill argues, but "severely hampers" law enforcement, since it can block access to evidence.

    "Simply stated, passcode-protected devices render lawful court orders meaningless and encourage criminals to act with impunity," the bill suggests. It has yet to be voted on by the state assembly or senate.

    Apple has vocally opposed any sort of weakened encryption, going so far as to hold the position in front of White House officials. The company's view has been that if it leaves deliberate gaps in its security, that will simply make it easier for hackers to gain access to people's devices and data.

    Some government officials, such as FBI director James Comey, have claimed that Apple's position could potentially cost lives if it interferes in preventing acts like kidnapping or terrorism.

    ewtheckmanchia
  • Reply 2 of 45
    The next version of ios9 should be geofenced to stop working inside NY state. Let the politicians love stem to the howls of all the upper crust in NYC who suddenly discover their device has stopped working. 
    metrixlostkiwitallest skil
  • Reply 3 of 45
    sandorsandor Posts: 523member
    on the reverse side you have the Netherlands saying "no" to back doors:
    http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35251429

    However, it said allowing law enforcers to access protected data would make digital systems vulnerable to "criminals, terrorists and foreign intelligence services".

    "This would have undesirable consequences for the security of information stored and communicated and the integrity of ICT systems, which are increasingly of importance for the functioning of the society," it added.


    that is precisely why i don't want flaws to be built into systems.

    there are far too many examples of government and business allowing citizens data to be hacked & stolen. we have no reason to trust them with data security. at all.

    ewtheckmanlostkiwichia
  • Reply 4 of 45
    This is ridiculous. The government can't even keep their own secrets protected. Now they want to force phone makers to make their devices less secure? 
    jfc1138lostkiwilito_lupenachiatallest skil
  • Reply 5 of 45
    US state and federal government may only understand the power of the lawsuit. I bet some enterprising law firm could make a case that would stand the test of the Federal Tort Claims Act ( http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/suing-government-negligence-FTCA-29705.html ) or the state laws if the case is done on that level. Once they are sued for damages from stolen identities and monies due to their "negligence" creating a law like this, perhaps then they will get a clue.

    Unfortunately it will take actual damages to occur in order for a lawsuit to be able to be filed, but this will be where it is heading should these laws get passed. That and the collapse of several companies as people find other ways to stay in touch after they put the mandated back doors in.
    edited January 2016 lostkiwichiabuzdots
  • Reply 6 of 45
    Criminals are not idiot to still use decypherable cell phones and services afterwards. The proponents of such attempts know enough that such measures will not prevent crime, their goal is surveillance.
  • Reply 7 of 45
    Unlikely to happen or survive challenges in Federal Court if it did happen. Politicians pissing into a headwind for the sake of votes. That said ... if we could trust law enforcement and be legally protected against their misuse of such a privilege and indemnified against any charges other than those specifically attached to the reason justifying their search warrant, I could consider this. But alas, they can't be trusted and have proved this time after time.
    edited January 2016
  • Reply 8 of 45
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member
    "Bob, Thursday at noon"

    Decrypt THAT you morons.

    Just trying on another scapegoat for their failed responsibility at public safety.
    lostkiwifotoformat
  • Reply 9 of 45
    US state and federal government may only understand the power of the lawsuit. I bet some enterprising law firm could make a case that would stand the test of the Federal Tort Claims Act ( http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/suing-government-negligence-FTCA-29705.html ) or the state laws if the case is done on that level. Once they are sued for damages from stolen identities and monies due to their "negligence" creating a law like this, perhaps then they will get a clue.

    Unfortunately it will take actual damages to occur in order for a lawsuit to be able to be filed, but this will be where it is heading should these laws get passed. That and the collapse of several companies as people find other ways to stay in touch after they put the mandated back doors in.
    Many more high level lawsuits may occur as a result of such an intervention. US may be sanctioned by WTO for the state manipulation of free trade, the production of undecypherable phones and services may shift to competing countries.. you name it. These would ruin US exports and the strength of US dollar...

    ...These bills, proposals and alike were the byproduct of the zero-interest-rate days... These days have ended.
    lostkiwi
  • Reply 10 of 45
    US state and federal government may only understand the power of the lawsuit. I bet some enterprising law firm could make a case that would stand the test of the Federal Tort Claims Act ( http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/suing-government-negligence-FTCA-29705.html ) or the state laws if the case is done on that level. Once they are sued for damages from stolen identities and monies due to their "negligence" creating a law like this, perhaps then they will get a clue.

    Unfortunately it will take actual damages to occur in order for a lawsuit to be able to be filed, but this will be where it is heading should these laws get passed. That and the collapse of several companies as people find other ways to stay in touch after they put the mandated back doors in.
    Many more high level lawsuits may occur as a result of such an intervention. US may be sanctioned by WTO for the state manipulation of free trade, the production of undecypherable phones and services may shift to competing countries.. you name it. These would ruin US exports and the strength of US dollar...

    ...These bills, proposals and alike were the byproduct of the zero-interest-rate days... These days have ended.
    Literally no one cares about the WTO. 

    That being said this bill is stupid. 
  • Reply 11 of 45
    That's what she said..or he said..
  • Reply 12 of 45
    Assemblyman Matthew Titone is a Democrat, folks. Parties don't matter. Everyone in power wants to violate your rights to amass more power for themselves.
    dysamoria
  • Reply 13 of 45
    How would they like it if Apple stopped selling iPhone's within their borders and everyone had to go out of state to buy iPhones?
     
    Or maybe Apple could sell a batch of compromisable phones to this lot and see how much they like it? 
  • Reply 14 of 45
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 2,354member
    The details matter. All iPhones may be in current compliance with this proposed law, since all can be decrypted right now. All you need is the user's passcode, and it is open. So, Apple simply requires all users to accept in their ToS that they agree to supply their passcode to the state of New York. They might even put a place for it on the Apple website, and you agree to keep it updated. Done.
    torsteino
  • Reply 15 of 45
    Hey. This is the state where they managed to capture a brain damaged panhandler who was planning to stab some people at the bar he hung out in front of in the name of ISIS...
  • Reply 16 of 45
    My first reaction was, "Let's do it so that everyone freaks out when they find out the consequences of such poor decision". The problem is that most citizens don't understand technology and even if it becomes apparent that such measures actually harm us, I am not sure that there would be sufficient public outrage to force politicians to back off. My only hope is that politicians become the target of hackers and that all their dirty laundry will be exposed to everyone to see. Then maybe they will get it.
  • Reply 17 of 45
    Hopefully the politicians will pick a password that no one would guess for such a back door, like "balancedBudget"

  • Reply 18 of 45
    I'm guessing that if this backward bill somehow passes, the version of iOS where it is rolled out will see very little adoption by those of us who value our privacy and are savvy enough to know we should not update to weakware.
  • Reply 19 of 45
    rob53rob53 Posts: 2,032member
    eightzero said:
    The details matter. All iPhones may be in current compliance with this proposed law, since all can be decrypted right now. All you need is the user's passcode, and it is open. So, Apple simply requires all users to accept in their ToS that they agree to supply their passcode to the state of New York. They might even put a place for it on the Apple website, and you agree to keep it updated. Done.
    Sorry, you're protected by the fifth amendment so you can't be required to incriminate yourself. Apple can't require that and even if they were forced to, criminals aren't going to adhere to it anyway. Again, politicians refuse to accept the fact that criminals aren't going to abide by any law so why have a law that requires them too? This whole encryption back door garbage is taking up way too much time. There are plenty of other things every government should be doing. They already can sniff cellular and land line calls, determine where every single cellular device is currently located so why have a back door? Utter stupidity on the part of politicians and all those sheep who think taking away a society's freedom from oppression is the cost of "freedom." Time to get rid of all those armed forces commercials that brainwash everyone into believing they're protecting the US. They're protecting the interests of US companies, that's what our taxes are going to.
    lostkiwi
  • Reply 20 of 45
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,509member
    Assemblyman Matthew Titone is a Democrat, folks. Parties don't matter. Everyone in power wants to violate your rights to amass more power for themselves.
    It is strange. Italian, probably southern or Sicilian, representing Staten Island, southern Italian partner, openly gay — a very unlikely snoop supporter. I wonder if there's something or someone pressuring him to take this very uncool stance.
Sign In or Register to comment.