I would expect this to actually strengthen encryption technologies. As reported here, there would be no requirement for the companies to actually be able to break the encryption.
They already can't right now if you use a long alpha pass code even the San Bernardino case, Apple can only help them if the completely mess up the security of future phones or a future iOS .
this a complete turd of a bill; from a tech standpoint, it is terrible
can't do it.. it is to much risk and who is going to back that risk? This is not reasonable, not a sane request, global security would be Zero in no time. We in the world of tech are Sorry, so sorry, but your request is hereby flatly and unequivocally denied.
I can only conclude they intentionally proposed the most extreme position possible so as to make their final position seem reasonable by comparison and therefore claiming some faux compromise while still achieving their primary goal of essentially outlawing private encryption.
"So, let's say, Samsung makes a phone for the US market that satisfies the requirements of this law, but sells the rest of us a version that doesn't. What happens if I travel to the US with my strong encryption phone, and get involved in a crime of some sort....'
Well, Sir or Madam, you have proposed two grievous errors: #1 committing a crime #2 and far more grievous...you have purchased a Samsung product, assuming security and quality of performance
Comments
They already can't right now if you use a long alpha pass code even the San Bernardino case, Apple can only help them if the completely mess up the security of future phones or a future iOS .
this a complete turd of a bill; from a tech standpoint, it is terrible
This is not reasonable, not a sane request, global security would be Zero in no time.
We in the world of tech are Sorry, so sorry, but your request is hereby flatly and unequivocally denied.
#1 committing a crime
#2 and far more grievous...you have purchased a Samsung product, assuming security and quality of performance