Proposed bill would ban US states from mandating backdoors in encryption
A bipartisan bill introduced to the U.S. House of Represenatives on Wednesday would bar individual states and localities from requiring backdoors in encryption, something often demanded by law enforcement officials and intelligence agencies.
The ENCRYPT Act, sponsored Democrat Ted Lieu and Republican Blake Farenthold, was crafted in direct response to proposed rules in New York and California that would require companies to be able to decrypt smarthones, Reuters reported.
"It is completely technologically unworkable for individual states to mandate different encryption standards in consumer products," said Lieu. "Apple can't make a different smartphone for California and New York and the rest of the country."
Though Reuters suggested that the House could be sympathetic to the bill, support could also be influenced by people like FBI Director James Comey, who has regularly warned that encryption could interfere with investigations and put lives at risk. On Tuesday, Comey appeared in front of a Senate panel, where he said that investigators were still unable to access the contents of a phone belonging to one of the shooters responsible for the Dec. 2 massacre in San Bernardino, Calif.
Companies like Apple have put their own pressure on U.S. politicians, arguing that leaving holes in encryption would simply make intrusion easier for malicious hackers and/or government surveillance.
The encryption in iOS 8 and iOS 9 is so stringent that even when served with a warrant, Apple claims it can't crack a passcode-protected device. Later versions of Google's Android OS support similar levels of encryption, though it may sometimes have to be enabled manually.
The ENCRYPT Act, sponsored Democrat Ted Lieu and Republican Blake Farenthold, was crafted in direct response to proposed rules in New York and California that would require companies to be able to decrypt smarthones, Reuters reported.
"It is completely technologically unworkable for individual states to mandate different encryption standards in consumer products," said Lieu. "Apple can't make a different smartphone for California and New York and the rest of the country."
Though Reuters suggested that the House could be sympathetic to the bill, support could also be influenced by people like FBI Director James Comey, who has regularly warned that encryption could interfere with investigations and put lives at risk. On Tuesday, Comey appeared in front of a Senate panel, where he said that investigators were still unable to access the contents of a phone belonging to one of the shooters responsible for the Dec. 2 massacre in San Bernardino, Calif.
Companies like Apple have put their own pressure on U.S. politicians, arguing that leaving holes in encryption would simply make intrusion easier for malicious hackers and/or government surveillance.
The encryption in iOS 8 and iOS 9 is so stringent that even when served with a warrant, Apple claims it can't crack a passcode-protected device. Later versions of Google's Android OS support similar levels of encryption, though it may sometimes have to be enabled manually.
Comments
There certainly are parts of it that are unpopular. The 13th amendment is rather unpopular in some parts of the south, depending who you ask. And of course, you won't find the word "privacy" anywhere in the text (nor a power of Congress to create an "Air Force.")
It is entirely possible that we are about to get a lesson on how the 12th Amendment works this December too.
Well...I for one think the 21st Amendment is a good thing.
"Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
That specifically provides for search and seizure when proper warrants have been issued.
Making the law to govern a thing in the first place is all that is needed to pave the way for the reverse to occur much easier in the future.
Stop making new laws. We haven't needed any in 200 years.
Feel the Bern, it is coming.
I will tell you people fail everytime time to see the long term impact of laws like this, Yes we have to do it to save the kids, it all about the kids. These people will make you feel bad for even thinking your personal privacy is more than import than saving the kids.
Oh, and about funding that army and navy that keep you safe from the barbarian hordes...
Concur. Although that "dormant commerce clause" thingy is a rather unpredictable thing. It could be that the statute that is proposed in the AI article is itself unconstitutional under that doctrine.
States might be wise to consider simply taxing encrypted cell phones. No, I am not advocating that; merely pointing out that the state's authority to tax is plenary. But of course...subject to the commerce clause as well, but perhaps the standard is different.
Let's enable back doors and see how long it takes to get your government phone hacked and sensitive information stolen. We all know that they will blame the technology companies for their stollen information. But of course they only have themselves to blame.
Just something I keep thinking about every time I read these articles.