Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > News > Mac News > California assembly member proposes smartphone backdoor bill

California assembly member proposes smartphone backdoor bill
Thread Tools
NewsPoster
MacNN Staff
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2016, 11:50 AM
 
A bill presented in California is seeking to force smartphone manufacturers to add backdoors to their devices, if they are to be sold in the state. Introduced by Democrat assembly member Jim Cooper, bill 1681 echoes a similar bill proposed in New York, aiming to make it easier for law enforcement officials to gain access to data on mobile devices, though simultaneously making it potentially easier for others to access the same encrypted data.

The basic structure of the bill is identical to the New York version, notes ZDNet. Devices manufactured "on or after January 1, 2017, and sold in California after that date" must be "capable of being decrypted and unlocked by its manufacturer or its operating system provider." Anyone caught selling smartphones that do not include this measure will be subjected to a $2,500 fine.



The bill is still a proposal at this point, and is far from becoming a state law. It needs to go through the assembly and the state senate, and then ultimately signed by Governor Jerry Brown (D) before coming into force.

Both the California bill and that of New York are attempts by government officials to try and force technology companies to comply more willingly with law enforcement, and make the encryption easier to bypass. Tech companies continually argue that weakening the encryption for the government weakens the encryption as a whole, making the devices less secure for their users.
( Last edited by NewsPoster; Jan 22, 2016 at 12:43 PM. )
     
prl99
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: pacific northwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2016, 12:05 PM
 
Jim Cooper, Elk Grove, CA, former home of Apple manufacturing, trained by the FBI, 30 year sheriff, now a politician. Doesn't surprise me one bit he's pushing this anti-encryption bill.
     
Charles Martin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Maitland, FL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2016, 12:17 PM
 
Will be interesting to see what federal judges have to say about these proposals, assuming they ever get very far. They seem, on the face of them, flatly unconstitutional.
Charles Martin
MacNN Editor
     
Mike Wuerthele
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2016, 12:18 PM
 
I've asked him, or his press person, to come on the podcast and discuss this.

I suspect they won't.
     
prl99
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: pacific northwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2016, 12:51 PM
 
Californians can only hope that Governor Jerry Brown has the sense to see right through this political insanity and veto anything reaching his desk. I've always thought of him as being a people's governor instead of one who constantly bends over to corporations and fanatics. (Please don't call Jerry a fanatic because he was called Governor Moonbeam many years ago.)
     
Flying Meat
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: SF
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2016, 01:14 PM
 
I completely disagree with this idea. It seems more like a China, or Russia thing than an America thing. Very sad to see.
     
Steve Wilkinson
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Prince George, BC, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2016, 01:32 PM
 
The problem is that many of the rights in the US Constitution were considered inalienable. But, post-modern thought (especially reader-response criticism, where the reader determines meaning) and secularism (which removes the grounding... the inalienable part) are eroding it quickly.

Why do we have those rights? If the job of politicians is to 'protect us' rather than 'defend and protect the Constitution' as many (politicians) now claim, then it would make sense to start taking away those rights so we can be more 'safe.' And, I'm pretty sure we'll be seeing plenty of more incidents until people are scared enough to give said rights up. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I think that's actually the plan.
------
Steve Wilkinson
Web designer | Christian apologist
cgWerks | TilledSoil.org
     
chimaera
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Apr 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2016, 02:37 PM
 
Jim Cooper, Elk Grove, CA. He needs to lose the next election, and that will solve the problem. Actually, that solution would solve a lot of problems with government.

Face it - we voters who do not research our choices are ultimately responsible for a lot of this. I spend the time, then shake my head after each election.
     
TheMacOracle
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2016, 02:46 PM
 
I would love to see CA and NY pass these laws, but Apple not cave. Let's see what happens when the residents of those states suddenly can't purchase any Apple devices. The backlash on the politicians would be enormous.
     
Steve Wilkinson
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Prince George, BC, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2016, 03:31 PM
 
@ chimaera -

For sure. A great resource I discovered not too long ago is a podcast called, Congressional Dish. While I don't always agree with the host's take on thing, she does a great job of simply reporting what is actually going on in Congress (which the mainstream media not only does not do, but actually, instead, delivers propaganda packages effectively to cover it up).

And, if you just watch the mainstream media, you'd actually be shocked. And, if you follow some of the "conspiracy theory" "crazy" stuff, you'd be surprised how much of it isn't conspiracy at all. It's being done right out in the open... it's just that few are paying any attention.

@ TheMacOracle -

Yea, that might be an interesting experiment. The problem is that the federal government is going to back, and probably push, exactly what CA and NY are doing. So, we're likely only seeing the beginning of this.
------
Steve Wilkinson
Web designer | Christian apologist
cgWerks | TilledSoil.org
     
DiabloConQueso
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 24, 2016, 08:11 PM
 
"...and secularism (which removes the grounding... the inalienable part) are eroding it quickly."

Are you insinuating that being grounded in common sense and morals is impossible without religion in the government (or at least religious morals as a driving and binding force)?
     
withtlc
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2016
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2016, 03:34 AM
 
Hey Jim Copper, Do you see those cirrus clouds above the Golden Gate Bridge in the photo of the cell phone above... They were added in the photograph, with the date/time of something yet to occur... not encrypted... simply photoshop'd into the image... Are you now going to introduce a bill stating that people should not be allowed to post photographs? What about that "static" (noise) that you hear in that podcast - are you going to propose a bill to ban music and audio books. Wake up and smell reality... A back door won't solve anything... It is far easier to put something blatantly in front of one's nose... and we wouldn't notice it.
     
Steve Wilkinson
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Prince George, BC, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2016, 02:44 AM
 
@ DiabloConQueso -

Not just insinuating. We can certainly feel as if we're grounding things in 'common sense' and 'morals' without religion, but we can't actually do so, because common sense isn't actually common, and morals vary over time and culture. And, apart from religion, all 'men' most certainly aren't created equal (they aren't created, and the certainly aren't equal).

We could certainly pretend, so not impossible to make it seem that way, but it would ultimately not be grounded. And, certainly wouldn't be inalienable.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams, co-author of US Declaration of Independence, 2nd President, 1st Vice President
------
Steve Wilkinson
Web designer | Christian apologist
cgWerks | TilledSoil.org
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:11 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,