|
|
California assembly member proposes smartphone backdoor bill
|
|
|
|
MacNN Staff
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: pacific northwest
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Maitland, FL
Status:
Offline
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status:
Offline
|
|
I've asked him, or his press person, to come on the podcast and discuss this.
I suspect they won't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: pacific northwest
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: SF
Status:
Offline
|
|
I completely disagree with this idea. It seems more like a China, or Russia thing than an America thing. Very sad to see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Prince George, BC, Canada
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Apr 2007
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Prince George, BC, Canada
Status:
Offline
|
|
@ 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2008
Status:
Offline
|
|
"...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)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2016
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Prince George, BC, Canada
Status:
Offline
|
|
@ 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|