California Introduces Bill To Ban Strong Encryption In Smartphones

Status
Not open for further replies.

hpram99

Distinguished
Jul 7, 2010
17
0
18,510
0
I'm not sure why this wouldn't include windows phone or other mobile operating systems, but it's not an encryption bill, it's a mandate for a backdoor method of unlocking a phone. The encryption strength is irrelevant.
 

Gam3r01

Titan
Moderator
Seriously? Why do people keep thinking this will solve anything?
Have politicians never read 1984? If they "need" the information on that device they can get it, but weakening the security of devices state wide for a few incidents is not the way to handle anything.
Im from, and still live in California and I am dissapointed.
This makes me wonder how long it will take them to attack the UC (University of California) system as well. The 10 UCs use encrypted wifi for the students, wonder if they will take that from us.
 

JimmiG

Distinguished
Nov 21, 2008
268
0
18,780
0
Just stop selling smartphones in California then.They can have flip phones or move to another state/country that's less backwards and more developed.
 

Skunkwerx_6_Actual

Reputable
Jan 1, 2016
5
0
4,510
0
The solution to this is to just ban California. No more ridiculous than this bill...... There is nothing to stop the user of the phone from adding their own strong encryption. So this "law" is really quite useless.
 

rileyper

Reputable
Jan 21, 2016
1
0
4,510
0
Meanwhile Apple moves to Texas California loses business and stock prices go up again for apple standing by their encryption software.
-we can only hope
 

splinter48708

Honorable
Jan 22, 2013
11
0
10,510
0
Sadly, we are started down the road towards a totalitarian police state. People living the rule of tyrants resort to strong encryption that their "leaders" cannot break...and pay the price for refusing to give the police the keys to decode the messages.

Once this happens here, no secure system will truly be secure. One could have the strongest keys known to mankind, but, if there's a back door, it's like letting the fox into the henhouse via a small door...and the henhouse is otherwise locked tighter than Ft. Knox.

The smart phone/tablet companies will merely stop selling their products in California and since these phones are GPS enabled, someone buys the product in another state and takes it to Californoa, soon as the phone crossed into the state, the phone disables the carrier signal totally. No 4G, no Wifi, nothing.

Another example of liberal logic...
 

f-14

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2010
2,344
0
19,960
50
the court system is the last line of a peaceful solution before having to take up your 2nd amendment and use your 9th and 10th amendment right to enforce the law and the contract we have with our government on what they are specifically allowed and not allowed to do.

seems we the people need to start practicing law enforcement of our 4th amendment.

This amendment was created by the Founding Fathers as a response to the British practice of random searches of homes, businesses, and persons, again as an attempt to terrorize the colonists into silence and inaction as the Currency Act looted the profit of their labors for the Bank of England. The intention of the Fourth Amendment was to prevent the government from entering your home, place of business, or searching your person simply because they wanted to, or as part of a general campaign of intimidation. Evidence of actual wrong-doing, and not just disagreement with the government, had to be presented by the police to the courts, for a warrant for such invasion to be granted. Although neither the telegraph or telephone existed at the time the Fourth Amendment was ratified, under the 9th Amendment, 4th Amendment protections extend to new technologies. In the present day that includes computers and cell phones, although the government, attempting to justify the NSA spying on all Americans takes the position they do not.[quote/]
citation:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/commbillrights.php
 

surphninja

Honorable
May 14, 2013
207
0
10,680
0
The criminal justice system has become to accustomed to letting criminals hand over all the evidence they need on their smart phones.

If you put cameras in everyone's homes, kept records of all their conversations and where they are at all times and whom they associate with, you could virtually put a stop to all crime, or at the very least solve crimes instantly. But just because something makes the job of law enforcement easier doesn't mean that it's right, or even constitutional. People have the right to privacy. People have the right to keep secrets.

I'm sick of legislators arguing that "such and such method is effective in law enforcement." Effective does not equal constitutional.
 

RedJaron

Splendid

And if there's a backdoor the gov't can use for the phone, other entities can use it as well.
 

surphninja

Honorable
May 14, 2013
207
0
10,680
0


Not wanting to get into party politics, but more often than not it's conservative politicians pushing for more monitoring of civilians. Both sides are a problem here, but the scale does lean a bit conservative.

 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator

With properly done encryption, the only practical way of decrypting the device would be to obtain the encryption password used to protect the AES256 encryption key. If the persons who know the key refuse to reveal it or are unavailable/dead, the information is very likely lost.

Threatening manufacturers with $2500 fines is not going to stop people from unlocking their devices and putting an AOSP/Cyanogen/custom/whatever build with proper encryption put back in or using apps with their own stronger encryption.

Politicians, lobbyists, lawmakers, etc. who believe otherwise are wasting everyone's time and money. If smart criminals want to use proper encrypted communications, there is not much that can be done to stop them without posing a similar or greater threat to normal people's privacy and information security.
 

lowendfool

Honorable
May 28, 2012
2
0
10,510
0


If you go outside the scope of the article please provide evidence. As per the article the first instance of this specific type of bill was in New York (pushed by liberal politicians a very blue state). The second and current instance is now in California (also pushed by liberal politicians in a very blue state).

Disclaimer: this is not an endorsement of policies by those who oppose liberals or even condemnation of liberals in general. This is just calling it for what it is.
 

skit75

Splendid
Because nothing ever before has been brought to the floor, for the sole purpose of shooting it down, right? Apple, Google etc have bigger lobbying arms and more cash than the authorities who would try to see this thru.
 

spiketheaardvark

Distinguished
Apr 14, 2009
130
11
18,715
7
I doubt this will ever make it out of committee. There are a great abundances of really bad ideas put forth in state legislatures but very few make it far enough to worry about.
BUT I agree with Skunkwerx_6_Actual, if this makes it through Apple and Google should play hard ball and just stop selling there phones in California. People would have the torches lit and pitch forks out on the capitol steps the next day.
 

Zeropopular

Reputable
Jan 21, 2016
2
0
4,510
0
Well of course we shouldn't even have passwords those things allow terror and death... Terror.. Sign it freedom away or you won't be safe... Hahahha yeah right most voters are dumb so a few million in ads they'll wait in line to give their predetermined voter card.. Here's reality... That's million spent on trying to get your password .. Because you have it and they want it.. You get nothing from that... No safer... With the time of hours billed to you and money spent on the issue... A community could of had a renovation done of whatever is in need most to educate citizens to be smarter and then the people get a safer not take more from them in abilities ... I'm smart enough to put a password in my phone... And sadly no phone terrorists have been seen around here... But 5 people managed to get shot by cops 2 are kids... 6 people were murdered no people were effected by anyone's cell phone.. And guess what... Its 2016 .. They all had passwords... And the cops phones where the only ones encrypted... Pointless waste of money.. Money that could of done something good, but hey lets make everything illegal.. And everyone just pay your fines each month or go to this per approved job .... Or into the cage ... For whatever time I want cuz your not in charge anymore you fathers generation kept adding more and more laws in order to be lawmakers until people couldn't misspell words or it was 50 days in jail for being dyslexic And over 4 years old ...

Encryption is a necessity in order to protect yourself and personal info lnformation, that's banning freedom even more which is causing police to freely kill anyone and the public isn't even shocked by how used to it and desensitized they are of real problems like lowly educated police officers who are being paid to put other human beings into cages to get beaten raped killed by people... Because they rape best and murder people or of course smoked weed or couldn't afford to pay the fine, some cop who beats his wife.. The only way to be in charge of that much power you should be much smarter ... But cyber boogeyman terrorists are coming to get you you aren't safe now ... Give us your phone password or you aren't safe .... Let's spend 2 million dollars on this ... Seriously... What a joke ... Get someone sane to handle this money ou morons blow over profiling people and creating more problems that not really exist...
 

amk-aka-Phantom

Distinguished
Mar 10, 2011
3,004
0
20,860
31
Why are you blaming "liberals" for that? Have you read the definition of the term? Advocating for something that will deprive people of a personal liberty (to encrypt their phones) is NOT liberal at all, regardless of what these politicians call themselves! So don't be hillbillies blaming "damn liberals" in general, blame particular people who clearly are NOT liberal and want a police state, no matter what party they claim to belong to.
 

Gam3r01

Titan
Moderator


I would just like to say, as someone who lived most of their lives in the mountains and is considered a "redneck", a lot of us dont even get upset with liberals.
That aside, I do agree with your view of the parties. Anyone can claim to be a part of one party but carry ideals of the others.
 

LudeMasta99

Reputable
Jan 21, 2016
4
0
4,510
0
Why are you blaming "liberals" for that? Have you read the definition of the term? Advocating for something that will deprive people of a personal liberty (to encrypt their phones) is NOT liberal at all, regardless of what these politicians call themselves! So don't be hillbillies blaming "damn liberals" in general, blame particular people who clearly are NOT liberal and want a police state, no matter what party they claim to belong to.
The original term for "liberal" described just that, they were pro-personal freedom, essentially what libertarians are today. The modern-day description of a liberal, as well as the democratic party for that matter, has been hijacked by far-left socialist politics promoting bigger govt/more centralized control.
 

turkey3_scratch

Polypheme
Ambassador
EH, personally I don't care. I don't live in California, the government's never going to come after me, and if they do they can have my cheap crap phone with Pacman.

But all you Californians who apparently don't want the government in their stuff better care! I guess once it's a law, it'll be a
"legal search and seizure" and compliant with the Constitution.
 

David Dewis

Honorable
Jul 6, 2013
217
0
10,710
7
Who is this fine law suppose to target?
People will just add the encryption again through software. Then this will happen:
"Unlock your phone or you will be given a $2500 fine."
"Well if I let have access, then I'm going to prison, so I'll just take the fine thanks."

 

turkey3_scratch

Polypheme
Ambassador


Obviously they're doing illegal stuff then if they can't let the government see their phone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY