This message was self-deleted by its author

[DUbeornot2be]

This message was self-deleted by its author (DUbeornot2be) on Wed Mar 30, 2016, 03:36 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. I don't know what they expect to find on my phone about my taxes.

Of course, I use a landline, not a cell, but still.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

4. Authoritarians always want to try to find 'reasonable' excuses to take away rights, especially

privacy rights. But let's face it, when you do that, you're simply saying 'our citizens are not innocent til proven guilty'. They're assumed guilty, and we have the right to monitor anything and everything they do to find evidence of said guilt.

[questionseverything]

2. he is saying the govt is going to spy on its citizen to enforce the "law" in general

no more terrorist excuses needed

i guess that way the dea can stop with the illegal parallel construction

[Land Shark]

5. GOTTA believe this framing designed to peel away Repubs on the phone issue

That will drive them nuts in any event, since Obama said it.

[proverbialwisdom]

6. EFF: "Worried about Apple? California Has a Bill That Would Disable Encryption on All Phones"

Last edited Sun Mar 13, 2016, 05:21 PM - Edit history (1)

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/03/worried-about-apple-california-has-bill-would-disable-encryption-all-phones

March 9, 2016 | By Andrew Crocker
Worried about Apple? California Has a Bill That Would Disable Encryption on All Phones

Smartphone users in California take notice: a new CA State Assembly bill would ban default encryption features on all smartphones. Assembly Bill 1681, introduced in January by Assemblymember Jim Cooper (D), would require any smartphone sold in California “to be capable of being decrypted and unlocked by its manufacturer or its operating system provider.” This is perhaps even more drastic than the legal precedent at stake in Apple’s ongoing showdown with the Justice Department, in which the government is trying to force a private company to write code undermining key security features in specific cases.

Both Apple and Google currently encrypt smartphones running their iOS and Android operating systems by default. A.B. 1681 would undo this default, penalizing manufacturers and providers of operating systems $2,500 per device that cannot be decrypted at the time of sale.

Similar proposals have been made by Manhattan district attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., who published a white paper [pdf] in November 2015 arguing that law enforcement needs to access the contents of smartphones to solve a range of crimes. A nearly identical bill is also pending in the New York State Assembly.

EFF opposes A.B. 1681 and all other state proposals to regulate smartphone encryption because they are terrible policy. If passed, A.B. 1681 would leave law-abiding Californians at risk for identity theft, data breach, stalking, and other invasions of privacy, with little benefit to law enforcement. It would be both ineffective and impossible to enforce. And, if that weren’t enough, it suffers from serious constitutional infirmities.

Meanwhile, in the U.S. Congress, Representative Ted Lieu has introduced H.R. 4528, the ENCRYPT Act, which would definitively preempt state bills like A.B. 1681. EFF agrees this is the right approach to state legislation in this area, although we’d like H.R. 4528 to go further and also prevent Congress and the rest of the federal government from undermining encryption.

<>

http://asmdc.org/members/a09/news-room/press-releases/cooper-appointed-to-key-leadership-position

Cooper Appointed to Key Leadership Position
Created: Thursday, 10 March 2016 11:51

SACRAMENTO – Today, Assemblymember Jim Cooper (D-Elk Grove) was appointed by Speaker Anthony Rendon to serve as Assistant Majority Floor Leader as part of the Speaker’s new leadership team.

“I want to thank Speaker Rendon for appointing me to his leadership team,” said Cooper “I am honored to be chosen to serve as Assistant Majority Floor Leader during a new era in the State Assembly. I look forward to continuing to work with Speaker Rendon and our members to make California a better place to live, work, and raise a family.”

Assemblymember Cooper represents the Cities of Sacramento, Elk Grove, Galt, and Lodi.

[LittleBlue]

8. California is a joke of a state. Borderline authoritarian.

In protest, Silicon Valley should move to Seattle.

[PeoViejo]

7. Probably catch a lot of Pimps and not too street-smart drug dealers.

....and GOP Pols.

[Warren DeMontague]

9. it doesnt matter. Pretty much every "special extraordinary crime fighting tool" ends up being used

primarily to arrest people for drug use.

[randome]

10. And he said 'with a warrant'. Why would you think phones are somehow 'special'?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You’re cheating yourself if you don’t accept the same benefit of a doubt you’d offer anyone else.[/center][/font][hr]

[davidn3600]

12. Problem is warrants seem to be handed out like candy these days

The 4th amendment has been systematically destroyed over the years as the courts have given more and more latitude to law enforcement.

[randome]

14. Sounds like Obama is trying to define when a phone can be searched. Isn't that a good thing?

IMO, it shouldn't be treated any differently from any other piece of personal property -searchable with a warrant. If warrants are handed out too easily, then where is the place to address that? Ugh, I know the answer: Congress. But still, that's where the laws (in principle) are made.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You’re cheating yourself if you don’t accept the same benefit of a doubt you’d offer anyone else.[/center][/font][hr]

[davidn3600]

15. Congress is on Big Brother's side

And it's not just Republicans. Democrats like Diane Feinstein doesn't believe in any privacy at all.

[questionseverything]

20. no where in the article is "warrant" mentioned

and since we know from the snowden leaks that the govt requests warrants 60,000 at a time...it is all bs

your old line was...there are plenty of protections

the potus is arguing against any protections at all for any petty crime

[randome]

22. Seems like the article didn't include his full quote.

I'm on my phone right now so it's difficult to search but Obama did use the phrase 'with a warrant".

And that's what this is about. Why should a phone be exempt from a legal warrant?

[questionseverything]

23. much better article here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027679762

the nsa scoops up everything and now the govt is admitting they are going to look at that info (fishingtrips) any time they want

[randome]

25. And that's something to be concerned about. Really.

But why should a phone be considered some sort of 'magic device' that can never be searched? It's personal property like any other -and should be able to be included in criminal investigations with a legal warrant.

If too many warrants are being issued, that's another issue. The way to address that is not to stop complying with warrants altogether.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You’re cheating yourself if you don’t accept the same benefit of a doubt you’d offer anyone else.[/center][/font][hr]

[questionseverything]

36. they are openly admitting warrants not required...from the article

What does this rule change mean for you? In short, domestic law enforcement officials now have access to huge troves of American communications, obtained without warrants, that they can use to put people in cages.
FBI agents don’t need to have any “national security” related reason to plug your name, email address, phone number, or other “selector” into the NSA’s gargantuan data trove. They can simply poke around in your private information in the course of totally routine investigations. And if they find something that suggests, say, involvement in illegal drug activity, they can send that information to local or state police. That means information the NSA collects for purposes of so-called “national security” will be used by police to lock up ordinary Americans for routine crimes. And we don’t have to guess who’s going to suffer this unconstitutional indignity the most brutally. It’ll be Black, Brown, poor, immigrant, Muslim, and dissident Americans: the same people who are always targeted by law enforcement for extra “special” attention.

////////////////////////

[Logical]

24. Because if someone can unlock it (Apple, NSA, Police) then anyone can unlock it when I have done....

nothing wrong.

I agree apple should make the iPhone impossible to hack.

[randome]

27. That's not what the FBI is asking for. They just want this one phone unlocked.

It's personal property. Why should it be immune to a legal warrant?

Apple was warned this would be a law enforcement problem down the road yet they chose marketing over common sense. What they're afraid of now is that they can unlock it, thereby disappointing the customers whose expectations the unrealistically used to sell more devices.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You’re cheating yourself if you don’t accept the same benefit of a doubt you’d offer anyone else.[/center][/font][hr]

[Ed Suspicious]

28. And you see this not as a dangerous precedent when it comes to stripping of privacy protections?

[randome]

31. I honestly don't see the difference between a phone and a ledger full of names & bribes.

As long as a legal warrant is involved.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You’re cheating yourself if you don’t accept the same benefit of a doubt you’d offer anyone else.[/center][/font][hr]

[Logical]

33. You and I disagree what common sense means. Apple should make it so NO ONE can unlock the phone.....

except the user. That solves the problem. You scare me worse than the NSA.

[randome]

35. Then that means child pornographers are safe (yes, I know it's an overused trope but...)

That means an untraceable (and untaxable) economy will be common-place. That means crime organizations can keep their records in plain view without any risk of discovery. You do know you can store extensive databases and spreadsheets on your phone, right? And none of it would go through a telecom.

We have gotten along just fine using legal warrants in the past couple of centuries. Again, why is a phone any different from any other sort of personal property?

And if you think it's different, then why not extend that 'hands-off' approach to all computers? Anything electronic should be considered untouchable, is that where you're headed?

Think it through. No one is saying that anything needs to change regarding warrants. Other than the fact that too many are issued, but that's an entirely different thread.

Here's another one: digital cameras that you can use to send photos to friends. Isn't that the same as a phone? Should it be inviolable during the investigation of a crime?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You’re cheating yourself if you don’t accept the same benefit of a doubt you’d offer anyone else.[/center][/font][hr]

[Warren Stupidity]

19. that is only part of the problem. Once a backdoor exists it can be exploited.

The current iphone device has no obvious back door, and is thus rather secure. By default you get 10 shots at guessing the password and then it deletes all its data. The government is demanding that apple create a new feature that defeats this and would allow automated unlimited password cracking. This feature, if apple loses, will be exploited and used by government agencies without warrants and by criminals looking to steal/exploit data. This feature, even if it is somehow not abused by our government or exploited by criminals, will be available to Russia, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia - and any other country that has enough clout to get access to it.

[treestar]

11. He said don't take an absolutist view

and to balance the risks.

I would like to know what was in Farouk's phone. If the courts say we can't, we can't, but maybe there can be an exception for dead people, after all, his privacy is pretty moot at this point.

[Doctor_J]

13. I predict they will catch a lot more pot smokers than terrorists. Profit prisons need love too

[questionseverything]

21. the whole thing is so basically anyone can be arrested at any time

if it was a repub saying this we would rightfully be calling for impeachment

[Ed Suspicious]

29. Yes.

[Warren Stupidity]

16. All the authoritarians want a gummint key to your data.

They promise they will only use it to get bad guys. Honest. And they will keep the key extra special safe so no bulgarian basement brigades can kidnap your data for ransom. Promise.

[lunatica]

17. I hope getting it involves getting a subpoena first

[villager]

26. Were they not teaching the 4th Amendment during the years Obama was undertaking Constitutional...

...Scholarship?

Or was that just a class he routinely cut?

[Ed Suspicious]

30. The 4th is a lot more annoying when you are on the side that wants to disregard it.

[PoliticAverse]

32. "A policeman's job is only easy in a police-state". n/t

[liberal_at_heart]

34. How about not passing a $400 billion corporate tax forgiveness bill?

That might help collect a few bucks in taxes and we wouldn't have to discard right to privacy.