Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: This message was self-deleted by its author [View all]proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)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 Apples 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 werent 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 wed like H.R. 4528 to go further and also prevent Congress and the rest of the federal government from undermining encryption.
<>
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 Apples 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 werent 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 wed 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 Speakers new leadership team.
Assemblymember Cooper represents the Cities of Sacramento, Elk Grove, Galt, and Lodi.
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 Speakers 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.
Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
36 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Authoritarians always want to try to find 'reasonable' excuses to take away rights, especially
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
Mar 2016
#4
he is saying the govt is going to spy on its citizen to enforce the "law" in general
questionseverything
Mar 2016
#2
EFF: "Worried about Apple? California Has a Bill That Would Disable Encryption on All Phones"
proverbialwisdom
Mar 2016
#6
it doesnt matter. Pretty much every "special extraordinary crime fighting tool" ends up being used
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2016
#9
And he said 'with a warrant'. Why would you think phones are somehow 'special'?
randome
Mar 2016
#10
Sounds like Obama is trying to define when a phone can be searched. Isn't that a good thing?
randome
Mar 2016
#14
Because if someone can unlock it (Apple, NSA, Police) then anyone can unlock it when I have done....
Logical
Mar 2016
#24
And you see this not as a dangerous precedent when it comes to stripping of privacy protections?
Ed Suspicious
Mar 2016
#28
I honestly don't see the difference between a phone and a ledger full of names & bribes.
randome
Mar 2016
#31
You and I disagree what common sense means. Apple should make it so NO ONE can unlock the phone.....
Logical
Mar 2016
#33
Then that means child pornographers are safe (yes, I know it's an overused trope but...)
randome
Mar 2016
#35
that is only part of the problem. Once a backdoor exists it can be exploited.
Warren Stupidity
Mar 2016
#19
I predict they will catch a lot more pot smokers than terrorists. Profit prisons need love too
Doctor_J
Mar 2016
#13
Were they not teaching the 4th Amendment during the years Obama was undertaking Constitutional...
villager
Mar 2016
#26
The 4th is a lot more annoying when you are on the side that wants to disregard it.
Ed Suspicious
Mar 2016
#30