Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
California Joins New York in Effort to Weaken Smartphone Encryption
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Personally I feel Human Trafficking does not trump my privacy. I'm also selfish and believe my privacy is more important to me than someone else's plight of putting themselves in the position to be traded like cattle. Regardless of whether or not I'm not doing anything that should get me to pop up on the police's radar, I would rather not have my privacy eroded under the guise of a larger issue. Be it human trafficking, terrorism, global warming, or to find the hidden pictures of the lochness monster on my phone.
Quit being lazy government and wanting tech companies to do your job for you.
Quit being lazy government and wanting tech companies to do your job for you.
You know what it takes to get a warrant? About a 12 second phone call.
'Hey judge, I'm at 1234 Thomas Paine road and I need a warrant.
Ok.
Thanks."
Thanks to the Rico drug laws intended for the worst offenders now being applied to anyone and everyone 100% of the time, warrants are meaningless. Give authoritarians an inch, they take a mile and never give it back. Every time. In every country, all throughout human history. People never learn.
Only politicians with brains, those who understand what encryption is and why we need it, should be allowed to give an opinion or vote about this.
Open a backdoor, and it will be found. Crooks will love to be able to use other people's equipment to commit their crimes while hiding their identities. And of course, a lot of innocent people will be blamed for crimes they didn't commit.
Open a backdoor, and it will be found. Crooks will love to be able to use other people's equipment to commit their crimes while hiding their identities. And of course, a lot of innocent people will be blamed for crimes they didn't commit.
The issue is that a warrant isn't required. It may officially be required, but the existence of a backdoor means that it's theoretically possible for anyone to exploit it. It's like how DRM doesn't completely stop piracy of movies; if you can watch the movie then you can copy it.
Give them nothing and people can die. Anarchy is just as damning to society as totalitarianism.
Well then that's reason 5,000,051 that we need to end the war on drugs and everything related to it.
If the Obama administration had not been so brazen about email searches and violations of our privacy I would be much more sympathic to these arguments. There is always a security vs freedom balance. But the Obama administration has shown me they cannot generally be trusted. Or any other government. So although I am very sympathetic to the argument for access to phones for information I have moved to the other side - no back doors, no options for getting into my phone. Nothing is important is on my phone, I just want some push back to the increasing carelessness of federal law enforcement.
Except here's the thing. That's still a backdoor (even if it is encrypted). Should that be accessible over a network? If so, game over. Find a flaw in the connection protocol, and you don't even need Apple's keys. Even if you needed Apple's special key and local access, the moment you find the flaw in the system, you don't need the key and get at everything anyways. Now I have the same level of access as law enforcement, but without a warrant. Great if I'm a malicious actor, since it likely means access to possible blackmail material or even other information I can use to enrich myself at the expense of the victim. Oh, and if I'm a nation state, maybe I just figure out that flaw myself and refuse to divulge details so I can spy without needing the key.
Now. If I am a bad actor wanting to defend myself against such spying, then once this is in place, I decide I can't trust Apple or Google, and so I start using apps that encrypt on their own, rather than relying on the OS to do it. Now that backdoor stops giving law enforcement information on that bad actor, putting us back into the situation we have today, only now we have another possible avenue for bad actors to attack us via exploits.
Fear makes some people make irrational decisions.
1. Cave to government. Create new iMessage system with a backdoor.
2. Russia and China: Challenge accepted.
3. Hack every US politicians iMessage, email, and iCloud acts, publish all for world to see.
4. Cave to government. Re-implement old iMessage system without backdoor.
Mmmm. That's progress, baby.
2. Russia and China: Challenge accepted.
3. Hack every US politicians iMessage, email, and iCloud acts, publish all for world to see.
4. Cave to government. Re-implement old iMessage system without backdoor.
Mmmm. That's progress, baby.
These politicians are horrendous.
"Give up your privacy because boogeymen! Bad stuff! Our children! Etc!"
"Give up your privacy because boogeymen! Bad stuff! Our children! Etc!"
In a country with this many laws, everyone is guilty of something.
See also: Ignorance of the law is not a justification for breaking it.
I get tired of headlines like "California wants" "New York wants" when one state congresscritter introduces a bill. If there actually proves to be a lot of support for it, that's news, but "congresscritter introduces stupid bill" is just a new version of "dog bites man".
But given the chance, I would like to ask these guys "Have you demanded that all vaults, safes, and other security systems come with a back door for the police?"
But given the chance, I would like to ask these guys "Have you demanded that all vaults, safes, and other security systems come with a back door for the police?"
We should remove the doors/window in our houses. We are good guys, we have nothing to hide.
This a totally bullpoop argument. Nothing in the fourth amendment allows the government to choose the circumstances of how to execute a proper warrant. Sure, the government can get a proper legal warrant to search to search all sorts of things or places, but that doesn't let them ensure such searches are always possible. For example, a bad guy can hide a safe somewhere in the Arizona desserts buried under 10 feet of sand. The government can get a proper warrant under probable cause that smoking gun evidence is in that safe. They can compel the bad guy to tell them where the safe is, and he can either refuse and face the consequences or cooperate. If the bad guy doesn't cooperate, he can go to jail pretty much indefinitely until he complies. I see smartphones and computers the same way - get a proper warrant, have a court compel the bad guy to cooperate, and send him to jail if he refuses. Isn't that the ultimate goal anyway?
This law is equivalent to banning people from building tank-proof houses; or worse, requiring all home builders to install locks that can be opened by a government master key.
And also, he's wrong, no matter how bad an alleged accused person is, the government is not above their right to privacy until after they are convicted.
I can understand trying to get the bad guys. Then I also look back at the NSA hacking people's phones and recording their conversations, The IRS targeting people because of their political views, and hackers remotely turning on the phone.
New York and California can suck it.
New York and California can suck it.
And the bad guys would NEVER use those open doors and windows.
Ironically, I think bad guys will use these backdoors WAY more often and for more reasons then these so called "good" guys.
Err here comes location service injected and you were at the wrong place at the wrong time committing a crime that you didn't but with perfect evidence that ANYONE can plant since nothing is encrypted. Example 1, there are thousands more why this is a bad idea.
I'm actually more worried that these measures are pushed by people who understand this very well and do it anyway because it's popular with the larger electorate. Being tough on crime always pays off for politicians. Of course, officials won't care, because they are likely protected by enterprise-level security.
That's where we're heading if this bill passes. Eventually you will have to show them the pictures on your phone to make sure you aren't a child pron collector.
Yes, that side of the argument is clear. Clearly idiotic. Nothing trumps due process.