The United States Constitution does not end at the 2nd Amendment. You may want to realize that.
BL.
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
The United States Constitution does not end at the 2nd Amendment. You may want to realize that.
BL.
Here are your "if's", "and's" and "but's."
Smart criminals use burn phones IF they don't want to get caught.
I'm pretty sure LEO's know who they are targeting BUT they are too lazy to get better proof.
IF they unencrypt them, AND make it known that they are not safe, then they will definitely not use smartphones.
Also, laws are sorta like locks, they keep honest people honest. Criminal lifestyles don't adhere to laws. So, this law would be abusing the rights of people that have committed no crimes. It's 2016, if our government doesn't have some idea of who the criminals are, then we need a new government, or none at all. I can tell you who all the bleep bags are in my town and I'm not in government or law enforcement. So, this is just for lazy people or for more invasion of privacy.
Smart criminals use burn phones IF they don't want to get caught.
I'm pretty sure LEO's know who they are targeting BUT they are too lazy to get better proof.
IF they unencrypt them, AND make it known that they are not safe, then they will definitely not use smartphones.
Also, laws are sorta like locks, they keep honest people honest. Criminal lifestyles don't adhere to laws. So, this law would be abusing the rights of people that have committed no crimes. It's 2016, if our government doesn't have some idea of who the criminals are, then we need a new government, or none at all. I can tell you who all the bleep bags are in my town and I'm not in government or law enforcement. So, this is just for lazy people or for more invasion of privacy.
Last edited:
Simple, you respect my 4th amendment rights, get a warrant, and then we can talk about searching phones. Until then, you have no business regarding my phone. I am tired of moving closer to 1984.
Oh God this is too good:
"If you're a bad guy [we] can get a search record for your bank, for your house, you can get a search warrant for just about anything," Cooper told Ars in a brief phone call on Wednesday afternoon. "For the industry to say it's privacy, it really doesn't hold any water. We're going after human traffickers and people who are doing bad and evil things. Human trafficking trumps privacy, no ifs, ands, or buts about it."
Let me get this straight, Cooper. You believe that first off, we as citizens trust the system in the first place? He insinuates this by saying they can get warrants for anything -- and that's true. But police can use laws and statutes and bend them to their will. If we trusted the officers, judges, etc. this may not be an issue. But we don't. That's the whole reason no one likes the NSA. It's not that they are collecting data, it's that they use it at their discretion and any ol' jackass that works there can get access.
You believe that the human traffickers are stupid enough to continue to store information in nonvolatile areas of their devices? Guess what, Cooper. They can make their own applications that will provide the encryption they need and use those instead. This does absolutely nothing to stop the 'bad guys.' and does everything to put my privacy as an upstanding citizen at risk. Just because you can get my bank records and search my house doesn't make it right. Just because something is law, doesn't mean it's moral.
**** off, Cooper. I hope someone hacks your **** and exposes something embarrassing to end your **** career.
"If you're a bad guy [we] can get a search record for your bank, for your house, you can get a search warrant for just about anything," Cooper told Ars in a brief phone call on Wednesday afternoon. "For the industry to say it's privacy, it really doesn't hold any water. We're going after human traffickers and people who are doing bad and evil things. Human trafficking trumps privacy, no ifs, ands, or buts about it."
Let me get this straight, Cooper. You believe that first off, we as citizens trust the system in the first place? He insinuates this by saying they can get warrants for anything -- and that's true. But police can use laws and statutes and bend them to their will. If we trusted the officers, judges, etc. this may not be an issue. But we don't. That's the whole reason no one likes the NSA. It's not that they are collecting data, it's that they use it at their discretion and any ol' jackass that works there can get access.
You believe that the human traffickers are stupid enough to continue to store information in nonvolatile areas of their devices? Guess what, Cooper. They can make their own applications that will provide the encryption they need and use those instead. This does absolutely nothing to stop the 'bad guys.' and does everything to put my privacy as an upstanding citizen at risk. Just because you can get my bank records and search my house doesn't make it right. Just because something is law, doesn't mean it's moral.
**** off, Cooper. I hope someone hacks your **** and exposes something embarrassing to end your **** career.
They want us under constant surveillance and that's what this is about. Our safety and security isn't our government's top priority (just look at what's happening in Flint Michigan right now). Terrorism is just their lame go-to excuse for taking away as many of our rights and freedoms as possible. We are less secure, more vulnerable, divided and fearful of each other since 9/11 and all the legislation that's passed in its name.
It doesn't have to be. So far it's only a bill. A united citizenry can prevent these kinds of proposed laws from being enacted. Contact your Congressmen/women, no inundate them, bury them under mountains of emails, perhaps they'll get the message.
Doesn't work that way. Authorities want it when they are "suspected" criminals or a "person of interest. Proven is far too late in the game.
[doublepost=1453432595][/doublepost]
You forgot the FBI "child kidnapping" ploy
LOL, another "lawyer". I hate to tell ya, bud: this may be a terrible idea, but it's completely Constitutional. The 4th Amendment is all fine on search warrants.
We, collectively as a group, send him encrypted letters and encrypted emails. Hundreds or thousands.
This is Cali. Heck, we even killed the kill-switch. This is a topic for morning Starbucks / Coffee Bean and the next "fool" we vote out of office.
This is Cali. Heck, we even killed the kill-switch. This is a topic for morning Starbucks / Coffee Bean and the next "fool" we vote out of office.
Oh yeah! Go with your bad self! Give in to those fears and paranoias!
BL.
Your Sarc meter sucks.
no more so than your fears and paranoia. You do realize you are playing into this politician's hands right?
I guess not.
BL.
Lay off the sauce bro. I am not playing into anyones hands. I am just waiting for the great threads that will be posted in PRSI where people cry about some kind of mistreatment or perceived mistreatment.
But yeah... you guess not.
If authorities can access the keys, then a thief can. All it takes is one disgruntled Apple employee, or temporary security flaw on one of Apple's server. Basically, there's no technology that can automatically detect if it's proper authorities asking for the key or a someone else.
[doublepost=1453435475][/doublepost]
And criminals could use their own app to encrypt messages. Encryption technology is out there, so if it's not baked into the OS, they could encrypt a message and paste it into an SMS message if they didn't have a dedicated app. So in the end, authorities play cat and mouse with criminals, and citizen's privacy continue to erode.
They're already getting quite close to that. It's illegal in Oklahoma to install any locks, bars, or security gate that the police decide was installed to make it more difficult for law enforcement to enter the premises.
No, he's not. Google "Three Felonies a Day', and you'll see what he is trying to tell you.
It's a consequence of his first sentence. Even if you don't know something is against the law, it's not an excuse for breaking it.
Nope - at least three federal appellate courts have held that a court cannot compel a defendant or suspect to give up a password. It violates the 5th amendment's protection against self-incrimination.
Interestingly, biometrics are non-testimonial in nature, so if you got the phone in a state where Touch ID could still be used, a defendant could be compelled to provide their fingerprint to unlock the device.
The fact is most of the time, if law enforcement put in just a little bit of investigative work, they could probably discover the device's password fairly easily. Most of these criminals have not setup their devices to auto-erase after so many wrong attempts and use simple 4 digit passcodes. Many don't even use passcodes or use the best one ever - 1234. You'd be surprised (well, maybe not) at how many people use "1234", "0000" or "2580".
Example: Detective seized phone containing possible child pornography. Defendant refused to disclose password to device. Officers acquired warrant to attempt a search of the device. Officers spoke to defendant's girlfriend who knew the device's password - their anniversary.