New Bill Introduced in U.S. Congress to Block State-Level Efforts to Weaken Smartphone Encryption

[ptb42]

Yet it was the last Republican Administration that stripped a lot of our freedoms and privacy away from we, the people, in the name of security and keeping us safe.

I'm amazed at how many people think the President has that much power.

The Patriot Act (2001) and the reauthorization (2006) originated in Congress, and were passed by large bipartisan majorities:

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/patriotact20012006senatevote.shtml

Take off your partisan blinders, and you'll discover that both major political parties share responsibility for most legislation, with one notable exception.

 

[bluespark]

It would not "set precedent" over state law and that phrase is meaningless in this context. Instead, it would "preempt" state law. And because of the so-called Dormant Commerce Clause, the federal law need not come before the state law for courts to strike down the state law as unconstitutional.

 

[bradl]

I'm amazed at how many people think the President has that much power.

The Patriot Act (2001) and the reauthorization (2006) originated in Congress, and were passed by large bipartisan majorities:

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/patriotact20012006senatevote.shtml

Take off your partisan blinders, and you'll discover that both major political parties share responsibility for most legislation, with one notable exception.

Who said anything about the Patriot Act? The use of FISA, warrantless wiretapping, PRISM, and EO12333 all started in Republican administrations.

EDIT: And you should note that ht was @chezhoy that started the partisan debate here by stating that we should vote Republican if we respect the right to privacy and personal liberty. Direct your wrath at them, as they brought this into the thread.

BL.

 

[ptb42]

Who said anything about the Patriot Act? The use of FISA, warrantless wiretapping, PRISM, and EO12333 all started in Republican administrations.

All of that was enabled by the bipartisan Patriot Act.

And, all of the things you complain about were escalated by the Obama administration, after he explicitly campaigned against them.

Even the author of the Patriot Act has complained about its overbroad interpretation by the Obama administration:

http://sensenbrenner.house.gov/uploadedfiles/holder_fisa_letter.pdf

Direct your wrath at them, as they brought this into the thread.

You should have learned as a child: "They did it first!" is not an excuse for your own behavior.

 

[bradl]

All of that was enabled by the bipartisan Patriot Act.

And, all of the things you complain about were escalated by the Obama administration, after he explicitly campaigned against them.

Even the author of the Patriot Act has complained about its overbroad interpretation by the Obama administration:

http://sensenbrenner.house.gov/uploadedfiles/holder_fisa_letter.pdf

EO12333 was signed and ordered by Ronald Reagan.

Prism started with Bush.
Warrantless wiretapping started with Bush.
use of FISA with the Protect America Act (an amendment to FISA easing the restrictions around FISA) was signed into law by Bush; written and proposed by Mitch McConnell.
Use of FISA with the Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2007, written by 3 Reds, signed into law by Bush.

I'm not even bringing the Patriot Act into account here. I'm highlighting the fact that someone implied that people should vote Republican if you believe in personal liberty and respect the right to privacy. The Republicans threw that into the faces of the people when they further eroded personal liberties and freedoms of the very people to whom it was said we should vote for.

BL.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

If you have nothing to hide, why would you care?

I think most people have SOMETHING (however big or small) to hide and don't really want it painted on their front door like a scarlet letter. What were the estimates on how many people pirated songs back in the old Napster days? I seem to recall it was something on the order of over 70% of the population (between that and copying VHS tapes, I'd bet even higher). Ridiculous or not, it's THE LAW and 70% of this country are law breakers (actually I recall reading somewhere the average person commits a couple of felonies each week and doesn't even know it, but hey, put some cameras and GPS trackers on everyone and THE LAW will point it to you in JAIL!) Imagine every time you go 1mph over the speed limit, you get a $100 fine and 2 points on your license. Imagine every time you cross the street at some place other than a crosswalk, you're fined for jay walking (even if no one is around). Imagine a world where anything less than "perfect" adherence to the law is punished all day every day. You wouldn't even need "taxes" anymore people would get fined so damn much constantly until we all act like ROBOTS and are scared to even talk to each other for fear of saying a "banned word" in public and getting fined for it!

Of course, once you go over the 50% mark of disobedience to a law, you have to wonder if the "laws" represent the so-called "will of the people" in the first place. But when a country adjusts laws for companies like Disney so the original intent of the law is compromised and corporations are ruled to be "people" by the Supreme Court (ridiculous as that sounds to any sane person), you suddenly find "The Law" loses a lot of its meaning to people that think strictly in moral terms. Laws should not be made just to be made. The "law abiders" will respond with "if you don't like the law then change it" but that's entirely the point. You CANNOT change it because the government is CONTROLLED BY THE CORPORATIONS and the top 1%, not the people! This is why Bernie Sanders keeps talking about a "revolution" needed to change ANYTHING at this point.

Yes, I'm sure it sounds ridiculous to some of you until it happens to you some day. Hell my parents would be in prison for "child endangerment" these days for letting me cross the street on my own when I was 5 or letting me ride in the front seat of a car! (and without a seat belt to boot!) or in the back of a pickup truck! OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG!!!!!!!!!! THE HORROR!!!!!!!!! How the hell is it that I'm still alive?!?!?!? Yeah yeah, I'm "lucky". I'm luck to live in a world gone crazy.

There's your "Freedom" in a nut shell. We've given up our "Freedom" to be "safer". The problem is that at some point you've given up all the reasons worth living. You can't drive your first car at 16 anymore because cars drive themselves now (it's SAFER). You can't take a pain pill for that leg injury because you MIGHT become addicted and it's not worth the risk so SUFFER instead! You MIGHT get a girl pregnant so we're going to cut off your "disco stick" just to be on the safe side. We'll save some sperm cells in a freezer somewhere in case you receive a license to have children some day and we'll do it the right way with artificial insemination. It's SAFER that way!

 

[ggibson913]

I like to see how these things unfold. As a pro 2nd amendment supporter, I see this as very similar. Everyone's all for liberty when it affects them, in this case their privacy but turn their head to liberty when it comes to someones right to protect themselves. Putting a backdoor into a smart phone could potentially save another 911 and thousands of lives. If you have nothing to hide, why would you care? It's for the greater good. I'm of course playing devil's advocate here as I believe the federal government's role should be defined on the equivalent of about a half sheet of paper (common defense, common money, roads and other infrastructure, etc.

A back door which high can be used by government is a back door that can be hacked by anyone.

 

[rols]

Unless this new bill is signed into law, buying in another state will at best be a temporary solution. Other states could, and probably will, follow NY and CA by introducing their own unlocking/decrypting laws.

And then we'll end up in the amusing situation, when a new iPhone is released, of people buying them overseas and shipping them back into the USA instead of the current way around.

 

[MacLC]

Imagine the citizens of the USA being able to have the right to privacy! I think these people forget who they work for.

Not to mention he's too stupid to realize that even if Apple put in a back door, the criminals could add their own additional encryption for which there would be no backdoor.

Idiots.

True and it is ironic and hypocritical that the very person who sees himself as above the law would accuse people who just want a little privacy of wanting to be above the law.

 

[Creek0512]

Apple do not want the Government to decrypt our phones but Apple can render them useless if we get them fix by a third party.

Because allowing backdoor hacking through fake TouchID sensors allows the government and anyone else to hack your phone....

 

[Kabeyun]

Personally, Ted and Blake would have my vote.

But this is an interesting issue, right? The framers of the US Constitution prohibited "unreasonable searches and seizures" in Amendment IV of the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution. But they never envisioned something, like an encrypted smartphone, that could be made unsearchable at all. In 1791, the most secure an object could be was a locked door or a sealed envelope.

The reasonableness of a search or seizure is defined as a warrant based on "probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The problem is that governments have made themselves untrustworthy to obtain such warrants (because they've searched and seized without them!), so the public has implemented technology to protect themselves from this behavior.

But now we have a situation where something cannot be searched, due to encryption, even with a valid warrant. Furthermore, the SCOTUS has held that in Amendment V of the Bill of Rights the phrase "nor shall be held in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" applies to divulging a passcode or combination to allow the device to become searchable.

I wonder what the Constitutional framers would have said.

 

[Gaspode67]

Let us hope Congress passes this and the President does not veto it. and let's hope the EU do the same (actually, I first wrote 'the sane').

This is also a matter being debated within the UK at the moment as it is an adjunct to the Investigatory Powers Bill that's in committee stage in Parliament. Here, technology firms, banks, online businesses, and users are pressing for encryption, whilst the government is using the twin forks of "it's all for your security!" and "If you've nothing to hide..." arguments. This will be a whole legal quagmire for years to come.

.....against the British (where there is now a camera on every street corner in London and even the police can't carry guns so if a terrorist did show up, they couldn't stop him short of the military stepping in)...

*ahem* We have dedicated armed police in every force that are used as and when necessary. The general public here would be aghast at the thought of arming *all* the police officers. Given our experience of terrorism both in NI and on mainland Britain, we prefer it this way (no, don't believe what you read on the Daily Mail website. We *aren't* all clamouring to bring back hanging etc. There's a reason that paper/news-site is commonly referred to as the Daily Wail or Daily Fail!).

 

[Thunderhawks]

The more I read in this thread the more I think we should go back to smoke signals!

Scrap that. Fine for pollution, damaging the environment and class action for all who inhaled some smoke
or got it into their eye.
We just can't be FREE anymore!.

 

[dk001]

This is also a matter being debated within the UK at the moment as it is an adjunct to the Investigatory Powers Bill that's in committee stage in Parliament. Here, technology firms, banks, online businesses, and users are pressing for encryption, whilst the government is using the twin forks of "it's all for your security!" and "If you've nothing to hide..." arguments. This will be a whole legal quagmire for years to come.



*ahem* We have dedicated armed police in every force that are used as and when necessary. The general public here would be aghast at the thought of arming *all* the police officers. Given our experience of terrorism both in NI and on mainland Britain, we prefer it this way (no, don't believe what you read on the Daily Mail website. We *aren't* all clamouring to bring back hanging etc. There's a reason that paper/news-site is commonly referred to as the Daily Wail or Daily Fail!).

So they (states) want to swiss cheese US encryption... I'll just buy it from another country.
This would be a good bill to start with.

 

[aaronvan]

A back door which high can be used by government is a back door that can be hacked by anyone.

Exactly, and also no matter what encryption scheme the government forces on industry, an open-source solution will appear within days. Maybe even hours.

 

[jthesssin]

Apple do not want the Government to decrypt our phones but Apple can render them useless if we get them fix by a third party.

It is that exact feature that is keeping your data safe on the device. Imagine if your local LEA had a 3rd party touch ID and installed it on your phone while you were in the holding tank for speeding... Still seem stupid?Didnt think so...
[doublepost=1455227881][/doublepost]

Personally, Ted and Blake would have my vote.

But this is an interesting issue, right? The framers of the US Constitution prohibited "unreasonable searches and seizures" in Amendment IV of the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution. But they never envisioned something, like an encrypted smartphone, that could be made unsearchable at all. In 1791, the most secure an object could be was a locked door or a sealed envelope.

The reasonableness of a search or seizure is defined as a warrant based on "probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The problem is that governments have made themselves untrustworthy to obtain such warrants (because they've searched and seized without them!), so the public has implemented technology to protect themselves from this behavior.

But now we have a situation where something cannot be searched, due to encryption, even with a valid warrant. Furthermore, the SCOTUS has held that in Amendment V of the Bill of Rights the phrase "nor shall be held in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" applies to divulging a passcode or combination to allow the device to become searchable.

I wonder what the Constitutional framers would have said.

They would have continued the original sentence as Thus: in their papers, effects, and electronic communications and devices thereof. There is no difference with someone who has memorized certain information. The government, no matter how many subpoenas or warrants, cannot break the encryption of the human brain.

 

[dk001]

It is that exact feature that is keeping your data safe on the device. Imagine if your local LEA had a 3rd party touch ID and installed it on your phone while you were in the holding tank for speeding... Still seem stupid?Didnt think so...

Supposition at this time. When you dive into the whole mess, it is a pretty murky quagmire.

They would have continued the original sentence as Thus: in their papers, effects, and electronic communications and devices thereof. There is no difference with someone who has memorized certain information. The government, no matter how many subpoenas or warrants, cannot break the encryption of the human brain.

In most cases, for normal you and me types, it can be easily done. Maybe not within the confines of the "law"....

 

[D-Dave]

In September, FBI Director James Comey expressed concerns that Apple and Google are "marketing something expressly to allow people to place themselves above the law."

Dear Mr. Comey, IF you are a supporter of a lawfull state, which I presume you at least pretend to be, you should be aware that there is a right for privacy as a fundamental pillar in every democratic country.
So if someone wants to tkae away that right he is basicaly taking away one of the fundamental rights you claim to defend.
IF you are not placing YOURSELF above the law, you only have one way to gain private information: get a court order, and if neccesary enforce it by imprisoning the subject!!!
By doing so you are supporting a rightful state, not dismanteling it.

Obviously you are a supporter of "anything is fair game if the cause seems just....for me"...it would be very interesting to hear from you about your point of view about torturing people to get "important" information...I guess you would be very much in line with such great organisations like isis, the StaSi and the Gestapo.

Sincerely,
one of those pesky civilians who think that if you take away civil rights to defend from terrorist threats, those terrorists have already won because there is no more democracy to protect or destroy...

 

[AdonisSMU]

Personally, Ted and Blake would have my vote.

But this is an interesting issue, right? The framers of the US Constitution prohibited "unreasonable searches and seizures" in Amendment IV of the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution. But they never envisioned something, like an encrypted smartphone, that could be made unsearchable at all. In 1791, the most secure an object could be was a locked door or a sealed envelope.

The reasonableness of a search or seizure is defined as a warrant based on "probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The problem is that governments have made themselves untrustworthy to obtain such warrants (because they've searched and seized without them!), so the public has implemented technology to protect themselves from this behavior.

But now we have a situation where something cannot be searched, due to encryption, even with a valid warrant. Furthermore, the SCOTUS has held that in Amendment V of the Bill of Rights the phrase "nor shall be held in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" applies to divulging a passcode or combination to allow the device to become searchable.

I wonder what the Constitutional framers would have said.

I don't know why people always bring up founders of the country like they matter 200 years later. It doesn't matter what they would've said. We are perfectly capable of making good decisions for ourselves now.

 

[Kabeyun]

I don't know why people always bring up founders of the country like they matter 200 years later. It doesn't matter what they would've said. We are perfectly capable of making good decisions for ourselves now.

Those decisions are, at the Supreme Court level, decided with the founding document of our country in mind. Some, particularly including the recently-late Justice Scalia, take this 200+ year old document as written. Others see it as a living document whose tenets should be interpreted in current unforeseen contexts. Either way, yes, it still matters and has bearing on the decisions we make today.

Smart people have curious minds and wonder about such things. You don't have to, though. Shoot-from-the-hip decision making has become pretty popular lately.

 

[kd5jos]

I wish they would understand if their dumbasses can get in with a backdoor then the smart hackers can easily get in.

I would bet you anything they fully understand that, and couldn't give a ****. The fact is they are of the opinion their wants (the wants of the few) outweigh your needs (the needs of the many).

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

I don't know why people always bring up founders of the country like they matter 200 years later. It doesn't matter what they would've said. We are perfectly capable of making good decisions for ourselves now.

Based on the political scene, I'd say that statement is 100% incorrect. We are wholly incapable of making good decisions as a country. We seem to be more inclined to start a new kind of "civil warfare" based on Liberals Vs. Conservatives instead the partisanship is getting so bad. The sides HATE each other, mostly over some single issue like abortion or gun control from one side to the other and perhaps this is because certain media outlets in the Internet age spend 24/7 trying to convince you the other side is pure evil (in fact, we know they are BOTH evil. )

The problem with the "founding fathers" is that they were, by modern standards, TERRORISTS (the term did not exist back then). Yes, I said it. If any group did what they did back then to the existing government, there is no other possible label to be applied. Given the depths of evil we did to the Native Americans already present here and the slaves we brought into this country, there can be NO GOOD ARGUMENT that the founding fathers were anything else but a group of terrorists that took the land by force, first from the Native Americans not only by them but by the generations before AND after them and then later the country was torn asunder again because people wanted to treat other people as property instead of people (a common theme in the Middle East these days, oddly enough for women and infidels alike).

So, in some respects, I would say no, it doesn't matter what the founding fathers thought precisely because they weren't so different than we are today, trying to create some utopia at everyone else's expense tha can never really exist in their own minds anyway (because people have this way of exercising free will even when it's not convenient for those trying to control their behavior). The rich have spent a LOT of money to rig the game in their favor these days and have made a lot of "progress" towards taking us back to the Middle Ages, but they will never keep us there. They will die and others will take their place and others will revolt, etc. The cycle continues.

The fact of the matter is that if you want real "freedoms" you have to be willing to take some risks. It means assuming innocence instead of guilt. It means not spying on your own citizens without any suspicions or evidence. It means giving the benefit of the doubt. This bill doesn't do any such thing. It's a Mexican-style you're guilty until proven innocence type of Bill and that's WRONG for this country if we still actually believe in this concept called "freedom". If you aren't willing to fight for you freedom or take some risks to keep it, then you don't deserve that freedom to begin with. But you have this problem in this country that we call it a "democracy" rather than a "freedom nation". So you have others trying to turn us into a Socialist Republic or a Communist one or some Corporate Utopia for the top 1% (they seem to be succeeding the most). Until people get off their damn cell phones and actually DO SOMETHING, this country will continue to sink into whatever grave is dug by the person with the deepest pockets.

The rights to pursue happiness and to have equal rights should not be denied. If the right to do as I please so long as I harm no one else is not allowed, what else is there worth dying for? That right is being denied today with countless laws telling you, me and everyone else how to live when it's none of the government's damn business so long as I harm no one else. Drug laws? They shouldn't exist as a prohibition but only as a punishment for those that harm others in the course of using them. You drink and get behind the wheel, you're responsible even if you've lost control of yourself because you chose to drink the drug in the first place knowing full well it could affect your judgment. But if you can use a pain pill or a marijuana or whatever without causing harm, more power to you, in my opinion. It shouldn't be any of the government's business or your neighbors if you're doing it in the privacy of your own home and harming no on else. This is a really simple concept based on the Golden Rule. Treat others as you'd have them treat you. Laws based on fictional deities and other nonsense should have no place in a country that is based on freedom of (and from) religion.

 

[ptb42]

The problem with the "founding fathers" is that they were, by modern standards, TERRORISTS (the term did not exist back then). Yes, I said it. If any group did what they did back then to the existing government, there is no other possible label to be applied.

Hold on there --- there is quite a bit of disagreement about what "terrorism" actually encompasses.
There's a large Wikipedia article about the disagreement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism. The US Code says it is “Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.”

I believe you are thinking of an insurgent, which is considered synonymous with "rebel" or "revolutionary". There's a large Wikipedia article about that, as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgency. The article points out that terrorism is sometimes a tactic used by an insurgency, but adds that while the American Revolution is considered to be an example of an insurgency, there was little to no attempt to terrorize civilians.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Hold on there --- there is quite a bit of disagreement about what "terrorism" actually encompasses.
There's a large Wikipedia article about the disagreement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism. The US Code says it is “Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.”

I believe you are thinking of an insurgent, which is considered synonymous with "rebel" or "revolutionary". There's a large Wikipedia article about that, as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgency. The article points out that terrorism is sometimes a tactic used by an insurgency, but adds that while the American Revolution is considered to be an example of an insurgency, there was little to no attempt to terrorize civilians.

Given the conscripting elements of both sides (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recruitment_in_the_British_Army ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States#Colonial_to_1862) and the RESULTS of the revolutionary war resulting in far greater conscription (brought to a peak perhaps during the Civil War where "civilians" were forced to kill their fellow "brothers" whether they wanted to or not or be put to death), I'm not sure I agree about the "not attempt to terrorize civilian" part. The modern day draft could even be interpreted as terrorizing the civilians as when enacted and enforced they are forcing you to either be imprisoned or to participate in glorified murder (and yes I use the word "murder" as all killing is murder in my opinion; there is no "good" killing and civilians are almost ALWAYS collateral damage. How many civilians have been killed in the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example? How much thought is EVER put into the deaths caused by "leaders" when they make those decisions? These "leaders" are always far from the danger as they order men to take a hill over and over and then don't even hold it and then retake it at great human cost while the generals sit in some building or tent somewhere far away. (See the song "The Bravery of Being Out of Range" by Roger Waters; he can put it far better than I.)

My point is simple. We, as a people are FAR from "innocent" in this land. We murdered, pillaged and took the land away from the existing inhabitants (and later made treaties and then broke them repeatedly) and then we "rebelled" against our own lawful government over? Taxes without representation? What a load of horse manure. And you wonder why I use the word terrorist. I chose that word precisely because they had NO JUST CAUSE to rebel against. We weren't slaves under British law (and we sure as hell didn't rebel to abolish slavery at the time). Taxes are a just reason to kill even non-civilians? Really? For god's sake, if that's the only justification that's needed, it's a wonder the IRS is still around. Revolutionaries is just another word for murdering usurpers, IMO. The founding fathers were FAR from prime examples (slave owners, many of them) of human virtue.

We act today like our country was founded on these great principles and use words like "equal" when both women and slaves were treated FAR from equal by the hypocritical government they created. We rebelled against taxes without representation (what a great cause to DIE for in a huge unclaimed land with plenty of space; Canada didn't rebel and they obtained their freedom peacefully) and what do we have these days if not taxation without representation? I mean literal representation, as in our so-called "representatives" don't actually represent "we the people" anymore. They represent special interests and lobbying and the corrupt Supreme Court endorsed this with a bogus ruling about corporations being PEOPLE (only a fracking IDIOT would think a legal "entity" equates with an actual human being; but a CORRUPT person would find that beneficial to ransacking the middle class and creating a RICH/POOR feudal-like system of Oligarchs and mere peasants. We have become the very evil we claimed to dispatch so many years ago and ironically, Britain (and most of Europe) has taken far more steps towards equality in the mean time while we run from it.

Thus, I can't help but wonder if the representative trying to block California in this bill is doing it for our sake or his own. I maintain most people have a skeleton or two in their closet and don't really want privacy to go the way of the Dodo. Certainly, most politicians have things to hide and the ability of a corrupt government with corrupt agencies to spy on anyone and everyone at all times must give even some Congressmen the willies.

Perhaps I grew up watching too many movies and reading too many comics like Superman where I saw real virtue being put into effect and the sheer reality of the hypocrisy and evil in our government is just disgusting beyond measure. People say just vote them out, but the system is corrupt and you cannot obtain significant office without either great wealth or serving great wealth or some other great influence. The days of the common man serving in government are for the most part (save some local offices) over. The sheer amount of money required to obtain the office of POTUS these days is staggering. Every one of those candidates either owes someone favors for donations or is a billionaire themselves. It's truly sad we've come so far only to regress so much.