New York Bill Would Force Apple and Other Manufacturers to Decrypt Smartphones

[ardchoille50]

Solutions:
1) Use the suspect's finger to unlock the phone

2) Take the bomb far away as possible, or use a different method to diffuse, possibly an EMP.

3) Use your Dad's finger to unlock. If you were a good son, you'll know his code already.

4) Have judge issue a warrant. Either the suspect unlocks his phone or he will be charged with obstruction of justice. If he's innocent, then he's got nothing to fear.

5) Use your finger to unlock.

6) Use his finger to unlock.

7) ...and more solutions will be found.

Why did you even bother with a reply? Hypothetical situations are silly. If I had eggs, I could have eggs and bacon.. if I had bacon.

 

[Someyoungguy]

Scenarios:

1) Your baby, toddler, kid(s), and/or spouse/friend/mistress are missing. Only way to find out is from the location stored in an iPhone from the suspect - which is also dead. Sorry folks, can't help you because we can't decrypt.

2) codes to diffuse a nuclear bomb is stored on an iPhone and it's encrypted. Can't save the world because we can't decrypt it.

3) The last message written by your dad before he suddenly died was written on his iPhone and encrypted. Sorry, can't even have you see his last words because we can't decrypt it.

4) Child porn of your kid(s) stored on an iPhone but encrypted and not stored in iCloud either. Sorry, can't prosecute the perv because we don't have evidence we need from his iPhone. It's encrypted, we can't decrypt it.

5) Car accident and you were not at fault because while you were driving you were also v-logging with the iPhone clamped on the dash and someone hits you and the camera caught a pic of the accident but obviously from the accident your head was injured enough you can't access your code (the phone was off (battery drained) then restarted so the passcode is needed). You're screwed.

6) Before a police officer was murdered, he was recording himself and the camera on the iPhone caught the sounds and part of the suspect killing the police officer. The phone dies of low battery but the video is on the phone and encrypted. You can't prosecute the suspect because the evidence is on the phone.

7) the list goes on and on.

Now if you argue that oh, I want to prevent mike who works at the FBI from eavesdropping or looking at my personal naked pictures I took while drunk, then of course you're trying to make a case about your privacy. I think the point of encryption is to protect the owner but then there are times when you hope and pray that you can access it because the one you loved who happened be have evidence on the device is no longer here and it's crucial to gain access to it but you can't, then you can see how desperate one will want access.

This is very hard to decide....

Sorry, but when they threw away due process for eavesdropping, they threw away my sympathy.

 

[Rigby]

Scenarios:
[...]
7) the list goes on and on.

So why stop at the phone? You could invent the exact same ticking bomb scenarios involving computers, password safe apps, encrypted flash drives, smart cards etc. pp. The only logical consequence would be to build backdoors into any and all encryption technology. Obviously other governments than your own, including ones that routinely execute people just because of their political views, would demand access to these backdoors too. And sooner or later they would fall into the hands of hackers and criminals. I feel safer already.

 

[furi0usbee]

Ignorant and stubborn to be more precise.
[doublepost=1452743985][/doublepost]
They could ask the suspect to unlock their phone or surrender passwords, or be charged with obstruction of justice.

Yes, they could *ask* you to unlock or request your password, and you are NOT obligated to tell them anything. Ever hear of that little thing called the 5th amendment? You have the right not to answer such questions and the right not to self incriminate by *helping* their investigation. It's dumb if you are innocent, and dumber if you are guilty of something and the phone could further incriminate you.

My phone, my rules I'll tell them.

Fingerprints are different, and you can be compelled by court order to have your fingerprint used to unlock a phone where a warrant has been issued for its contents. This is why I will never use fingerprints to unlock my phone.
[doublepost=1452749096][/doublepost]

Here's a tip - if law enforcement forces you to use Touch ID, restart the phone. A passcode will be required after a restart and fingerprints won't be accepted.

Yeah, but kinda hard if they see the phone in plain view and grab it, or they search you and take it from you before you can do that. You don't really want to go grab it from them and try to do a reset or power down. Also, if pulled over, you really don't want to make sudden movements reaching for things... can get you kinda dead in some parts.

 

[charlituna]

If this passes, its bad news for our right to privacy nationwide. As soon as the first domino falls it won't be long for the other 50 (49 states and Federal) to follow.

only if the manufacturers comply. After all they only have to stop selling in NY to be in compliance. Something tells me that Apple would be happy to yank iPhones in the state and tell folks they have to go to another state to buy them.
[doublepost=1452749296][/doublepost]

I hope they pay the fine and tell NY to go eff themselves. Better yet, close every Apple Store in Ny and tell the employees why they lost their jobs and who to blame.

Apple stores sell more than just iPhones. The bill doesn't say boo about the rest of it.

 

[Thanatoast]

He should also write a bill to repeal the fifth amendment while he's at it. And the fourth, since that went out the window years ago.

 

[CarlJ]

will Tim stand up to his pledge for user privacy and stop selling iPhones in NY?

I would dearly love to see that, though. Make New York the one place in the US where you cannot buy an iPhone. When customers ask in-store or on-line, provided them with a nice slick Apple-produced brochure explaining why they can't buy (because their local government says no), what's bad about backdoors, and giving a complete list of the representatives who voted for the legislation and their office phone numbers and addresses. I can imagine the representatives getting a lot of angry phone calls, and perhaps reconsidering their decision.

 

[Muscle Master]

Ban the iPhone in New York... Have Apple tell the citizens of New York that it was because of politician "so and so" and have either:

1. Citizens of New York cause a **** storm at city hall

2. Wait until election year and unleash a massive marketing campaign on who not to vote for in New York and Washington because it was their fault that the iPhone was banned

A lot of politicians would tread carefully.. I think Apple, Samsung, HTC, Mircosoft, and Blackberry should come together on this

 

[glenthompson]

If a valid search warrant is issued are you required to provide access to the specified search area? If the warrant includes a safe do you have to open the safe for the police? If so then issue the warrant for the phone, make the person unlock it or face contempt of court charges for not complying with the warrant. Typically the only reason authorities want a backdoor is so they can conduct surveillance without the subject being aware as in the case of FISA warrants.

 

[Freyqq]

Seems unconstitutional. Dormant Commerce Clause. At first impression, I would argue this law would substantially burden interstate commerce, which is exclusively for congress to regulate, and thus states cannot do it.

Other arguments could be first and fourth amendment. It's just a bill though...for now at least.
[doublepost=1452751349][/doublepost]

Isn't a criminal obliged under the law to reveal his passcode to police? If not then it should be so.

One could argue 5th amendment

 

[Renzatic]

More than that, encryption is arms, which is protected by the 2A.

So the bigger question is, where is the NRA and standing up for the 2A? Oh, wait: they think it only applies to guns.

BL.

It's an interesting angle to use, but I'd say using the 2nd to defend encryption probably wouldn't stand up in court. Encryption is more about privacy, so it's a 4th amendment issue by itself, and being required break it yourself for law enforcement would be a 5th amendment violation.

 

[Freyqq]

More than that, encryption is arms, which is protected by the 2A.

So the bigger question is, where is the NRA and standing up for the 2A? Oh, wait: they think it only applies to guns.

BL.

Encryption is much more like writing a letter in a coded language and only you know how to translate it.

 

[Trik]

This reminds me of when NYC banned ATM fees, and so all the banks just turned off the ATMs. Nobody could get cash all weekend in Manhattan. The law was overturned Monday morning.

Just stop selling iPhones in New York, the people will demand the law change.

 

[unplugme71]

I hope they pay the fine and tell NY to go eff themselves. Better yet, close every Apple Store in Ny and tell the employees why they lost their jobs and who to blame.

Plenty of NYers shop in NJ anyway. But yes closing down all Apple stores would be more publicity than hurting NY taxes collected. Apple is chump change considering the money made by large banks and other prominent companies.
[doublepost=1452752592][/doublepost]

will Tim stand up to his pledge for user privacy and stop selling iPhones in NY? #notbloodylikely

Profits trump pledges

Apple doesn't have to stop to win. People can stop buying Apple's/Android/etc products which will hurt Phone manufacturers and the carriers. When you have 7+ large companies knocking in Albany you bet your ass NY will reverse it.

 

[2984839]

Good.

These are the kind of people New Yorkers keep electing. They crap on the 2nd Amendment all they can to the cheers of the masses. Why is anyone surprised when they try to do it to the others?

Obviously I hope the bill fails, but I hope someone, somewhere will wake up and look at for whom and what they're voting. They don't care about your rights. None of them.

 

[dannyyankou]

Any smartphone sold or leased in New York after January 1, 2016 would have to be capable of being decrypted or unlocked by its manufacturer or OS provider.

If this goes through, I'm keeping my 6s for a LONG time.

 

[Jess13]

will Tim stand up to his pledge for user privacy and stop selling iPhones in NY? #notbloodylikely

Profits trump pledges

It would really be amazing if he did, we would probably see hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers storm their state legislature and riotously destroy it. Encryption's not the problem. Government's the problem.

 

[Snoopy4]

Seems unconstitutional. Dormant Commerce Clause. At first impression, I would argue this law would substantially burden interstate commerce, which is exclusively for congress to regulate, and thus states cannot do it.

This.

If these bastards get their way, first it's for "security reasons" follows by "thought policing".

What the **** is wrong with these people. You can't open our mail, what the **** makes you think you should be able to look at our texts and emails?

Thank God I don't live in New York. Freakin Dictator state that place is becoming.

 

[Technarchy]

A Democrat...figures. Typical.

 

[bradl]

It's an interesting angle to use, but I'd say using the 2nd to defend encryption probably wouldn't stand up in court. Encryption is more about privacy, so it's a 4th amendment issue by itself, and being required break it yourself for law enforcement would be a 5th amendment violation.

It already has stood up in court. Cryptography has been deemed munitions, and protected by the 2A, per Bernstein v. United States, let alone protected by the 1A, as it was relative to the investigation of exported munitions when PGP was exported outside the USA.

That was in 1995. I actually still have the article stating that Zimmerman was cleared of all charges of weapons exportations in 1996.

We've been through this before, 20 years ago, and was shot down then. That carries precedence.

EDIT: Additionally, in 1997, Rep. Porter Goss (R-Florida) tried to make it a crime to distribute PGP and other encryption software, such as that built into the latest versions of Netscape and Internet Explorer. That also failed.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=478

BL.

 

[pika2000]

these politicians are out of their minds

No. Politicians are voted in by the citizens to be in office. If this is passed, then it is what New Yorkers want.

 

[Technarchy]

No. Politicians are voted in by the citizens to be in office. If this is passed, then it is what New Yorkers want.

Party line voting
Low information voting
Voting by familiar incumbent name

I wouldn't be so sure about NY'ers getting what they want.

 

[2984839]

Party line voting
Low information voting
Voting by familiar incumbent name

I wouldn't be so sure about NY'ers getting what they want.

They may not be getting what they want, but they're getting what they deserve. Elections have consequences.

 

[iansilv]

I honestly am. If I am going to weigh an extreme level of privacy for my personal communications against the potential for innocent people to be hurt because some criminal can prevent law enforcement from being effective by refusing to decrypt their phone, I'm going to go with letting law enforcement do their job. And what amazes me is this level of privacy in a smartphone is new. It is not something that has always been around. And I notice a lot of the same people who argue for a new level of privacy attacking the fundamental rights afforded by the constitution in the second amendment with arguments for gun control.

 

[diddl14]

Politicians should first vote for politicians no longer being allowed to use any kind of encryption on all their personal and non-personal devices and leaving a backdoor open for law enforcement and criminal use.

Ps: why is this posed on the Mac page and not on iOS?