Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
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?

This is a political issue, which is why it is in PRSI and not anywhere else in the forum.

BL.
 
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]

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.

If you haven't notice yet, whenever is convenient for law enforcement, there's no Fifth Amendment.
Some lawyers do a better job protecting their clients privacy than data encryption could.
 
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.
Well, since they have your fingerprints and with 5 attempts before the device is locked, TouchId is the most simple way for law enforcement to get to your data :)
 
View attachment 610415
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.

I have no problem with the police getting a warrant to hack through someone's personal information. If they have good reason to do so, let 'em go to town.

It's the concept that it should be open and readily available to law enforcement at a moments notice without any court intervention that I take issue with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: scapegoat81
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.
That date came and went already. How is it possible for them to pass a new law and apply it in retrospect? Here in the Netherlands you can't do that. A new law can be passed and go into effect for a future date. But you can't fine companies or people for an act that's illegal today, but wasn't at the time it was committed.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Nermal
Tim Cook goes to Washington to say what Apple buyers / owners want to hear. Pre-programmed to believe their hero Apple, the devotees actually believe every word Apple utters. Just like the progressive liberals believe the Pro Muslim, ISIS isn't a threat, everything's wonderful potus.

But reality is Tim Cook, Apple, et al... aren't about to upset their liberal partners in the White House. Hillary, Golfer Boy, Bubba, they're Masterful Liars with endless influence and a massive war chest of cash. The can get away with anything, anytime, anywhere.

Think not? Think Again.

Oh, so you think you know with certainty what goes on in Tim Cooks's mind? It's you who needs to think again!

I believe he would step down as CEO before he would compromise his personal beliefs but nobody knows for sure until it happens. He'll give Washington (and New York) a few bruises before it comes to that though!
[doublepost=1452760504][/doublepost]
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....

You know you can disable the passcode right? So if you expect any of the above dramatic scenarios to befall you then you can choose not to encrypt. Personally I'd rather retain my privacy.

Then again I'm a bit of a risk taker... I even go outside of my faraday cage sometimes, knowing I might be struck by lightning!

Joking aside, I'm a consultant programmer with 35 years experience in the industry and can assure you that encryption is easily available for criminals whether Apple provide it or not. I can also assure you of the utter havoc which will be caused by malicious hackers if hundreds of millions of Internet connected iPhones have backdoors installed in a future iOS update. ID theft, cyberstalking, remote camera and microphone activation, theft of bank funds etc. My scenario is not speculation because it already happens today on lesser devices.

Are you seriously willing to give up your privacy, property and security every single day on the off chance one of your doomsday scenarios occurs?
 
Don't they know they are only pushing me and others like me TO encryption? If Apple really has no backdoor, then NY's only recourse is to ban Apple products in the state. Can't make Apple do something that technically is not possible. I use FileVault 2, but DO NOT let Apple store my key. I DO NOT keep a copy of my key. My password is in my head.

Also, if/when I get a an iPhone in the future (still have the 5), I will NEVER use the fingerprint reader, as you can be legally compelled to offer your prints, whereas you cannot be compelled to offer a password. I don't use my stuff for anything illegal, but that's nobody's business. I go out of my way now to setup encryption.

Thanks government!

That's an easy fix. Turn off your iPhone. When you turn it back on you have enter your passcode to activate the finger print sensors
 
Apple could (and should) tell them to go screw themselves and take the $2500 bill everytime the police want a device unlocked. It's nothing compared to the huge wealth they have
 
That date came and went already. How is it possible for them to pass a new law and apply it in retrospect? Here in the Netherlands you can't do that. A new law can be passed and go into effect for a future date. But you can't fine companies or people for an act that's illegal today, but wasn't at the time it was committed.

The bill is dated July 2015. I presume that the sponsor thought that it would be enacted before 2016. I think they will likely amend the date before it passes.
 
Personally I'm all for an individual's right to privacy and security. But do the majority of the public (not your general MacRumors forum population) even care?

They seem perfectly happy to plaster almost every detail of their life all over Facebook, Twitter and any other social platforms.
Not to mention allowing Facebook, Google and the likes to skim through their information for the sake of targeted advertising and so on.

When people are more than willing to allow any of that nonsense, I doubt they're caring how secure their phone is.
 
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.
Never stopped liberal politicians in the past and won't end here either. Amazing really.
 
That date came and went already. How is it possible for them to pass a new law and apply it in retrospect? Here in the Netherlands you can't do that. A new law can be passed and go into effect for a future date. But you can't fine companies or people for an act that's illegal today, but wasn't at the time it was committed.
This is what prompted me to look at the comments.
There are a couple of other bits of stupidity like is this going to apply to every single device sold without de-encryption or just those where access was desired and are proven to have been purchased in the affected area?
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....
#2 Can't happen. You're not allowed encryption, so it must be possible to turn off the bomb with a single switch. Or set whatever nuke you fancy to detonate in the same way. "Wargames", anyone?

Plus just about every scenario states that the data is known to exist. That alone implies there is at least one other source.
I don't think suspecting the presence of something for absolutely zero reason (or less) would count as proper cause to enforce usage of a backdoor aside from laziness/nosy/entrapment.
 
If criminals really want to keep secrets they will. Encryption can't be beat..

This bill just sets up a police state.

This could never happen here :)

rtr42cvk.jpg
 
The state should give you the choice:
Should you feel that you can be victimized then you can opt for a backdoor enabled smartphone, but if you want to encrypt your data safely you should be able to do so.
 
Personally I'm all for an individual's right to privacy and security. But do the majority of the public (not your general MacRumors forum population) even care?

They seem perfectly happy to plaster almost every detail of their life all over Facebook, Twitter and any other social platforms.
Not to mention allowing Facebook, Google and the likes to skim through their information for the sake of targeted advertising and so on.

When people are more than willing to allow any of that nonsense, I doubt they're caring how secure their phone is.

Small difference, the social media fans decide what they put out there, NOT politicians or the police!

If this gets any traction in the NY assembly (as in even considering it) it will go all the away to the supreme court, where it will be rejected.

Newsflash to politicians: CRIMINALS will always be at least one step ahead of ANY legislation, because they don't do LEGAL!
 
I will NEVER use the fingerprint reader, as you can be legally compelled to offer your prints, whereas you cannot be compelled to offer a password.

I'm sure you can get your lawyer to stall them for 48 hours. After that time, the phone obliges you to enter your password. The fingerprint reader won't work until you do.
 
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.

That violates the 5th amendment right to not incriminate yourself.

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....

Cry me a river. I'm not giving up my right to privacy and security because of some bull **** hypotheticals.
 
Solutions:
...
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.
...


You might find a prosecutor dumb enough, or arrogant enough, to attempt a prosecution for obstruction of
justice. But the 5th amendment gives everyone the right to refuse to provide self-incriminating information. A conviction would be unlikely, and would almost certainly be thrown out on appeal.

That's why there's a legal difference (in the USA) between a passcode and Touch ID. They can't force you to divulge the passcode. But they CAN force you to stick your finger on the Touch ID pad. If Touch ID unlocks the phone, and they have a warrant to search the phone, they can legally use whatever they find.
 
All this does is removes encryption from the masses so we're all vulnerable to hackers or being used by terrorists themselves to remotely route messages through our devices to their cells in the field, potentially incriminating innocent citizens in the process. Then the terrorists just install encryption on their own devices. It's not super difficult for a technically minded person to do. But the government didn't think of that, did they?

Or worse—they did think of that, this has nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with control. Extremely unsettling and creepy but just as likely IMO. So either our government is extremely dumb and incompetent, or they're conspiring against us to remove our greatest freedom. Either way we need to throw their asses out!

Do not stand for this. Push back against the aggressors! Fight for truth and liberty always—no matter who stands in our way! If it unfortunately comes down to it, I'll gladly lay down my life to ensure my daughter grows up a free woman. Have honor. We shouldn't be scared to stand up against the government any more. To speak our minds in fear of being put on a list or disappeared. To hold fast to the incredible, sacred documents that founded our freedom in this once great nation. Who is with me?

DO NOT TREAD ON US.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PBRsg
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.

Or just wait out the 48 hours it takes for the password to be required again. I am sure if they take your phone from you at the time of arrest it will take at least 48 hours to legally compel you to unlock the phone.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.