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

[itguy06]

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.

There is already precedent. See California Emissions for an example of one state forcing a unique product on manufacturers.

 

[alexgowers]

They could ask the suspect to unlock their phone or surrender passwords, or be charged with obstruction of justice.

You have the right to remain silent. Data is as private as thoughts in your head IMHO.

Normal lawful citizens are expected to suffer stupid laws like this? I don't think so, criminals will just use alternatives, it won't stop the problem. This law is not the solution, i don't understand how the law makers can be so stupid. Sounds like a money making operation to extract funds from apple.

Apple will never let backdoors be put in, NY can make any laws they want. the phones are sold worldwide.

It'll be impossible for NY to enforce or fine a company with such deep pockets and impossible to regulate the phones with no borders. criminals will actively buy phones and most normal will have to jump hoops and use insecure phone.

 

[Amazing Iceman]

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.

Can they force you to push the numbers of your PIN?

 

[yaboyac29]

You have just shown your naivety of our laws. Usconstitution.net, or the Constitution app in the App Store. Get it and read up on our 2nd amendment. Then revisit the thread.

BL.

You don't know the definition of amendment.

 

[blackcrayon]

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!

Can you be legally compelled to use your fingerprint before the time limit runs out and the phone requires a passcode? (Or the phone battery dies, or the phone is rebooted by you, or you use the 'wrong finger' a few times).
[doublepost=1452782747][/doublepost]

Never stopped liberal politicians in the past and won't end here either. Amazing really.

You think opposition to encryption is a "liberal" thing? Think again. Politicians from all "teams" have suggested it should be circumventable. Don't be a goof and fall into a political Bengals vs. Steelers trap with this.

 

[2010mini]

And if It passes and Apple decides to protest by shuttering all business/services in New York State, then what? I could see NYC mayor loosing his **** because of the huge loss of revenue Apple brings. Along with constituents paying the pols back by voting them out the next go around.

 

[GeneralChang]

You know, if this passes, I don't think it would be outside the realm of possibility for Apple to stop selling mobile devices in the state.
[doublepost=1452784163][/doublepost]

Can you be legally compelled to use your fingerprint before the time limit runs out and the phone requires a passcode? (Or the phone battery dies, or the phone is rebooted by you, or you use the 'wrong finger' a few times).

That was always what I thought about this. I'll just flub the fingerprint five times and then it'll require my passcode, which they cannot legally require.

Though it'd be even better if Apple does implement that 'panic finger' thing that was in the news a few weeks back, because that's supposed to lock the phone down AND call law enforcement. So I'd just use that one, to heap a little insult on whoever was demanding I unlock my phone.

 

[oneMadRssn]

Apple could in theory just sell special NY-edition iphones and ipads in NY that allow Apple to decrypt everything, and sell iphones elsewhere that aren't so. Suddenly the NY iphones would become a whole lot less desirable and electronics retailers in NY would suffer, but Apple itself probably wouldn't lose much sales.

 

[Glassed Silver]

Assemblyman Matthew Titone needs to go **** himself. I hate arrogant, corrupt ***** politicians like him. They are destroying our country. You want to get into a criminal's encrypted phone? Waterboard the ****er, I don't care. But don't punish the rest of us for what criminals do. That makes you a moron.

Because a suspect = a criminal?
I don't know why you'd like to see the possibility of getting waterboarded.

Very questionable ideals.
On one hand agreeing that privacy is a must and on the other hand you act like police is SOL without access and people basically speaking out against themselves, which they don't have to do for very good reasons.

Well, at least you speak in clear words unlike most anti-democratic people who try to sugarcoat every word and make up insane excuses.

Sadly, I have to agree with you. Would be amazing to see though... if they flat stopped selling them in NY. And i would bet that sales would not be impacted that much.... because the people that buy them would just cross a border and buy one elsewhere.

I'm sure NJ would love to get the big piece of the cake that NY iOS device sales taxes are.

I hope they'd just stop selling there and incentivize NYers to shop across the state boarder.

Heck, I'm sure that even Apple Stores would continue to sell them, albeit legally just delivering whilst they run you through a process where you actually buy from Apple's Online Store based in which ever state.
I'm sure they'll find a way.

Glassed Silver:ios

 

[zioxide]

Police were able to investigate crimes just fine before smart phones existed anyways. If they somehow claim now that they can't, they are just lazy or incompetent and should be flipping burgers.

Learn to use other sources of evidence. The security of my personal data is more important.

 

[thewap]

There is already precedent. See California Emissions for an example of one state forcing a unique product on manufacturers.

There is also the *safeact* NYS gun law precedent that Cuomo passed illegally. Think you will be able to order iphones from another state if this passes? NYS SC found it *constitutional* to forbid online sales of ammo from out of state.. It is illegal to mail order out of state ammo.. Then there is the registration of firearms required which NYS cannot even afford that is non-existent..and newspapers also published gun owners addresses with location maps! (how's that for *safe*)

Then there is Obamacare, where govt can force use of a product service - insurance companies.

But hey..the 2nd amendment and pro corporate lobby laws doesn't matter to modern liberals so now NYS will apply the same precedent to anything they want to violate your 1rsdt, 2nd, 4th, 5th amendment rights..

 

[bluespark]

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.

Absolutely -- this is a clear-cut Dormant Commerce Clause issue (well, as clear-cut as anything involving the DCC is). These issues are actively being considered on the federal level, so New York would be powerless to burden interstate commerce in this manner. It may try, of course, in which case Apple and others would be in federal court the next day. The broader issues regarding encryption are continuing to play out in the U.S. and elsewhere, but no one needs to be particularly concerned about New York imposing this.

 

[Thunderhawks]

Police were able to investigate crimes just fine before smart phones existed anyways. If they somehow claim now that they can't, they are just lazy or incompetent and should be flipping burgers at Dunkin'Donuts

Fixed that for you.

Excellent point! It is always funny to see how people/companies/government/police etc. who got through their entire lives without a certain product or feature all of a sudden cannot do without.

 

[npmacuser5]

I happily forfeit whatever lack of safety comes from not living in some horrible surveillance state. Yeah freedom comes with a risk - that's fine.

I agree, but reality says define risk. When society feels threatened then the definition of acceptable risks changes. Not always for the good. History shows us that society at high risk will do many things we object to when at low risk. WWII the US moved all Japanese to camps away from the West Coast and so did Britain move Germans and Italians inland and to camps. Spying on their citizens was allowed during the WWII. I am not surprised that the government who tasks it is to protect us and our assets would ask for additional powers. Hopefully today we have learned from history and will not resort to as you say "some horrible surveillance state".

 

[scapegoat81]

If you have got nothing to hide, you have got nothing to fear.

/s

There's so much wrong with this theory

 

[heehee]

There's so much wrong with this theory

/s is for sarcasm

 

[JM]

It would be cool to have a finger saved that would immediately lock the phone requiring the passcode for such a situation

Which finger should be used? Hmmmmmmmmm.....
[doublepost=1452786958][/doublepost]

This will not fly. This forces Apple and iPhone owners to give up their 2nd Amendment rights.

Will not happen.

BL.

Eh?? Check your constitution. Haha

 

[SirYossi]

I would encourage anyone living in NY to send a note to the local Assemblyman and express your concerns here is the link to the members of the NY Assembly
http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/
I sent my local rep a message on concern. Since this i bill sponsored by a Democrate in a Republican controlled Assembly there is some hope this will not pass.

 

[zioxide]

I agree, but reality says define risk. When society feels threatened then the definition of acceptable risks changes. Not always for the good. History shows us that society at high risk will do many things we object to when at low risk. WWII the US moved all Japanese to camps away from the West Coast and so did Britain move Germans and Italians inland and to camps. Spying on their citizens was allowed during the WWII. I am not surprised that the government who tasks it is to protect us and our assets would ask for additional powers. Hopefully today we have learned from history and will not resort to as you say "some horrible surveillance state".

The problem is that a built-in security flaw (I refuse to call it a "backdoor" because it is nothing more than a security vulnerability) doesn't just open the device up to government spying. It makes your data vulnerable to everyone.

Since everyone is posting hypotheticals about bad guys being helped by encryption, here's the opposite scenario:

You lose your phone/it's stolen on the subway, etc. Thief/person who gets a hold of your phone downloads the free iPhone cracker app from the Internet and uses the security flaw in your decide to crack it.

Now, they have access to all your personal data on your phone. Your email, your banking apps, social media, personal photos, work data are now all compromised.

Thief then uses access to your email to change your passwords for various services. They get in to your bank account and drain all the money from it. Then they use that access to open new credit lines in your name. Now your identity has been stolen and you are flat broke.

But that's not it. Thief then decides he's going to have a little fun. He finds those special pictures you took of your wife and posts them online. Now your wife is naked all over the Internet. There's no undoing that.

Then they decide to mess with your social media. They do that and post things that are bad/controversial. They also find IP owned by your employer that you are bound by NDA not to share. They post that too. Your employer gets wind of that and the backlash against it and fires you. Then they sue you for compromising their intellectual property.

Now, you're broke, have a stolen identity, jobless, and your wife has her privacy and dignity stolen forever.


We are NEVER going to be able to prevent all terrorist attacks. Is it worth risking all of the above (and worse) to do something that is not going to have any impact in stopping crime or terrorism? Absolutely not.

 

[macnewbie91]

So this guy is proposing a fine on companies (per device) that aren't able to be decrypted if they're sold after the posted date?

Some words for you, assemblyman -- New York is already the most liberal state in the nation. People have a right to privacy as they paid for and own that PERSONAL piece of property (a.k.a the phone). What did the police do before people had cell phones?

If the device is someone's personal property, the state is violation of our 4th amendment rights, in a way. States are not allowed to take our constitutional rights away, they are only allowed to expand on the constitution rights afforded by the federal government. To be fair though, this article is not descriptive enough in what needs to be done to obtain this particular information other than "law enforcement," which doesn't have the power to issue a warrant--only a judge can do that. A judge is certainly not classified as "law enforcement."

The federal government needs to squash this bill and throw it in the trash.

I hate living in NY... All of the stupid politicians here.

 

[JM]

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.

Wait, it doesn't just apply to guns? Well armed militia? What does that have to do with cellphones?

 

[69Mustang]

There's so much wrong with this theory

/s <-- that means sarcasm btw.

 

[Tinmania]

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.

Except for that pesky 5th Amendment.

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecu...veal-phone-passwords-violates-fifth-amendment

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.

Exactly. In a way your fingerprint is akin to a key--a physical key--and you can be compelled to turn that over. Similarly you can be compelled to turn over a key to a safe. But you cannot be compelled to give the password to a safe, which is in your mind (testimonial evidence). Same for a passcode.



Mike

 

[JM]

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....

Putting those worst case scenarios aside for a moment, the no back door policy pushed by Cook is so that the phone isn't made less secure for hackers to get in. Yeah, it protects privacy as well, but I don't think it's a good idea making technology easier to hack in the rare chance that one of those scenarios above happens. I'm more afraid of hackers than I am of those scenarios above: those bad things happen, but hackers happen more often.

 

[err404]

If this passes, I'd like to Apple sell a special NY Edition iPhone with "Subject to Survalence" in big scarlet letters across the back and preloaded with documentaries about government abuses of power.
This way everybody wins. Politicians can show they support the law with their special edition iPhone and customers can will be informed of the underling issue.
I say this only half joking.