info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
"Progressive" black California democrat lawmaker wants to ban phone encryption in 2017
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Nomen Nescio
Jan 22, 2016, 5:51:18 PM1/22/16
to
The bill would put every Californian's digital security at risk
to prosecute a few pimps.
http://www.engadget.com/2016/01/21/california-lawmaker-wants-to-
ban-phone-encryption-in-2017/
http://o.aolcdn.com/hss/storage/midas/883c8e8e479c86904d867a63dc
305962/203296030/Screen+Shot+2016-01-21+at+1.22.04+PM.png
California lawmaker, State Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Elk Grove), has
introduced a bill that would effectively ban the sale of mobile
devices that have encryption on by default beginning in 2017.
The bill, AB 1681, demands that any phone sold after January 1,
2017 be "capable of being decrypted and unlocked by its
manufacturer or its operating system provider." Should this bill
become law, manufacturers found in violation would be subject to
fines of $2,500 per phone.
Cooper's reasoning puts a novel spin on the same, tired "The
police can't do their jobs unless tech companies do it for them"
argument. This time, he used human trafficking as the boogeyman
that needs defeating and which can only be accomplished if the
government has unfettered, disk-level access to its citizens'
cell phones.
"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 ArsTechnica. "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." Apparently human trafficking also trumps the 4th
Amendment as well.
Comments:
BoBoDev34 minutes ago
Score one for liberal state making "liberal" decisions.
00ReplyFlag
BiAryabout 8 hours ago
The legal system is broken, and this is a proof...
You do know that Law Enforcement are notorious for spinning
facts to fit any theory they have, now imagine if they can
cherry pick personal data ?!!
Now they can pretty much accuse anyone of anything...i guarantee
you that i can find something incriminating in ANYONE'S data...i
am even willing to take a bet on it..anyone?
+50ReplyFlag
JerzeyLegendabout 8 hours ago
I understand the frustration here, but I think everyone is kind
of over-reacting. It says the ban will be on phones which have
encryption on by default. It is not asking to remove encryption
all together. Although it says it requires phones to be able to
be decrypted.
So once you purchase your phone, simply enable encryption. I
think they are hoping that they'd catch the idiots who would not
enable it.
However, all this is going to be irrelevant as this will simply
create a larger atmosphere for 3rd party encryption. Also I
don't think many corporations would appreciate the police having
access to sensitive data that will be on many people's work
phones.
0-2ReplyFlag
utilitybeltabout 14 hours ago
This guy can go to hell. Fund the police so they can afford a
cryptographer if access to private data is that important.
+50ReplyFlag
dragonherderabout 15 hours ago
This isn't really about trumping 4th amendment rights. You have
the right to privacy, but that only extends so far. During a
criminal investigation your right to privacy is diminished by
federal law (which has been in place forever) and warrants are
issued, they can search anything they get a warrant for and if
your phone happens to be something that is used in you illegal
activities and they have a high enough belief that it does and
are able to convince a judge of this you get a search warrant
based around law that trumps the fourth amendment in these
specific cases...
This isn't blanket "ohh we wan't to spy on everyone" stuff...
0-5ReplyFlag
batukhanabout 11 hours ago
Yes but this is about technical security. You either do the
encryption right and have only one key do the decryption, or you
implement a backdoor and in 2018 there will be a data breach and
20 million people have their phones hacked.
+20
to prosecute a few pimps.
http://www.engadget.com/2016/01/21/california-lawmaker-wants-to-
ban-phone-encryption-in-2017/
http://o.aolcdn.com/hss/storage/midas/883c8e8e479c86904d867a63dc
305962/203296030/Screen+Shot+2016-01-21+at+1.22.04+PM.png
California lawmaker, State Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Elk Grove), has
introduced a bill that would effectively ban the sale of mobile
devices that have encryption on by default beginning in 2017.
The bill, AB 1681, demands that any phone sold after January 1,
2017 be "capable of being decrypted and unlocked by its
manufacturer or its operating system provider." Should this bill
become law, manufacturers found in violation would be subject to
fines of $2,500 per phone.
Cooper's reasoning puts a novel spin on the same, tired "The
police can't do their jobs unless tech companies do it for them"
argument. This time, he used human trafficking as the boogeyman
that needs defeating and which can only be accomplished if the
government has unfettered, disk-level access to its citizens'
cell phones.
"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 ArsTechnica. "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." Apparently human trafficking also trumps the 4th
Amendment as well.
Comments:
BoBoDev34 minutes ago
Score one for liberal state making "liberal" decisions.
00ReplyFlag
BiAryabout 8 hours ago
The legal system is broken, and this is a proof...
You do know that Law Enforcement are notorious for spinning
facts to fit any theory they have, now imagine if they can
cherry pick personal data ?!!
Now they can pretty much accuse anyone of anything...i guarantee
you that i can find something incriminating in ANYONE'S data...i
am even willing to take a bet on it..anyone?
+50ReplyFlag
JerzeyLegendabout 8 hours ago
I understand the frustration here, but I think everyone is kind
of over-reacting. It says the ban will be on phones which have
encryption on by default. It is not asking to remove encryption
all together. Although it says it requires phones to be able to
be decrypted.
So once you purchase your phone, simply enable encryption. I
think they are hoping that they'd catch the idiots who would not
enable it.
However, all this is going to be irrelevant as this will simply
create a larger atmosphere for 3rd party encryption. Also I
don't think many corporations would appreciate the police having
access to sensitive data that will be on many people's work
phones.
0-2ReplyFlag
utilitybeltabout 14 hours ago
This guy can go to hell. Fund the police so they can afford a
cryptographer if access to private data is that important.
+50ReplyFlag
dragonherderabout 15 hours ago
This isn't really about trumping 4th amendment rights. You have
the right to privacy, but that only extends so far. During a
criminal investigation your right to privacy is diminished by
federal law (which has been in place forever) and warrants are
issued, they can search anything they get a warrant for and if
your phone happens to be something that is used in you illegal
activities and they have a high enough belief that it does and
are able to convince a judge of this you get a search warrant
based around law that trumps the fourth amendment in these
specific cases...
This isn't blanket "ohh we wan't to spy on everyone" stuff...
0-5ReplyFlag
batukhanabout 11 hours ago
Yes but this is about technical security. You either do the
encryption right and have only one key do the decryption, or you
implement a backdoor and in 2018 there will be a data breach and
20 million people have their phones hacked.
+20
Wayne
Jan 22, 2016, 10:13:47 PM1/22/16
to
"Nomen Nescio" wrote in message
news:6b9294c39655df58...@dizum.com...
>The bill would put every Californian's digital security at risk
>to prosecute a few pimps.
>http://www.engadget.com/2016/01/21/california-lawmaker-wants-to-
>ban-phone-encryption-in-2017/
>http://o.aolcdn.com/hss/storage/midas/883c8e8e479c86904d867a63dc
>305962/203296030/Screen+Shot+2016-01-21+at+1.22.04+PM.png
>California lawmaker, State Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Elk Grove), has
>introduced a bill that would effectively ban the sale of mobile
>devices that have encryption on by default beginning in 2017.
>The bill, AB 1681, demands that any phone sold after January 1,
>2017 be "capable of being decrypted and unlocked by its
>manufacturer or its operating system provider."
over with too much movement of people?
Joe Dixon
Jan 23, 2016, 12:49:44 PM1/23/16
to
bookoflife.org
Jan 23, 2016, 3:12:03 PM1/23/16
to
On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 2:51:18 PM UTC-8, Nomen Nescio wrote:
we can eliminate usenet google group trolls too. they been here for 15 years hiding behind encrypted hate speech.
we can eliminate usenet google group trolls too. they been here for 15 years hiding behind encrypted hate speech.
Governor Swill
Jan 24, 2016, 12:01:59 AM1/24/16
to
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 19:11:08 -0800, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
wrote:
No.
"Claim: During a House committee meeting, Rep. Hank Johnson said he
feared that stationing 8,000 Marines on Guam would cause the island to
"become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize."
TRUE"
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/guamtip.asp
Swill
--
Beam Me Up Scotty has been exposed as a
never ending stream of contradictions
wrote:
"Claim: During a House committee meeting, Rep. Hank Johnson said he
feared that stationing 8,000 Marines on Guam would cause the island to
"become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize."
TRUE"
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/guamtip.asp
Swill
--
Beam Me Up Scotty has been exposed as a
never ending stream of contradictions
Anonymous
Jan 24, 2016, 1:34:35 AM1/24/16
to
Wayne
Jan 24, 2016, 11:47:36 AM1/24/16
to
"Anonymous" wrote in message
news:69a0390dd24095c6...@hoi-polloi.org...
Yes indeed. I know it wasn't Cooper who made the Guam comment, but it is a
typically stupid democrat comment similar to the lunatic rantings of Rep.
Sheila Jackson Lee.
Governor Swill
Jan 25, 2016, 1:49:01 PM1/25/16
to
on hubris, ignorance or stupidity. Rep Johnson appears to be guilty
of at least two of those.
I'm reminded of Sen Stevens who once described the Internet as a
"series of tubes". *sigh*
Governor Swill
Jan 25, 2016, 1:52:29 PM1/25/16
to
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 08:45:10 -0800, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
wrote:
>Yes indeed. I know it wasn't Cooper who made the Guam comment, but it is a
>typically stupid democrat comment similar to the lunatic rantings of Rep.
>Sheila Jackson Lee.
Or Kay Bailey Hutchison who, when Clinton was President said,
"Willful, corrupt, and false sworn testimony before a Federal grand
jury is a separate and distinct crime under applicable law and is
material and perjurious if it is `capable' of influencing the grand
jury in any matter before it, including any collateral matters that it
may consider. See, Title 18, Section 1623, U.S. Code, and Federal
court cases interpreting that Section. The President's testimony
before the Federal grand jury was fully capable of influencing the
grand jury's investigation and was clearly perjurious."
But when Bush was President, said, "I certainly hope that if there is
going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an
indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they
couldn't indict on the crime so they go to something just to show that
their two years of investigation were not a waste of time and
dollars."
wrote:
>Yes indeed. I know it wasn't Cooper who made the Guam comment, but it is a
>typically stupid democrat comment similar to the lunatic rantings of Rep.
>Sheila Jackson Lee.
"Willful, corrupt, and false sworn testimony before a Federal grand
jury is a separate and distinct crime under applicable law and is
material and perjurious if it is `capable' of influencing the grand
jury in any matter before it, including any collateral matters that it
may consider. See, Title 18, Section 1623, U.S. Code, and Federal
court cases interpreting that Section. The President's testimony
before the Federal grand jury was fully capable of influencing the
grand jury's investigation and was clearly perjurious."
But when Bush was President, said, "I certainly hope that if there is
going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an
indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they
couldn't indict on the crime so they go to something just to show that
their two years of investigation were not a waste of time and
dollars."
0 new messages