Now California state wants to ban sale of encrypted smartphones

ZDnet ^ | January 21, 2016 | By Zack Whittaker

[Swordmaker]

The bill, similar to a New York draft law, would prevent companies like Apple from selling its encryption-enabled iPhone on its own turf.

California: home of the world's biggest technology companies, terrible bagels, and the only place that can suffer both drought and floods at the same time.

Despite the state's deep tech roots, California's legislature is considering banning devices that come with unbreakable encryption.

SECURITY

As New York looks to ban encrypted smartphones, here's what you can do As New York looks to ban encrypted smartphones, here's what you can do

A new website lets New Yorkers vote on if they want legislation to become law.

Read More California assembly member Jim Cooper (D-9th) introduced the legislation -- bill 1681 -- which requires any smartphone manufactured "on or after January 1, 2017, and sold in California after that date" to be "capable of being decrypted and unlocked by its manufacturer or its operating system provider."

Any smartphone that couldn't be decrypted on-demand would subject a seller to a $2,500 fine.

If the bill becomes law, there would be a near-blanket ban on nearly all iPhones and many Android devices across the state.

The irony likely isn't lost on Apple, which if the bill passed into law, would not be allowed to sell in its own backyard -- literally.

Apple has previously said it cannot feasibly bypass a user's iPhone or iPad passcode, making it unable to respond to warrants for data stored on its devices. Google implemented similar encryption for data stored on newer devices, but in most cases it can still be forced to turn over user data.

Apple and Google were not available for comment outside business hours.

[WENDLE]

Just buy one across the border. We don’t want our texts reviewed by the communists and thought police. Go to HADES!!

[Vendome]

But booze, cigarettes, white bread and sugar are okay...

[Secret Agent Man]

You cannot have freedom if you can’t have privacy.

You can’t have freedom if only the governent can hide stuff.

[SeeSharp]

These legislators don’t seem to understand that the device does not do any encryption. The “phone” is just software. It can be replaced after the device is purchased.

[Swordmaker]

California Liberal in the state legislature join New York legislature in introducing a bill to ban all cell phones that can encrypt data that cannot be deciphered by the phone's maker or authorities. This would prevent all iPhones from being sold in California, Apple's home state! Dumb move Damnocrats! -- PING!

Apple under fire from Liberals
who don't like consumer privacy!
Ping!

The latest Apple/Mac/iOS Pings can be found by searching Keyword "ApplePingList" on FreeRepublic's Search.

If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me

[dsrtsage]

Ever wonder why conservatives are called fascists ad nauseum, but it is always liberal states that impose laws like this. And I will guarantee it is totally because they are afraid people will be able to hide revenue from the government

[kingu]

‘We, the political elite, have decided to issue a blanket search warrant in case we ever decide to demand a search warrant. No need to trouble the courts, that pesky part of the constitution which guarantees security of your papers (and data) is as immaterial to us as your right to keep and bear arms.’

[Swordmaker]

These legislators don’t seem to understand that the device does not do any encryption. The “phone” is just software. It can be replaced after the device is purchased.

The fine is levied against the seller of the phone or it's operating system supplier if it cannot be deciphered on demand. Liberals don't give a damn about your privacy.

[DB]

If this is successful, they will later make it a crime to be in possession encrypted data when the encryption is not approved by the state.

[sickoflibs]

Cant they buy them on the internet?

[G Larry]

Why?

When they have direct evidence of pending Islamic Terrorism they don’t act on it ahead of time.

So, what do they need the intel for?

[Hugin]

My guess is this bill goes nowhere. Tech companies give too much money to the Democrats.

[Scrambler Bob]

Read this, bo et.al. :

p3o9vni vi(*re RW 9wqr8 p(8Q8VCB998P 986p9 Qe998^(^(#% 3965B98(* (#8 hBC949878354 (^(*#4 P(349

Is that clear enough????

[CurlyDave]

Amendment 4: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[rktman]

You mean Tijuana or simply NV or OR? LOL! Those bureaucrats are SOOOOOOOOOO smart. Soon you’ll need a license from the state of Cali to have a phone.

[Swordmaker]

What! Are you some kind of radical or what?

We can’t have any of that kind of thinking like that. Where’d you get that insane idea? Why it’s anti-governmental, that’s what it is!

[rey]

I think it is also a freedom of speech issue; there is nothing that says the speech has to be comprehensible.

[rdl6989]

Bump

[zeugma]

-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

jA0EAwMCwwVnLwmT/uVgyUnJfEqbkUGqqu1WLVPwGqde+zld2WzYVTmlvbSCpk/+
sTVZtvHmXG82p/MtC/uosyPJwTLUZlC0QaGBCISbQdpfexb+9iHstFNO
=hbFq
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----