Lee, Thank, hopefully you are correct. I had heard a reporter on TV discussing a bill to be introduced which would criminalize the encryption of our devices, however being we are in an election year it most likely would not make it to the floor for discussion…but the bait has now been cast..it’s a matter of time as the article below describes as the attack isn’t against our privacy rather Human Trafficking….the deployment of a socially sounding warm blanket hides the true cost as the article point out…there is SO much at stake here for believe me, our government won’t be the only government with the abilities to get our info…heavens, they can’t keep the hackers from their systems as it is….only Apple can do that.
LAW & DISORDER / CIVILIZATION & DISCONTENTS <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/> Yet another bill seeks to weaken encryption-by-default on smartphones Asm. Jim Cooper: "Human trafficking trumps privacy, no ifs, ands, or buts about it." by Cyrus Farivar <http://arstechnica.com/author/cyrus-farivar/> - Jan 21, 2016 5:00am EST 120 <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/yet-another-bill-seeks-to-weaken-encryption-by-default-on-smartphones/?comments=1> BILL AIMS TO THWART STRONG CRYPTO, DEMANDS SMARTPHONE MAKERS BE ABLE TO DECRYPT <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/bill-aims-to-thwart-strong-crypto-demands-smartphone-makers-be-able-to-decrypt/> NY assemblyman: "Terrorists will use these encrypted devices" to plan attacks. A second state lawmaker has now introduced <https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2695490-CA-Assembly-Bill-1681.html> a bill that would prohibit the sale of smartphones with unbreakable encryption. Except this time, despite very similar language to a pending New York bill <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/bill-aims-to-thwart-strong-crypto-demands-smartphone-makers-be-able-to-decrypt/>, the stated rationale is to fight human trafficking, rather than terrorism. Specifically, California Assemblymember Jim Cooper <http://asmdc.org/members/a09/>’s (D-Elk Grove) new bill, which was introduced Wednesday, would "require a smartphone that is manufactured on or after January 1, 2017, and sold in California, to be capable of being decrypted and unlocked by its manufacturer or its operating system provider." If the bill passes both the Assembly and State Senate and is signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown (D), it would affect modern iOS and Android devices, which enable full-disk encryption that neither Apple nor Google can access. AB 1681’s language is nearly identical to another bill re-introduced <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/bill-aims-to-thwart-strong-crypto-demands-smartphone-makers-be-able-to-decrypt/> in New York state earlier this month, but Cooper denied that it was based on any model legislation, saying simply that it was researched by his staff. He also noted that the sale of his own iPhone would be made illegal in California under this bill. Cooper himself, a 30 year veteran with the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department <http://asmdc.org/members/a09/about/biography>, told Ars that allowing local law enforcement to access unencrypted phones through the warrant process was not the same thing as allowing the National Security Agency or the CIA free rein. He also noted that "99 percent" of Californians would never have their phones be implicated in a law enforcement operation, implying that they should not have to worry. The lawmaker also re-iterated many of the talking points that he said at a press conference <https://vimeo.com/152504630> earlier in the day, with various law enforcement officials and anti-human trafficking advocates at his side. The press conference, which Ars did not find out about until after it had concluded, portrayed the issue as a question of "human trafficking evidentiary access"—scarcely even using the word encryption. Impractical and possibly illegal <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/irate-congressman-gives-cops-easy-rule-just-follow-the-damn-constitution/> IRATE CONGRESSMAN GIVES COPS EASY RULE: “JUST FOLLOW THE DAMN CONSTITUTION” <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/irate-congressman-gives-cops-easy-rule-just-follow-the-damn-constitution/> Rep. Ted Lieu lambasts gov't request for more access to encrypted devices. Two privacy lawyers that Ars spoke to said the bill has two major problems as currently written. "Human trafficking is obviously a major social issue that we need to address," Gautam Hans <https://cdt.org/staff/g-s-hans/>, an attorney with the Center for Democracy and Technology, told Ars by e-mail. "However, I don't think this is the best way to solve that issue. Weakening encryption will do a great deal of harm to the security of the Internet, and it's not clear that it helps with the law enforcement goals. Encryption proposals that include backdoors are fundamentally insecure and would create vulnerabilities that unauthorized actors could exploit." Similarly, Andrew Crocker <https://www.eff.org/about/staff/andrew-crocker>, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told Ars that the bill had "glaring problems" and that it was "entirely infeasible from a technical perspective." "There is no way to ensure that phones can be decrypted by the police and not the ‘bad guys,’" he e-mailed Ars. "Just as in New York, this California lawmaker misses the point that it's not about privacy but security—the security of innocent people's devices against hackers, thieves and others. It could well be unconstitutional under the First Amendment as well." "As for the protect the children argument, I am sympathetic, but there are always limits on law enforcement's power to investigate crime," he added. "No matter how terrible the crime, we don't allow the police to disregard other important values like privacy and security, and this is a law that would make us all less secure. Meanwhile the police have access to lots of other tools to get at this evidence, from hacking or brute forcing the device to getting cloud backups to forcing the owner to unlock the phone. Moreover the sophisticated bad guys will resort to third-party tools to cover their tracks." Both lawyers speculated that the bill would also likely be illegal under the Dormant Commerce Clause <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dormant_Commerce_Clause>, the federal legal doctrine that forbids states from imposing undue burdens on interstate commerce. “Technologically stupid” APPLE EXPANDS DATA ENCRYPTION UNDER IOS 8, MAKING HANDOVER TO COPS MOOT <http://arstechnica.com/apple/2014/09/apple-expands-data-encryption-under-ios-8-making-handover-to-cops-moot/> "Apple cannot bypass your passcode and therefore cannot access this data." As of press time, neither Cooper nor his staff had provided any evidence that there has been a large number of cases, much less any cases in his district or statewide, that were unable to be prosecuted due to an encrypted smartphone. In July 2015, Wired <http://www.wired.com/2015/07/manhattan-da-iphone-crypto-foiled-cops-74-times> reported that in Manhattan, District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. said that there were just 74 out of a total of 10,000 cases local prosecutors handle annually that involved unlockable phones. Vance did not say whether such cases were not prosecuted at all. Neither Google nor Apple immediately responded to Ars’ request for comment, but Apple’s position has been made very clear by its CEO, Tim Cook. In September 2014, Apple took a new strong pro-encryption stance, saying that under iOS 8 (and later) devices <http://arstechnica.com/apple/2014/09/apple-expands-data-encryption-under-ios-8-making-handover-to-cops-moot/> it was unable to access customer data. Currently, Apple is also fighting a federal government demand <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/11/feds-explain-sort-of-why-they-really-want-data-on-seized-iphone-5s/> to help unlock a criminal suspect’s iPhone in federal court in New York. At a congressional hearing in April 2015, Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) wholly dismissed <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/irate-congressman-gives-cops-easy-rule-just-follow-the-damn-constitution/> law enforcement’s arguments that they needed new expansive powers to weaken cryptography. Rep. Lieu, a computer science major and a Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Air Force Reserves, said giving the government a backdoor was ludicrous. "It is clear to me that creating a pathway for decryption only for good guys is technologically stupid. You just can't do that," he said at the time. More recently, in July 2015, 15 of the nation’s top cryptographers lambasted attempts to diminish security. As they concluded <https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2695895-MIT-CSAIL-TR-2015-026.html#document/p27/a272598>: Policy-makers need to be clear-eyed in evaluating the likely costs and benefits. It is no surprise that this report has ended with more questions than answers, as the requirements for exceptional access are still vague. If law enforcement wishes to prioritize exceptional access, we suggest that they need to provide evidence to document their requirements and then develop genuine, detailed specifications for what they expect exceptional access mechanisms to do. As computer scientists and security experts, we are committed to remaining engaged in the dialogue with all parts of our governments, to help discern the best path through these complex questions. > On Feb 20, 2016, at 10:31 AM, Lee Larson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 02/20/2016 08:34 AM, John Robinson wrote: >> This will go out to my various groups, & I am now starting a rant with my >> Congressmen & Senator as there is a bill by a Democrat that would make >> Apple's position a Federal Criminal offense punishable by heavy fines & >> prison. > Ted Lieu (D-Cal) and Blake Farenthold (R-Tex) are co-sponsoring House Bill > 4528 > <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/house-bill-would-kill-state-local-bills-that-aim-to-weaken-smartphone-crypto/>, > The Encrypt Act of 2016. It's goal is not to criminalize Apple, but rather > to override poorly-written state laws concerning cell phone encryption. It > was conceived to counter bills in Texas and New York that would have made > encrypted devices without back doors illegal. > > I can't find any bill that's actually been introduced which would criminalize > Apple's actions. Several congress-critters have made noises about introducing > such bills. > > > _______________________________________________ > MacGroup mailing list > Posting address: [email protected] > Archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/> > Answers to questions: <http://erdos.math.louisville.edu/macgroup/>
_______________________________________________ MacGroup mailing list Posting address: [email protected] Archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/> Answers to questions: <http://erdos.math.louisville.edu/macgroup/>
