http://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-iphon...ones-sale/

Quote: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.

I could see the Feds putting a stop to this due to the implications on interstate commerce and international trade agreements.

(01-22-2016 09:23 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  I could see the Feds putting a stop to this due to the implications on interstate commerce and international trade agreements.

You think the feds would put a stop to this? Hell I think they would try to force it on other states.

This is no different than Gun control. "who really needs a phone that a government agency cant decrypt?" It's for the public good...

Is this in direct response to the recent San Bernardino attacks?

(01-22-2016 11:42 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Is this in direct response to the recent San Bernardino attacks?

Well NY has almost the exact same language in a bill they put up so it's probably not a "direct" response.

It's probably a response to encrypted phones getting good enough to fluster most every attempt to decrypt that the govt throws at them.

The Feds just popped a boner reading this legislation.

(01-22-2016 11:48 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-22-2016 11:42 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Is this in direct response to the recent San Bernardino attacks?

Well NY has almost the exact same language in a bill they put up so it's probably not a "direct" response.

It's probably a response to encrypted phones getting good enough to fluster most every attempt to decrypt that the govt throws at them.

Do you really think the government wants to listen to it's citizens conversations?

What happened to the notion that as long as you didn't break the law, you had nothing to worry about?

(01-22-2016 11:54 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-22-2016 11:48 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-22-2016 11:42 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Is this in direct response to the recent San Bernardino attacks?

Well NY has almost the exact same language in a bill they put up so it's probably not a "direct" response.

It's probably a response to encrypted phones getting good enough to fluster most every attempt to decrypt that the govt throws at them.

Do you really think the government wants to listen to it's citizens conversations?

They did not add 4th amendment to the Bill of rights just to get to an even 10. The founders understood that the government wants free reign to shuffle through peoples lives *should they be so inclined for a particular citizen*

I think the government want's the ability to go through anyone's phone. And phones today is not simple "listen in to calls". It's data, often access to other digital data you have on other platforms, it's a lot of peoples live.

Quote:What happened to the notion that as long as you didn't break the law, you had nothing to worry about?

That has become a more "progressive" approach to chipping away at the bill of rights..