
Proposed New York Law bans encrypted smartphones - ianamartin
http://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-iphone-ban-new-york-looks-to-outlaw-sale-of-encrypted-smartphones/
======
joshka
Let the law go through and watch it have no effect whatsoever.

Perhaps if Apple wanted to make a statement, they could cease selling iPhones
in NY and let the populous let them fix it by protesting to their elected
officials.

If push comes to shove, the bill is pretty poorly written. At the time of
selling the smartphone, the seller sold an unlocked and unencrypted device.
It's only after the user logs into the device that any encryption / locking is
carried out. Every seller can demonstrate that they can turn on and access any
unused phone that they happen to carry. "Here's the default code 0000, go nuts
officer!"

Assuming the above doesn't hold water, we can do another little thought
experiment. I note that Matthew Titon (the bill's sponsor) is a former Lawyer.
My simplistic understanding of the rules of the bar (IANAL) suggest that a
lawyer that used such an unlockable / decryptable phone would be potentially
breaking the rules of the bar when it comes to confidentiality. Hence no-one
in that profession would be advised to buy a new phone in NY State that was
used for work purposes if this bill went through.

Another counterpoint to consider, let's say that China decided to legislate
that no phone could be manufactured in China without an ability for the
Chinese government to unlock / decrypt the device. How willing would US
officials be to use such a phone?

This bill really highlights that people that don't understand technology
shouldn't attempt legislating against it without consultation with actual
professionals.

~~~
delinka
It's not even requisite to understand the technology, but to understand how
people live their lives. People expect a certain amount of privacy. Hell, as
you mention even the _law_ already acknowledges the need for confidentiality.

------
jwise0
Something seems wrong about the dates in this article. The article has a
byline for today, but the bill was proposed in June 2015, and would have an
effective-of date of the first of this year.

nysenate.gov indicates that it's still in committee:
[http://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2015/a8093](http://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2015/a8093)
... hopefully dead there.

edit: from the Ars Technica article, it's been reintroduced -- see:
[http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=A08093&term...](http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=A08093&term=2015&Summary=Y&Actions=Y&Votes=Y&Memo=Y&Text=Y)
. The EFF thinks it'll not get anywhere, though.

~~~
Nrsolis
Here is the sponsor:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Titone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Titone)

------
detaro
As long as only a few locations pass laws like this, it only kills their local
phone shops. Nanning sale locally really is stupid. All it does is remove
protection for those that can't afford to get something from outside the
state, and everyone really interested in encryption (including bad guys) is
only "a bit" inconvenienced.

But it sets a worrying precedent, should it pass...

~~~
NoGravitas
Also, something passing state-wide in a populous state like New York or
California can be regarded as an end-run around the difficulty of passing such
a law nationally. Vendors won't be willing to lose sales in large markets, so
everyone else will get New York-compliant phones. Compare how Texas controls
the market for primary/secondary school textbooks in the US.

------
peterwwillis
The reason this bill is stupid/wrong is that it's based on the government
being able to _secretly_ look in your phone. A judge could always compel you
to open up your iPhone with a warrant; what they want is the ability to do it
without your knowledge. It's the equivalent to the government having a literal
back door into the safe in your house, with their own key.

Fuck. That.

~~~
tootie
That's not really true. For one, there is surprisingly little legal precedent
for forcing someone to give up a password. It's a gray area on the edge of a
5th amendment violation. Secondly, consider the case of finding a dead body
with a locked iPhone in the pocket. That phone is a brick for all eternity.
Thirdly, snooping without someone's knowledge is very frequently supported by
court orders. It's not a violation of due process or privacy.

~~~
peterwwillis
If compelling someone to give up a password is illegal, but secretly breaking
into the thing you needed a password for is not illegal, something is wrong.

~~~
tootie
It's perfectly reasonable. Acquiring things is covered by the 4th amendment.
Forcing information out of someone's head is not.

------
schuyler2d
Petition to stop it: [http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/preserve-privacy-
stop.fb48](http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/preserve-privacy-stop.fb48)

~~~
rtblair
New Yorkers can officially support/oppose this bill using the "aye/nay"
feature on NYSenate.gov:
[http://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2015/a8093](http://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2015/a8093)

------
duskwuff
There are a couple of things very obviously wrong with the text of this bill.
It's not clear that it'd pass a legal review.

The text:
[http://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2015/A8093](http://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2015/A8093)

The most obvious one is that the bill fails to provide any definition of the
key phrase "decrypt and unlock". I'm pretty certain that the bill wants
"unlock" to mean "get past the lockscreen", but an equally common usage of
"unlock" is in reference to phones which a carrier has prevented from being
used with another carrier. It's not clear what the word "decrypt" refers to,
either.

------
venomsnake
Sooo couple of attacks on that - not sure if encryption is considered speech
by the Supreme Court - but if you are able to write in code a paper letter or
journal without mandatory decryption, you should be able to do it with a
device.

Second - unlocked bootloader and cyanogen/AOSP. Or just ship device without
the OS and make user install it later - bonus - no carrier crapware.

------
TrevorJ
There isn't a technical solution in the world that can prevent end users from
writing encrypted text files to their phones using a one time pad. Would all
devices that let you store text become illegal under this law?

------
Zekio
Wat?

~~~
jlgaddis
This is the same state that banned selling sodas over a certain size, IIRC.

~~~
dozy
The Soda Ban is NYC-only, in response to the city's childhood obesity
epidemic. Albany is a long way from the NYC mayor's office, both
geographically and politically ;)

~~~
nsxwolf
So that's why NYC kids are so skinny now.

~~~
andrewpi
The ban got overturned for exceeding the authority of the health department.

------
jlgaddis
Wow, $2500 USD fine.

~~~
drcube
That's "per device". For an $800 iphone, that's equivalent to banning their
sale in NY.

~~~
mhb
Or Apple could offer to pay the fine for an iPhone owner and/or sell fine
insurance. Great PR, uses a little of their cash. How are the phone owners
going to be caught anyway?

~~~
ivl
The fine would be on the sellers, not the buyers.

