
AB-1681: Any smartphone manufactured and sold in CA is to have a backdoor - wfunction
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1681
======
dang
Bills are proposed all the time; most die. Moreover the hot-button ones are
usually more about garden-variety politics than anything that makes it into
legislation.

Absent some indication that there's more of substance here, such stories fall
under the kind of politics that's off topic for HN.

------
pravda
It's ok, this is just to protect our children. Without this law, our children
will be trafficked as sex slaves.

Thank god someone is thinking of the children!

------
blisterpeanuts
So this is how the California legislature spends its time? With all the real
problems they have to grapple with, someone thinks up this, ostensibly to stop
child trafficking.

 _"...$2500 per phone fine...if the seller or lessor manufacturer or operating
system provider of the smartphone knew at the time of the sale or lease that
the smartphone was not capable of being decrypted and unlocked by the
manufacturer or operating system provider._

This reads like something a randomly selected middle school dropout might
think up. It's so poorly thought out as to be laughable. In fact I thought it
was a satire, except that the URL looks legitimate.

The easy workaround: manufacture exactly one phone per year that is capable of
being decrypted and unlocked. Randomize it so that the manufacturer and
distributor have no idea which phone. Thus, you will not "know at the time of
the sale" whether it's capable of being decrypted. Thus, you're compliant with
the law.

I wonder how exactly they plan to enforce this one: _" A seller or lessor
manufacturer or operating system provider who pays a civil penalty imposed
pursuant to this subdivision shall not pass on any portion of that penalty to
purchasers of smartphones by raising the sales or lease price of
smartphones."_

So, how will the state bureaucracy in charge of this thing know exactly why a
company raises its prices? If this act is passed, manufacturers and sellers
will raise prices immediately, in anticipation of impending and unavoidable
fines.

One might also ask: suppose they actually manage to pass this thing, destroy
the smartphone industry in California, and child trafficking continues
unabated? Oops.

~~~
mcphage
Or have the encryption turn on a day after the phone is purchased...

------
jacobolus
This is a bill which was proposed in January. As far as I can tell it doesn’t
have any significant support. I would be very surprised if it passed.

The link here shows the amended version of the bill from 2 weeks ago, modified
to target the “manufacturer or operating system provider” instead of the
“seller or lessor”. But most of the news and advocacy from January (from EFF,
etc.) should still be relevant.

------
r00fus
Bill Status - 03/09/16: Re-referred to Com. on P. & C.P.

So it's been referred to committee - but I can't seem to find which one (this
link: [http://assembly.ca.gov/glossary](http://assembly.ca.gov/glossary) ) has
B, P & CP as "B,P, & C, P: Committee on Business, Professions, & Consumer
Protection" but not sure that's the one.

Also of note: Jim Cooper is representing Elk Grove, where a certain CA
smartphone giant employs thousands. Is he just trolling for corporate
contributions?

------
budu3
Arstechnica gives some background on this bill. [http://arstechnica.com/tech-
policy/2016/01/yet-another-bill-...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-
policy/2016/01/yet-another-bill-seeks-to-weaken-encryption-by-default-on-
smartphones/)

------
captainmuon
Wait, do I understand correctly, if this passes: If a company manufactures a
smartphone anywhere else in the world, with no intent to sell it in CA, and
someone else then sells this phone in CA, then the _manufacturer_ is liable
and not the seller? (Section 2, c), d))

Can they even do that? That seems extremely overreaching to me.

On the other hand, this interpretation kills the first loophole that came to
mind. If the crime would be selling, not manufacturing, then "just" stop
selling smartphones to stores and individuals in California (the black market
would ensure that some would still come in). Or, even just imply that you
would stop selling in CA in case such a bill passes - no lawmaker would risk
setting their state back to the digital stone age and angering voters because
smartphones suddenly become expensive contraband.

~~~
blisterpeanuts
Presumably the workaround would be to "send us a donation, and we'll gift you
a smartphone!" Therefore, no sales transaction would occur.

Or they could just rebrand smartphones as electronic doorstops. They just
happen to do everything a phone can do.

~~~
dogma1138
I don't think for-profit organizations can accept donations.

The transaction can then be proved in court because there was a direct
exchange of assets between 2 or more parties.

------
bbarn
Well, terrorism didn't work to scare it into effect, so let's try child porn?

The sad fact is the government just doesn't want people to have privacy.
Privacy is the biggest threat to establishments.

------
Artemis2
> would subject a manufacturer or operating system provider that knowingly
> failed to comply with that requirement to a civil penalty of $2,500 for each
> smartphone sold or leased

And Apple just two days ago announced they have 1 billion of active iOS
devices!

------
ishtu
Honest question here: I thought US citizen could talk to his representative
and discuss with him that he (citizen) concerned with that kind of bill. Isn't
how democracy works in US?

------
retbull
I have a feeling that there will be quite a bit of movement out of CA in the
mobile market if this ends up being enforced. Hopefully someone takes it to
court and gets it struck down.

------
task_queue
Same twenty year old arguments against the defeated Clipper chip legislation
apply to this and practically any backdoor proposal that can be brought to the
floor.

------
627467
So... What smartphone is actually _manufactured_ in CA?

~~~
emeraldd
That's probably what all the clauses about leasing in CA are for.

------
mmanfrin
Shame on Sacramento for electing someone like Jim Cooper.

~~~
greensoap
To be fair, Sacramento didn't elect him. His District is just south of
Sacramento. [http://asmdc.org/members/a09/district/9th-district-
map](http://asmdc.org/members/a09/district/9th-district-map)

------
snowpanda
I wonder how this applies to companies like NewEgg that are based in
California. When one orders online, isn't it by law sold in California?

------
rm_-rf_slash
There's no way this would ever pass. There must be an ulterior motive. Or even
scarier, California legislators _are just that dumb._

------
Apreche
Just stop selling phones in CA. See what happens.

------
lawnchair_larry
Classifying smartphones as weapons, lovely.

