New York looks to outlaw sale of encrypted smartphones

Source: Apple iPhone ban?

Snippet:

A proposed bill in New York doesn't demand backdoors in smartphones but will seek to ban the sale of smartphones whose encryption can't be bypassed by the manufacturer.

Some people must think NY is so important they can get away with this type of BS laws. I hope they are proven wrong.

a reply to: machineintelligence

I think as revenge, all the cell phone operators ought to cut signal to all phones in the entirety of New York, for ten hours, during daylight.

That would shut the lousy fascist bastards who are complaining about citizens having privacy, right the hell up. And about time too.

This is kind of pointless because I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to install a 3rd party encryption app on most phones. I mean you could even manually encrypt the message text yourself if you really wanted to.

Here we go again with all of the governmental knee-jerk reaction to encryption. And of course it doesn't surprise me that NY is leading the charge.

When encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption.

-dex

a reply to: TrueBrit

I think as revenge, all the cell phone operators ought to cut signal to all phones in the entirety of New York, for ten hours, during daylight.

Why would they do that? The operators are obviously cooperating with the government agencies involved in public surveillance. The only way it will work is if the network operators allow them to tap into the network.

I presume then that there is no company in NY building the things? and that everybody has a job.

Leaving keys for a system to a trusted party for emergencies only. That could never go wrong could it?

a reply to: machineintelligence

It would be far more effective to just outlaw phones. Child molesters, drug dealers and terrorists all use them. No wait then people might write notes. Okay so we outlaw phones AND pens. Hmm crayons too. CAn't be too paranoid after all.

In all seriousness, the same argument second amendment types use holds here. If you outlaw encrypted phones, then the only ones using encrypted phones will be the criminals.

a reply to: machineintelligence

That's cute they think it can't be compromised.

IMO I think this is more of a show to increase false sense of security.

originally posted by: heterodox
a reply to: machineintelligence

If you outlaw encrypted phones, then the only ones using encrypted phones will be the criminals.

Sort of...(it's a pity there have been no more responders to this thread, one of the most important ongoing)

The thing is, this where the, "I haven't done anything wrong, therefore I have nothing to worry about" crowd fall into pieces. What is wrong is that this is to give over your privacy to those who would desire absolute power over you absolutely. That's something I would not willingly give to anyone not even the Pope, or the fork and knife for that matter, and no matter what they say, they want 100% surveillance, for 100% of the populace, and they are getting desperate..

Again Teds not my first choice

But this is exactly the kind of crap Cruz was talking about coming out of the politicians and gov in New York, last night during the debates

What interface do these phones use to unlock them for use?

I would think that the easiest way to attack the encryption on these devices is through the user interface. If the authentication mechanism isn't too sophisticated, a dictionary attack could be successful. Once the device login is compromised, all of the data should be accessible.

-dex

Not surprising at all, now that people are aware of stingrays other tracking technology they can just add a layer or encryption on top of the intercepted signal to maintain privacy.

IMSI catchers are portable surveillance tools used for spying on thousands of phones in a targeted area, tracking their location and even intercepting calls, messages, and data. They are supposed to help identify serious criminals, but cannot operate without monitoring innocent people too.

UK police have IMSI catchers, but they refuse to tell the public how and when they are used. This has privacy campaigners worried. And, even if the state is using them sparingly, what if criminals also have access to the technology?

This in addition to the "free wifi" being deployed. They will now have the ability to track phones, but location data is not enough. "They" want to be able to parse everything being sent to monitor "terror threats" and maintain order.



I don't see how wall street would allow this as it makes stealing information from their own firms a much more simple operation.

Wild stuff.

-FBB

a reply to: machineintelligence

Mark my words,

New York will become a federal district starting from Manhattan and growing as far as people will let it over time.

Then a global crisis makes the UN provisions expand by request of the federal government to allow for permanent presence of nation-less troops based in a large federally protected area with strategic access to the entire northern hemisphere.

I am of course speaking aloud, I am full of it.

The truth is probably stranger though.

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli

I don't see how wall street would allow this as it makes stealing information from their own firms a much more simple operation.

Wild stuff.

-FBB

Exactly, there are criminals in every organisation, not just banks, we know there are rogue police at any level, we know there are rogue intelligence agents at any level and of course criminals, and all these guys have the same mentality, that being you only live once...make the best of it, especially if you are in a privileged position.
Not only do we need to protect ourselves from our info being uploaded to GPS etc; we now have the drones to put up with and it's not a hard guess to say they are not just tootling about having a gander, they will be part of the system too, with all the trumphery that goes with it.