NY State Legislator Proposes Ban On Sale Of Encrypted Smartphones

from the never-too-late-to-give-a-bad-idea-another-shot dept

It appears someone's listening to local crackpot New York District Attorney Cyrus Vance's demands that encryption be outlawed to make law enforcement easier. His "white paper" didn't have the guts to make this demand, instead couching it in language stating he would be completely unopposed to a legislative ban on encryption, but that he wasn't going to be the bad guy asking for it.

A month later, as the mockery of his encryption white paper died down, Vance decided he would be the bad guy and openly stated that if Apple wasn't going to give him what he wanted, it could be forced to do so by the government. Lo and behold, New York Senator Assemblyman Matthew Titone has answered Vance's call for action. In what is likely the nation's first proposed ban on encryption, Titone's introduced bill forbids the sale of smartphones that can't be cracked by their manufacturers. (h/t Nate Cardozo)

ANY SMARTPHONE THAT IS MANUFACTURED ON OR AFTER JANUARY FIRST, TWO THOUSAND SIXTEEN, AND SOLD OR LEASED IN NEW YORK, SHALL BE CAPABLE OF BEING DECRYPTED AND UNLOCKED BY ITS MANUFACTURER OR ITS OPERATING SYSTEM PROVIDER.

THE SALE OR LEASE IN NEW YORK OF A SMARTPHONE MANUFACTURED ON OR AFTER JANUARY FIRST, TWO THOUSAND SIXTEEN THAT IS NOT CAPABLE OF BEING DECRYPTED AND UNLOCKED BY ITS MANUFACTURER OR ITS OPERATING SYSTEM PROVIDER SHALL SUBJECT THE SELLER OR LESSOR TO A CIVIL PENALTY OF TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR EACH SMARTPHONE SOLD OR LEASED IF IT IS DEMONSTRATED THAT THE SELLER OR LESSOR OF THE SMARTPHONE KNEW AT THE TIME OF THE SALE OR LEASE THAT THE SMARTPHONE WAS NOT CAPABLE OF BEING DECRYPTED AND UNLOCKED BY ITS MANUFACTURER OR ITS OPERATING SYSTEM PROVIDER.
This isn't Titone's first attempt at this legislation, something that can be gleaned by the fact that the proposed legislation still contains wording suggesting January 1, 2016 is still somewhere off in the future. This bill made its debut last year, roughly nine months after Apple announced its plan to offer encryption by default.

The proposed legislation was introduced in the Committee on Consumer Affairs and Protection [wft?] on June 8th, 2015. Nothing happened then, but a new legislative session is upon us and Titone re-submitted his bill to the same committee last week.

There has been no fanfare accompanying this twice-submitted legislation, most likely due to it potentially toxic side effects. Even Titone's own Senate page -- where press releases seem to accompany all of his other sponsored bills -- has nothing to say about this one. Still, the bill has attracted two co-sponsors: Walter Mosley and Patricia Fahy.

Interestingly, or perhaps more accurately, infuriatingly, the bill would hold retailers responsible for manufacturers' actions. Apple Stores would apparently be unable to sell any smartphones and every service provider would have to eliminate any phones with default encryption from their lineups.

The wording isn't a ban on encryption, per se. But it does make the sale of encrypted phones illegal -- pretty much accomplishing the same thing without having to require backdoors or forbid manufacturers from offering default encryption in the other 49 states. That latter part is the loophole New York can't close, even if this stupid piece of legislation passes.

New York's sky-high tobacco taxes have turned New York City into a massive secondary market for cigarette cartons that fell off a truck/were purchased across state lines. This would basically do the same thing for smartphones, creating a market for phones purchased in other states but deployed in New York. The bill doesn't even attempt to address this loophole, laying pretty much all of the culpability at the feet of local resellers. Purchasers aren't forbidden from deploying their own encryption and secondhand phones containing built-in encryption can be bought and sold without fear of repercussion.

In all likelihood, Titone's bill will die another death on the cold hard assembly floor. The bill is bad in multiple ways, but not in any of the ways immediately appealing to undecided politicians. The spiel accompanying the bill attempts to press all of the right buttons ("There is no reason criminals should also benefit, and they will, as people will be defrauded or threatened, and terrorists will use these encrypted devices to plot their next attack over FaceTime..."), but informing the nation's largest phone manufacturers that their products can't be sold in New York isn't exactly the sort of message many legislators are willing to send


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2016 @ 1:53pm

    seems to have the right name (Tit one) to do something stupid like this!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Mason Wheeler (profile), 12 Jan 2016 @ 1:59pm

    Apple Stores would apparently be unable to sell any smartphones

    You say that as if it's a bad thing...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Richard (profile), 12 Jan 2016 @ 2:03pm

    Easy

    ANY SMARTPHONE THAT IS MANUFACTURED ON OR AFTER JANUARY FIRST, TWO THOUSAND SIXTEEN, AND SOLD OR LEASED IN NEW YORK, SHALL BE CAPABLE OF BEING DECRYPTED AND UNLOCKED BY ITS MANUFACTURER OR ITS OPERATING SYSTEM PROVIDER.

    Apple could now commence selling smartphone kits.

    The user then becomes the manufacturer and so is thus only one who must be able to decrypt it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2016 @ 2:43pm

      Re: Easy

      > ANY SMARTPHONE THAT IS MANUFACTURED ON OR AFTER JANUARY FIRST, TWO THOUSAND SIXTEEN, AND SOLD OR LEASED IN NEW YORK, SHALL BE CAPABLE OF BEING DECRYPTED AND UNLOCKED BY ITS MANUFACTURER OR ITS OPERATING SYSTEM PROVIDER.

      I just noticed something: this means that the iPhone 6S line can be encrypted by default, as long as they only sell phones in NY that were manufactured before January. The iPhone 7 will have other issues -- Apple might finally get their wish and be allowed to exclusively sell the iPhone 7 online from out of state and have the local carrier simply activate it :)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Dan J., 13 Jan 2016 @ 7:37am

      Re: Easy

      ANY SMARTPHONE THAT IS MANUFACTURED ON OR AFTER JANUARY FIRST, TWO THOUSAND SIXTEEN, AND SOLD OR LEASED IN NEW YORK, SHALL BE CAPABLE OF BEING DECRYPTED AND UNLOCKED BY ITS MANUFACTURER OR ITS OPERATING SYSTEM PROVIDER.

      Apple could now commence selling smartphone kits.

      The user then becomes the manufacturer and so is thus only one who must be able to decrypt it.


      What the hell does it mean to "decrypt and unlock" a cellphone? What if I can install a 3rd party app that securely encrypts my data. Is that phone still illegal? If so, then isn't ANY cell phone illegal to sell?

      If not, then what if Apple (or anyone else) sells a cell phone with a minimal OS that includes no encryption at all, and, after the purchase is complete, offers a downloadable upgrade that installs a highly robust encryption feature? For that matter, they could provide a service to upgrade the phone at the Apple store as soon as the cash register ring echo dies away.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Vladilyich, 17 Jan 2016 @ 8:10pm

        Re: Re: Easy

        Interesting that he includes the word "unlock". A few years ago, SCOTUS (which overrides any state's assembly) ruled that the government cannot force a person to insert their password or passcode to "unlock" a device. If your phone has a biometric lock (like a thumb print) they can force you, but you do NOT have to divulge any passcode. I think this can easily be projected to include providing the encryption password. A court of law vcan not order you to give your password.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Dissent, 12 Jan 2016 @ 2:04pm

    correction to your headline/story

    Matthew Titone and the two co-sponsors are all members of the NYS *Assembly,* not the Senate.

    And btw, they're all Democrats.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2016 @ 2:10pm

      Re: correction to your headline/story

      Party affiliation on this does not mean much.

      Both are pro police state. The difference is that the Dems just already know they can lie like scum and not lose votes for it as much as GOP would. The fact the Hillary can attract votes despite being one of the most evil women to walk the earth makes it clear.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2016 @ 8:19pm

        Re: Re: correction to your headline/story

        Nothing like Hilary to say she is against people beating their wives then accept money from people that beat their wives and then refuse to give said money back when it's pointed out to her. AS if she had no idea to begin with.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2016 @ 8:16pm

      Re: correction to your headline/story

      I think the term traitors could apply as well. Not because they are democrat but because they support removing their fellow citizen's rights.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2016 @ 2:11pm

    Titone,Mosley and Fahey have been paid LARGE amounts of cash to try to drive people into purchasing cheap knock-off chinese phones.

    FTFY:
    Matthew Titone and the two -co-conspirators- are all members of the NYS *Assembly,* not the Senate.

    And btw, they're all -Sell-out treasonous scum that out to get the chair.-

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2016 @ 2:14pm

    It must be terrible to be a politician, and so paranoid about being blamed that you try to pass stupid laws like this.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Bergman (profile), 16 Jan 2016 @ 8:42pm

      Re:

      It's especially stupid when you consider that a phone manufacturer selling phones with encryption installed is exactly the same as a house builder selling houses with door locks installed -- and that comparison isn't even remotely secret or obscure to those who will likely be voting for his opponent come the next election.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2016 @ 2:23pm

    Easily done

    Every encrypted phone is capable of being decrypted. It's just that it may take several quintillion years to do so.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    streetlight (profile), 12 Jan 2016 @ 2:31pm

    Provice the user with encryption software

    As Tim suggests, nothing in the bill would prevent the purchaser from providing encryption software. I'm not sure if the encryption software could be provided by the phone's manufacturer or an independent company set up by the manufacturer. Apple could set up Baldwin,Inc. or Granny Smith, Inc. Google - or is it Alphabet - could have a company called Green Robot, Inc. The 5th avenue Apple store might end up in New Jersey as well. Think of the sales tax losses. And, what about mail order purchases?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    WDS (profile), 12 Jan 2016 @ 2:37pm

    Tablet

    So if I read the bill right, it is okay for me to have strong encryption on my iPad, but not my iPhone if I buy them new in New York. It is also okay to have a iPhone with strong encryption if I buy a "Previously Owned, Like New" unit from the local Pawn Shop.

    Does his family by any chance own a chain of Pawn Shops?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Abar4, 12 Jan 2016 @ 2:40pm

    Apple's new feature

    With a price hike of 2500$, Apple introduces his new iPhone 7 at 3400$ with the renewed iCrypt feature!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2016 @ 3:02pm

    This is too monumentally stupid to have any hope. People should really be upset at the waste of time and effort on the part of the senator and his aides. They should spend their resources on issues that matter.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      streetlight (profile), 12 Jan 2016 @ 3:09pm

      Re:

      This is too monumentally stupid to have any hope. People should really be upset at the waste of time and effort on the part of the senator and his aides. They should spend their resources on issues that matter.

      Remember: we get the kind and quality of government we elect.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2016 @ 7:45pm

        Re: Re:

        Not necessarily. That sounds like a defeatist/fallacious way of looking at that. There is evidence that clearly shows the people do not elect these officials.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2016 @ 8:27pm

      Re:

      They are probably being bribed to do this.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2016 @ 3:26pm

    Solution

    Encryption, there's an app for that!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Personanongrata, 12 Jan 2016 @ 3:38pm

    Senator Know Nothing

    NY State Senator Proposes Ban On Sale Of Encrypted Smartphones

    Why stop at banning the sale of encrypted phones?

    What about criminals/terrorists (they're really one in the same) secretly planning their next moves behind the brick walls of their home/office?

    Perhaps New York Senator Matthew Titone will propose a law that forces all New York State builders to construct only glass houses/offices for New Yorker's to live/work in so the state may better monitor suspect persons for potential criminal activity.

    Or.

    What about criminals/terrorists who may be carrying a firearm or other weapon perhaps New York Senator Matthew Titone will propose a law that all garment wholesalers, men's haberdasheries and women's boutiques could only sell see through clothing to ensure no person were carrying a firearm in public?

    All joking aside New York Senator Matthew Titone proposal to ban the sale of encrypted phones in New York is in direct contravention of the New York State Constitution:

    ARTICLE I

    Bill Of Rights

    ยง12. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    The right of the people to be secure against unreasonable interception of telephone and telegraph communications shall not be violated, and ex parte orders or warrants shall issue only upon oath or affirmation that there is reasonable ground to believe that evidence of crime may be thus obtained, and identifying the particular means of communication, and particularly describing the person or persons whose communications are to be intercepted and the purpose thereof. (New. Adopted by Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by vote of the people November 8, 1938.)

    https://www.dos.ny.gov/info/constitution.htm

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Mark Wing, 12 Jan 2016 @ 3:55pm

    Don't forget to individually ban every encryption app by name to punctuate your futility. You'll need to further vilify Google, lockup all the programmers, purge all knowledge related to computer software development and encryption, start seizing thousands of domains and possibly bomb a few countries into compliance, but it could work!

    But seriously, one word: scope. Why the fuck does a shitty smelling, overrated city of narcissists like New York get to decide tech policy for the rest of us? Did you run out of hippies and black kids to frisk? You're just a tiny speck on the map, so put it back in your pants.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    mattshow (profile), 12 Jan 2016 @ 4:19pm

    In unrelated news, I would like to announce the chain of cell phone stores I will be opening in New Jersey.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2016 @ 5:54pm

    There is no reason criminals should also benefit, and they will, as people will be defrauded or threatened, and terrorists will use these encrypted devices to plot their next attack over FaceTime...
    Is this just poorly worded, or is the bit about fraud/threats actually jibberish? Because it sounds like he's saying that encrypted communications make people more vulnerable to crime. And for anyone who didn't see the 'Description' part in the sales pitch, the above quote somehow links 'consumer fraud', terrorism, and IP law.

    There's also this:
    In some cases, perpetrators take advantage of encryption and anonymizing technology to conceal contraband materials and disguise their locations.
    That's AND anonymizing technology. So this bill is about encryption, but he also seems to be creeping towards banning privacy in general and not just those bits that use encryption (although that's most of em). Of course, only terrorists & filthy pirates need to hide their location.

    I assume his next bill will involve recording & upload of all voice content to a cloud-based escrow service for potential later use. I suppose the government really should have access to all content, as long as proper warrants are issued: not just encrypted content, but all 'temporally obfuscated' content that's been stashed away in what terrorists call 'the past'.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    streetlight (profile), 12 Jan 2016 @ 7:04pm

    Others have noted...

    I read that the recent Paris terrorists used unencrypted phone communictions which were obtained by the authorities but it was never recognized for what it was. Just because it's readily available doesn't mean it'll be read and even then any action taken. One of the problems with all the enormous amount of information collected there's just too much to analyze. When one collects billions and billions of phone calls, emails, SMSs, MMSs, etc., finding the 10 or 100 that might be significant is almost impossible. There's information overload. Then again, the San Bernardino terrorists apparently never communicated about what they were intending using technology. My guess is that in the future terrorists will not use discoverable communication methods.

    I'm not sure Bernie Madoff would be considered a terrorist but it is estimated his "clients" lost ~$18 billion over many years starting in 1970. His activities were in the open and the financial regulators didn't find out until ~2008. If someone can hide their nefarious activities in one of the most highly regulated industries in the world, why can't violent terrorists do the same despite the intense surveillance by all these three letter agencies?

    Looking at everything isn't going to work. Perhaps an implication of the quotation above from the NY state constitution and the US Constitution about probable cause and the sanctity of personal documents suggests a very narrow, focused search for the bad guys. It might even require spies infiltrating organizations before getting proper search warrants. It might even cost less than what's being done now.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2016 @ 8:15pm

    I wonder if the person behind this uses encryption on their phone though. Every time I see someone trying to pass a law like this I am reminded how many anti gun advocates have armed bodyguards or a concealed gun carry license for themselves.

    They believe only the few should have rights and everyone else should not have those same rights they want for themselves.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2016 @ 9:38pm

      Re:

      I wonder if the person behind this uses encryption on their phone though.
      Something tells me he wouldn't have the slightest clue one way or the other. This is the kinda guy that, when instructed to just stick with all the default settings on his new phone, responds with "OK. Which app do I use to change everything to 'default'?"

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2016 @ 11:29pm

    Here's your shovel, and here's my popcorn...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Glenn, 13 Jan 2016 @ 2:13am

    Idiots unite! Your hero has appeared!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    DannyB (profile), 13 Jan 2016 @ 5:42am

    The wording should say what it really means

    ANY SMARTPHONE THAT IS MANUFACTURED ON OR AFTER JANUARY FIRST, TWO THOUSAND SIXTEEN, AND SOLD OR LEASED IN NEW YORK, SHALL BE CAPABLE OF BEING DECRYPTED AND UNLOCKED BY ANYONE WITH 1337 COMPUTER SKILLZ INCLUDING THE RUSSIANS, CHINESE, ANONYMOUS, ISIS, AND HACKERS WORLDWIDE.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    teknosapien (profile), 13 Jan 2016 @ 10:21am

    Apple has a whle planet to sell to

    What if Apple just refused to sell iPhones in New York if this law was passed? What would the outcome be? I'm guessing that some elected officials may be looking for new jobs after the next election. In the interim would the state of NY be willing to compensate those hack accounts compromised do to lack of encryption?
    How would this affect the financial institutions based in NY?
    Would they leave for another state that allowed encryption

    How are these people in office proposing laws on something they don't fully comprehend

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2016 @ 9:25pm

    If we were a smarter populace, we'd outlaw door locks and mandate floor to ceiling windows in order to promote more transparency and make it easier for law enforcement to enter the premises. Criminals would hate it, but us law abiding citizens... we have nothing to hide.

    Can I be a politician now?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    M. Alan Thomas II (profile), 14 Jan 2016 @ 11:45am

    When encrypted cell phones are outlawed, only outlaws will have encrypted cell phones.

    (Also, do they really think that international terrorists are going to solely use phones sold in New York?)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    JBDragon (profile), 14 Jan 2016 @ 12:22pm

    All the terrorist has to do is sent a plain old text that says "GO" and the plan already set in motion plays out. Really of what benefit does a Un-encrypted phone give you? If you want Mass spying on everyone's phone, ok, But right now under LAW, with a Court issued Warrant. They can in person make you unlock your phone. When they have real evidence against you. Not go fishing in the hope of finding something from anyone.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Home Cooking Is Killing Restaurants
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.