But imagine not being able to buy an iPhone in your state because the device's data is protected by encryption. A couple of Congressmen are trying to make sure that can't happen.
The Encrypt Act of 2016, short for Ensuring National Constitutional Rights of Your Private Telecommunications Act, would deny states the power to block the sale of encrypted smartphones or to require that manufacturers equip their phones with a back door to access private data. The bill will be introduced to Congress next week.
The bill comes as lawmakers and Silicon Valley tech giants are trying to figure out how to compromise on device encryption. Some law enforcement officials have spoken out against the increased use of encryption on phones. They argue that data stored on phones could be useful in investigations against ordinary criminals, as well as suspected terrorists. Manufacturers state that a person's data belongs to them, and that, if they were to remove encryption or allow a backdoor in, that people would be concerned that the government would be abusing its power against the people and corporations. My personal stance on this is that, yes, the constitution does say that private property should be protected. But that was 200 years ago, where a letter and a house was visible and physical. Nowadays, gigabytes upon terabytes can be hidden under a password. Where a police force used to need to search a warehouse to find a paper copy of illegal transactions, now those are hidden in a computer, and because its encrypted, NO ONE but the owner can see the files.
The bill is a reaction to proposals from New York and California, which would ban encrypted smartphones in their respective states and fine manufacturers of such phones. Assuming those proposals were turned into law, smartphone companies would be required to enable decryption of data on phones made after 2017.
Trying to enforce smartphone encryption on a state level would be a confusing and difficult process though. According to FBI agent Lieu,"Having 50 states with 50 different encryption back doors standards or bans is a recipe for disaster for American privacy and competitiveness. This conversation belongs at the national level, where we can find a solution that protects the privacy rights of Americans and does not create additional vulnerabilities."
Companies such as Apple have been accused of equipping their phones with back doors, openings coded into software that let law enforcement bypass security measures. Apple CEO Tim Cook has rebutted those claims and argued against the use of back doors. Last month, Cook called on the Obama administration to issue a statement defending the use of unbreakable encryption.
The Encrypt Act covers any computer hardware, computer software, electronic device or online service, not just phones. While I personally like encryption, and I am proud to have an encrypted phone and computer (any computer that isn't encrypted, even I can get into. Five minutes tops, and all of the files of an encrypted computer (even one with a login password) would begin the copying process to my computer. Trust me. I've done it. Several times.). While I don't think we should ban encryption, and I think a backdoor does open some rights issues and what no, I do believe that I care more about criminals getting caught over privacy. If a criminal hides logs to all of the women he had illegally trafficked in a safe, the police could open that safe. Most people would agree to that. But just because its on his computer or on his phone, he should be let free? That's why, I am glad that an end to the end of encryption is a positive outlook if it happens, but I think there should be something in place.
The Encrypt Act of 2016, short for Ensuring National Constitutional Rights of Your Private Telecommunications Act, would deny states the power to block the sale of encrypted smartphones or to require that manufacturers equip their phones with a back door to access private data. The bill will be introduced to Congress next week.
The bill comes as lawmakers and Silicon Valley tech giants are trying to figure out how to compromise on device encryption. Some law enforcement officials have spoken out against the increased use of encryption on phones. They argue that data stored on phones could be useful in investigations against ordinary criminals, as well as suspected terrorists. Manufacturers state that a person's data belongs to them, and that, if they were to remove encryption or allow a backdoor in, that people would be concerned that the government would be abusing its power against the people and corporations. My personal stance on this is that, yes, the constitution does say that private property should be protected. But that was 200 years ago, where a letter and a house was visible and physical. Nowadays, gigabytes upon terabytes can be hidden under a password. Where a police force used to need to search a warehouse to find a paper copy of illegal transactions, now those are hidden in a computer, and because its encrypted, NO ONE but the owner can see the files.
The bill is a reaction to proposals from New York and California, which would ban encrypted smartphones in their respective states and fine manufacturers of such phones. Assuming those proposals were turned into law, smartphone companies would be required to enable decryption of data on phones made after 2017.
Trying to enforce smartphone encryption on a state level would be a confusing and difficult process though. According to FBI agent Lieu,"Having 50 states with 50 different encryption back doors standards or bans is a recipe for disaster for American privacy and competitiveness. This conversation belongs at the national level, where we can find a solution that protects the privacy rights of Americans and does not create additional vulnerabilities."
Companies such as Apple have been accused of equipping their phones with back doors, openings coded into software that let law enforcement bypass security measures. Apple CEO Tim Cook has rebutted those claims and argued against the use of back doors. Last month, Cook called on the Obama administration to issue a statement defending the use of unbreakable encryption.
The Encrypt Act covers any computer hardware, computer software, electronic device or online service, not just phones. While I personally like encryption, and I am proud to have an encrypted phone and computer (any computer that isn't encrypted, even I can get into. Five minutes tops, and all of the files of an encrypted computer (even one with a login password) would begin the copying process to my computer. Trust me. I've done it. Several times.). While I don't think we should ban encryption, and I think a backdoor does open some rights issues and what no, I do believe that I care more about criminals getting caught over privacy. If a criminal hides logs to all of the women he had illegally trafficked in a safe, the police could open that safe. Most people would agree to that. But just because its on his computer or on his phone, he should be let free? That's why, I am glad that an end to the end of encryption is a positive outlook if it happens, but I think there should be something in place.
-687 words
No comments:
Post a Comment