We love our smartphones.
Let’s face it: we use our smartphones everyday, and when we don’t have them we feel like we’ve lost a limb. Maybe even two or three. Is it bad? Some would say so. But we’re connected to the world, and to dozens–if not hundreds or thousands–of resources all at once. With the relationship comes the need to properly secure our valuable, private data, which is becoming easier with default encryption phones that come with security that cannot be unlocked even by the manufacturer. But one new New York senate bill is pushing for a ban that would prevent the sale of such smartphones. Why? Because these phones are too good at being secure.
Encryption is becoming a more ubiquitous feature in many phones, safeguarding them from enemies unknown who can steal identities, money and more in minutes. But these encryption features are so strong that the police cannot get into them when they want to, and that’s make some policy makers made in New York State. The lead culprits: New York District Attorney Cyrus Vance and Assemblyman Matthew Titone.
According to Techdirt, Vance has been pushing for encrypted smartphones to be outlawed so that law enforcement can have an easier job of obtaining information from suspects. Current phones with default encryption cannot be accessed by anyone who doesn’t have the password, including the phone’s manufacturer. This prevents police from obtaining information from phones, especially without a warrant. And Vance doesn’t seem to like that.
Piggybacking off of this hype has been Titone, who actually proposed the nation’s first ban on the sale of smartphones with his assembly bill, A8093. According to Titone’s bill, it would be illegal to sell any smartphones in New York that offer default encryption and cannot be unlocked by the manufacturer, from the time of the passing of the bill and on.
The bill specifically states, according to Techdirt:
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.
But does this make any sense?
Banning the sale of something in a specific state doesn’t penalize those who purchase the item in another state. So if you can’t buy an encrypted smartphone in New York, you still have 49 other states to buy from. Compare this situation to the cigarette price hike: New Yorkers who really wanted to smoke didn’t stop, they just started buying really cheap cartons of cigarettes from other states. I’m not a smoker, but even I find issue with this on multiple levels. Banning something only cripples the sales of legit retailers, and increases the presence of a black market ready to pick up the torch.
The other problem is this: who’s going to stop millions of Americans and tourists alike–many of which are businesspeople, diplomats and students–from purchasing phones with increased security in New York, one of the most metropolitan cities in the world? Who’s going to prevent them from buying phones from one of the biggest companies in the world?
There’s no way to tell what will happen over the course of the next few months, but it’s unlikely that this bill will make it very far without drawing much ire against it. But if you want to read the bill for yourself and provide feedback on its merits, you may want to check out its New York Senate page, where you can leave your opinion and support (or lack of ) for it.