3 ms·
Yeah, they often propose legislation that just seems like "How far can we really go?" test. Even if this did pass, it would be virtually impossible to enforce a
by magicmu 11y ago
Yeah, they often propose legislation that just seems like "How far can we really go?" test. Even if this did pass, it would be virtually impossible to enforce an anti-encryption policy at a large scale. It would only end up effecting the people who are already in custody, further compounding the existing problems with prosecution of the poor here.
- themartorana 11y agoThat's a fantastic point.
- ctdonath 11y agoNY is familiar with push-the-limit prohibitions. In comparison: NY passed the "SAFE Act" which, among other things, banned sale of "assault weapons" and required current owners register. The compliance rate with the registration requirement is about 4% ... out of a half-million owners. NY is willing to go far, and sweep up violators as they're found.
- TrevorJ 11y agoIt's really going to come back to bite them - creating essentially unenforceable laws is a bad idea if you want to maintain the rule of law.
- api 11y agoIt would allow them to add a criminal charge of possessing an illegal cell phone to people who have encrypted cell phones, then possibly force them to decrypt it through intimidation.
- duskwuff 11y agoNo, it would not. The law only criminalizes the "sale or lease" of such a device, not possession.
- magicmu 11y agoAlthough it wouldn't explicitly allow that, it's a short leap to make. That would be even more difficult to enforce though, and would mostly only impact those who are frequently arrested (pretty much the same downsides as the current issue, but on a more exaggerated scale).