Let the law go through and watch it have no effect whatsoever. Perhaps if Apple wanted to make a statement, they could cease selling iPhones in NY and let the

Let the law go through and watch it have no effect whatsoever. Perhaps if Apple wanted to make a statement, they could cease selling iPhones in NY and let the populous let them fix it by protesting to their elected officials. If push comes to shove, the bill is pretty poorly written. At the time of selling the smartphone, the seller sold an unlocked and unencrypted device. It's only after the user logs into the device that any encryption / locking is carried out. Every seller can demonstrate that they can turn on and access any unused phone that they happen to carry. "Here's the default code 0000, go nuts officer!" Assuming the above doesn't hold water, we can do another little thought experiment. I note that Matthew Titon (the bill's sponsor) is a former Lawyer. My simplistic understanding of the rules of the bar (IANAL) suggest that a lawyer that used such an unlockable / decryptable phone would be potentially breaking the rules of the bar when it comes to confidentiality. Hence no-one in that profession would be advised to buy a new phone in NY State that was used for work purposes if this bill went through. Another counterpoint to consider, let's say that China decided to legislate that no phone could be manufactured in China without an ability for the Chinese government to unlock / decrypt the device. How willing would US officials be to use such a phone? This bill really highlights that people that don't understand technology shouldn't attempt legislating against it without consultation with actual professionals.