3 ms·

I'm not a lawyer or an expert on the commerce clause, etc. But is seems like these issues have passed muster before. Consider that California has stricter env

I'm not a lawyer or an expert on the commerce clause, etc. But is seems like these issues have passed muster before. Consider that California has stricter environmental regulations concerning the cars that are sold there than many other states. The manufacturers simply make cars that meet the California standard and sell them pretty much everywhere (at least I'm pretty sure that use the be the case, haven't kept up with it though). If that local regulation has passed any and all legal tests, then I would be surprised if New York couldn't act independently in this case. And I think the manufacturers would simply do something similar: you'd end up with compromised security on all devices that come under the law even in states where that law didn't exist.

JoshTriplett 11y ago
> The manufacturers simply make cars that meet the California standard and sell them pretty much everywhere (at least I'm pretty sure that use the be the case, haven't kept up with it though). Many manufacturers still distinguish cars with "California emissions".
baddox 11y ago
Another example: big name-brand beers have different alcohol percentages in different states.
sathackr 11y ago
I buy equipment all the time that is not legal for sale in California. But I don't go out of my way to do such. With the emissions argument, lower emissions is generally accepted as a positive feature, though some may dislike the reduced performance or increased cost associated with it in some instances. Backdoored encryption is not something generally accepted as a positive feature, and I suspect many people will specifically seek out non-backdoored devices if the law is passed and manufacturers start making devices for the lowest common denominator. But since this is a software feature, I see no reason why a single device couldn't serve both markets, with a fused bit somewhere permanently enabling the backdoor. But, as said previously ad nauseam, the law would stop criminals about as effectively as the anti-radar detector laws keeps radar detectors out of Virginia. The widespread use of instant-on radar and LIDAR has done far more to curb the widespread use of them, in all states, by simply making them ineffective.
- sbuttgereit 11y ago
  Many people would seek out such devices... but many people can still be a small minority of your target market. If the economics makes sense to have two different builds they'll do it, if it doesn't then you'll get one size fits all. Also, consider how many people that buy these devices also use cloud services available for these devices where even fourth amendment protections are likely null/void. In some ways/shapes/forms it makes the device encryption backdoor already moot for many.
  - sathackr 11y ago
    Yes...I'm curious to see how 'things stored in the cloud' will eventually work out with the 4th/5th amendment protections. Seems most of the current law applies to them as electronic communications, but I think they are becoming more and more like a safe deposit box, which I think has fared a bit better. It's unfortunate that it will likely take a few guinea pigs with a lot of money and the right type of case to force the judicial system to work this out. Of course, the prudent criminal would encrypt anything, using non-backdoored encryption, before it left his/her control thus making LEO/Government access to their cloud storage ineffective.

JoshTriplett 11y ago

> The manufacturers simply make cars that meet the California standard and sell them pretty much everywhere (at least I'm pretty sure that use the be the case, haven't kept up with it though). Many manufacturers still distinguish cars with "California emissions".

baddox 11y ago

Another example: big name-brand beers have different alcohol percentages in different states.

sathackr 11y ago

I buy equipment all the time that is not legal for sale in California. But I don't go out of my way to do such. With the emissions argument, lower emissions is generally accepted as a positive feature, though some may dislike the reduced performance or increased cost associated with it in some instances. Backdoored encryption is not something generally accepted as a positive feature, and I suspect many people will specifically seek out non-backdoored devices if the law is passed and manufacturers start making devices for the lowest common denominator. But since this is a software feature, I see no reason why a single device couldn't serve both markets, with a fused bit somewhere permanently enabling the backdoor. But, as said previously ad nauseam, the law would stop criminals about as effectively as the anti-radar detector laws keeps radar detectors out of Virginia. The widespread use of instant-on radar and LIDAR has done far more to curb the widespread use of them, in all states, by simply making them ineffective.

sbuttgereit 11y ago
Many people would seek out such devices... but many people can still be a small minority of your target market. If the economics makes sense to have two different builds they'll do it, if it doesn't then you'll get one size fits all. Also, consider how many people that buy these devices also use cloud services available for these devices where even fourth amendment protections are likely null/void. In some ways/shapes/forms it makes the device encryption backdoor already moot for many.
- sathackr 11y ago
  Yes...I'm curious to see how 'things stored in the cloud' will eventually work out with the 4th/5th amendment protections. Seems most of the current law applies to them as electronic communications, but I think they are becoming more and more like a safe deposit box, which I think has fared a bit better. It's unfortunate that it will likely take a few guinea pigs with a lot of money and the right type of case to force the judicial system to work this out. Of course, the prudent criminal would encrypt anything, using non-backdoored encryption, before it left his/her control thus making LEO/Government access to their cloud storage ineffective.