Bills are proposed all the time; most die. Moreover the hot-button ones are usually more about garden-variety politics than anything that makes it into legislation.
Absent some indication that there's more of substance here, such stories fall under the kind of politics that's off topic for HN.
So this is how the California legislature spends its time? With all the real problems they have to grapple with, someone thinks up this, ostensibly to stop child trafficking.
"...$2500 per phone fine...if the seller or lessor manufacturer or operating system provider of the smartphone knew at the time of the sale or lease that the smartphone was not capable of being decrypted and unlocked by the manufacturer or operating system provider.
This reads like something a randomly selected middle school dropout might think up. It's so poorly thought out as to be laughable. In fact I thought it was a satire, except that the URL looks legitimate.
The easy workaround: manufacture exactly one phone per year that is capable of being decrypted and unlocked. Randomize it so that the manufacturer and distributor have no idea which phone. Thus, you will not "know at the time of the sale" whether it's capable of being decrypted. Thus, you're compliant with the law.
I wonder how exactly they plan to enforce this one: "A seller or lessor manufacturer or operating system provider who pays a civil penalty imposed pursuant to this subdivision shall not pass on any portion of that penalty to purchasers of smartphones by raising the sales or lease price of smartphones."
So, how will the state bureaucracy in charge of this thing know exactly why a company raises its prices? If this act is passed, manufacturers and sellers will raise prices immediately, in anticipation of impending and unavoidable fines.
One might also ask: suppose they actually manage to pass this thing, destroy the smartphone industry in California, and child trafficking continues unabated? Oops.
This is a bill which was proposed in January. As far as I can tell it doesn’t have any significant support. I would be very surprised if it passed.
The link here shows the amended version of the bill from 2 weeks ago, modified to target the “manufacturer or operating system provider” instead of the “seller or lessor”. But most of the news and advocacy from January (from EFF, etc.) should still be relevant.
Bill Status -
03/09/16: Re-referred to Com. on P. & C.P.
So it's been referred to committee - but I can't seem to find which one (this link: http://assembly.ca.gov/glossary ) has B, P & CP as "B,P, & C, P: Committee on Business, Professions, & Consumer Protection" but not sure that's the one.
Also of note: Jim Cooper is representing Elk Grove, where a certain CA smartphone giant employs thousands. Is he just trolling for corporate contributions?
Wait, do I understand correctly, if this passes: If a company manufactures a smartphone anywhere else in the world, with no intent to sell it in CA, and someone else then sells this phone in CA, then the manufacturer is liable and not the seller? (Section 2, c), d))
Can they even do that? That seems extremely overreaching to me.
On the other hand, this interpretation kills the first loophole that came to mind. If the crime would be selling, not manufacturing, then "just" stop selling smartphones to stores and individuals in California (the black market would ensure that some would still come in). Or, even just imply that you would stop selling in CA in case such a bill passes - no lawmaker would risk setting their state back to the digital stone age and angering voters because smartphones suddenly become expensive contraband.
> would subject a manufacturer or operating system provider that knowingly failed to comply with that requirement to a civil penalty of $2,500 for each smartphone sold or leased
And Apple just two days ago announced they have 1 billion of active iOS devices!
Honest question here: I thought US citizen could talk to his representative and discuss with him that he (citizen) concerned with that kind of bill. Isn't how democracy works in US?
I have a feeling that there will be quite a bit of movement out of CA in the mobile market if this ends up being enforced. Hopefully someone takes it to court and gets it struck down.
Same twenty year old arguments against the defeated Clipper chip legislation apply to this and practically any backdoor proposal that can be brought to the floor.
Absent some indication that there's more of substance here, such stories fall under the kind of politics that's off topic for HN.