Vermont: Year in prison for anyone under 21 in possession of cell phone - tentative legislation

Zenaan Harkness zen at freedbms.net
Sat Jan 11 04:19:45 PST 2020


Apologies for the unclear email.

I agree that it's ridiculous on the face of it. As in, would never
pass any parliament - but who knows, Idiocracy in action perhaps.

Do you think it might just be a back door that they will water down
to "oh, we'll just put in back doors to all your encrypted apps, and
you can keep your phone then" sort of thing?



On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 10:32:39AM +0000, Steven Schear wrote:
> Apparently, you don't have or recently had school-age children. Parents
> today consider their kids to have mobiles for emergencies and to keep track
> of their whereabouts. I think there will be huge pushback on this.
> 
> On Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 9:09 AM Zenaan Harkness <zen at freedbms.net> wrote:
> 
> > OK, so this is genuine, legitimate anti terror legislation being
> > discussed and "genuinely considered" at the USA state level - Vermont
> > in particular.
> >
> >   "How daft!  Surely they'll never get -that- one through?!#?"
> >
> > Not so fast grasshopper.
> >
> > After a day of mulling over such stupidity, a lonely neurone finally
> > fired and the dawning of "Oh, they're really targetting legislated
> > encryption back doors/ front doors, not banning of mobile phones"
> > crossed a lonely synapse.
> >
> > "Ahr sooo ooo oles!" I hear you cry.
> >
> >
> > This new strategy may actually be quite effective folks:
> >
> >   - begin with legislation at state level, not federal,
> >     thus minimizing the protester base;
> >
> >
> >   - have a "genuine" problem:
> >
> >       “The Internet and social media, accessed primarily through
> >       cell phones, are used to radicalize and recruit terrorists,
> >       fascists, and other extremists… Cell phones have often been
> >       used by mass shooters of younger ages for research on
> >       previous shootings.”
> >
> >
> >   - handle the reaction of folks to the moronic version of the
> >     legislation ("We ARE banning all mobile phones for all under 21
> >     year olds, with up to 1 YEAR jail time for violations!") with
> >     your sigh of relief "sane" legislation:
> >
> >       "Oh! <laughing> Of COURSE! How silly were we - yes you may keep
> >       your mobile phones - we'll just put this one little legislated
> >       back door in every comms app, the OS, the baseband OS, the CPU,
> >       the SOC, the Ethernet chip, the network stack ... and possibly
> >       also in the app store."
> >
> >       ("Kidding, kidding - nothing to worry about, we had most of
> >        those installed for a few years now anyway, so don't let it
> >        bother you none, OK little snowflake?")
> >
> >
> >   - target the "maximum likelihood, minimum kickback" state, in this
> >     case Vermont:
> >
> >       "The bill concludes that since the Vermont government has seen
> >       fit to ban under 21 use of cigarettes, alcohol, and firearms,
> >       this is the logical next step."
> >
> >
> >
> > Soap, legislated comms backdoors/ front doors in all mobile phones,
> > starting in the backwater which almost no one ever heard of, Vermont.
> >
> > Suck it up buttercup.
> >
> >
> >   Absurdity Alert: Vermont Considers Cell Phone Ban For Under-21s,
> >   Punishable By Prison
> >
> > https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/tech-giant-doesnt-want-anyone-offended-anything-ever
> >
> >
> > https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2020/Docs/BILLS/S-0212/S-0212%20As%20Introduced.pdf
> >
> >
> > Seriously, does anyone have any possible solutions to this kind o
> > crazy which is on the way?
> >
> >


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list