New York City is small enough and close enough to New Jersey that traveling to another state to buy a phone may be reasonable.
New York state is a bit over 300 miles wide (estimated from Albany to Niagara Falls on a more or less straight route) and at its tallest about 330 miles tall (estimated from New York City to Champlain.) If you're in the center of the state (in the vicinity of Syracuse, roughly) I'd estimate you're looking at a two to three hour drive one way to get to Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, or the Canadian border.
Since this bill is in the state legislature, I'm not so sure I'd call a four or five hour round trip an easy way to skirt the law for Syracuse residents.
3) This assemblyman buys a phone with a backdoor that gets compromised and his dirty laundry ends up on the Internet. The assemblyman may backpedal faster than Michael Jackson moonwalking.
4) The assemblyman buys a phone without the backdoor. Assemblyman's opponent in the next election finds out and gets a target to use to accuse assemblyman of hypocrisy.
Who would be responsible if someone suffers financial harm due to their phone being compromised by criminals using the government-mandated "backdoor"? Could the French government itself be sued for damages in that case?
Generally speaking, there are two possibilities for what happens to a child on the way to school: something bad or nothing bad. [I'm being REALLY general here, but I think the conclusions drawn from this simple exercise apply even if you introduced more complexity by adding additional cases.]
There are two possibilities for what a police officer can do: stop the child or not stop the child.
In the "Something bad", "Stop the child" case the officer may prevent harm to the child. This is a positive outcome.
In the "Something bad", "Not stop the child" case the public tees off on the police in general and the officer in particular. "Why didn't you do your job???" Negative.
In the "Nothing bad", "Stop the child" case at worst the officer gets accused of interfering with the parents' right to allow their child to walk. At worst, mild negative.
In the "Nothing bad", "Not stop the child" case nothing happens. Neutral.
So if the officer chooses to stop the child, at worst they get the public mildly disapproving of his or her actions. If they choose NOT to stop the child, at worst they get dragged over hot coals by the court of public opinion, sued, etc. From the officer's perspective, mild disapproval is a MUCH more attractive alternative than torches, pitchforks, and/or lawsuits and so their dominant strategy is to stop the child.
Or the tl;dr version: cover their asses in case something bad would have happened to the kid.
The corresponding statement to "We need our guns to protect us from the government. Doing so has the side benefit of protecting us against criminals who may otherwise attack us." is "We need strong encryption to protect our words from the government. Doing so has the side benefit of protecting us against criminals who may otherwise attack our electronic accounts."
742 Evergreen Terrace
Springfield, [fill in a state and zip]
They apply the XKCD "backdoor" and/or arrest or bring in for questioning the recipients of that email.
What if any will this do to prevent a recurrence of the norovirus illness that sickened 141 Boston College students who ate at Chipotle?
Does Microsoft have an Australian branch? If so, expect to see them register or buy www.googel.com.au any day now. And as a defensive measure, they may also want to pick up www.bong.com.au -- although that one may raise some eyebrows.
It also means that some people (like myself) who would otherwise rate an Android app (I was sorely tempted to rate both The Room and The Room 2 as 5 stars) will turn away rather than dealing with Google Plus.
Their rights should be restricted in some ways. Obviously they should not be allowed to keep and bear arms (Second Amendment) while in prison for reasons of security. But to me, saying that they should lose their Sixth Amendment right to legal counsel doesn't make sense.
Direct human-markability isn't necessary IMO. Let the human make selections on a touch screen. Let the computer print out a ballot with both human readable text and a machine readable barcode (QR code perhaps; that would allow many smart phones to check a ballot.) Scan the barcodes as the ballots enter the ballot box. In the event of a recount the election officials would read the human readable text and that would be the official count.
The computer doesn't need to be anything special; a machine from Best Buy (costing a few hundred bucks) would be sufficient (overkill, really) for the display needs. A printer for a cash register probably would be sufficient to write the ballots. An iPhone or Android phone and a simple wooden box could serve for the logging system and the ballot box in a pinch.
A good supervisor can step on your toes without messing up your shine.