FBI Tries To Force Google To Unlock User's Android Phone

Trailrunner7 writes "Those multi-gesture passcode locks on Android phones that give users (and their spouses) fits apparently present quite a challenge for the FBI as well. Frustrated by a swipe passcode on the seized phone of an alleged gang leader, FBI officials have requested a search warrant that would force Google to 'provide law enforcement with any and all means of gaining access, including login and password information, password reset, and/or manufacturer default code ("PUK"), in order to obtain the complete contents of the memory of cellular telephone.' The request is part of a case involving an alleged gang leader and human trafficker named Dante Dears in California. Dears served several years in prison for his role in founding a gang in California called PhD, and upon his release he went back to his activities with the gang, according to the FBI's affidavit."

Comments

Plausible deniability...

[Anonymous Coward]

is becoming ever more important. In fact, it will soon replace the constitution as the thing you can always depend upon.

H.

Re:Plausible deniability...

[black3d]

I'm not sure you're arguing against the correct aspect of his post. He's stating the facts of the statistics - he even mentions himself that those are the statistics. It *is* a fact that for a random robbery, it's 8 times more likely to have been committed by a black than a white. (And likewise, the individual mentioned is more *likely* to be black than white purely on a statistical basis). What's wrong with his post is that he doesn't take into account causation, and the causation is not that they're black, but other socio-economic factors, of which race is merely a correlation. That's not to say each individual isn't responsible for his crimes, but that race isn't the determining factor of why the crime occurrs.

For about a year at one point, I lived in a small island chain populated almost entirely by blacks - around 60,000 to 200 whites. However, the only murder in the last 20 years, had been committed by a white. Is it because he was white? No. And the statistics OP used to make his case are equally flawed simply in that respect.

Re:Plausible deniability...

[stanlyb]

It is useless to argue with people that cite statistic in order to imply fact. What is wrong in his post, and partially yours, is that you say "black people are 8 times more likely to.....". Do you see where is the problem? Let me try another way: "......if you go in your backyard, the probability that you will see dinosaur is 50%. Because you will either see it, or not see it....."
But the FACT is that you don't have dino in your backyards, and you will never have, no matter what the "fact", i mean statistic says.
The same with all these "...8 times more likely....", and then you put in a row 1 black and 1 white, and everybody would be convinced that it was the black guy. Oh, never mind, who am i to argue with the facts.

Re:Plausible deniability...

[Anonymous Coward]

Genes Play Major Role in Primate Social Behavior, Study Finds

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/20/science/genes-play-major-role-in-primate-social-behavior-study-finds.html

Re:Plausible deniability...

[black3d]

I understand your point completely, and its why I always try to warn people to avoid statistics in virtually any decision making, especially where scale is important. I was merely pointing out the thing to argue with him over is not the statistics, as statistics can be used to prove or disprove, anything. Like in your example, where there's a 1:2 probability of me seeing a dinosaur in my backyard. Of course if you expand this, the probability of one being found in each ADDITIONAL backyard tested reduces to almost zero. But at that stage both you at the start and the second individual at the end, are statistically correct.

Although, your dinosaur method could be shown to be fundamentally flawed as you need a baseline from which to start, One I like to throw around because it shows the importance of scale and parameters is "For each person you see today, they are more likely to be asian than any other race," and "If you see twenty people today, the probability that none of them are Asian is less than 1%". Yet of course, in many places and countries around the world you can go weeks and not see a single Asian. (BTW, I'm not commenting on Asians, just on how localization affects statistics).

What I was trying to say was don't argue the statistics - it's fighting a losing battle if you're speaking to anyone who doesn't understand probability but knows how to quote numbers. Instead, attack the methedology of their conclusions. The key sentence in his post to attack would be "Blacks are much more likely to be violent and criminal." This is a correlation != causation example. :)

Re:Plausible deniability...

[Charliemopps]

I think that one thing we can agree on is that statistics are total horseshit. Sure, if done by a totally impartial party (which doesn't exist) they might be useful. But in something as divisive as race, crime, punishment, slavery, social equality, who is really impartial? Ask yourself a few questions and you soon realize how pointless these statistics are...

1. Who is black? Most blacks have a large part of their genetics made up of Caucasian genes. Look at our president. I'm white, my son is adopted from the heart of Africa, 100% African genes. Is he black? Certainly... but how does he fall into these statistics? He's going to have the up-bringing of any white-middle class child.

2. Who's collecting these statistics? The judicial system? The judicial system has been proven prejudice by hundreds of studies over the years. They convict more minorities of crimes, they give them longer sentences, they charge them with more infractions. They pull over a white kid with a pocket knife and they call his parents, they get a black kid with the same knife and he's getting charged with a felony. Are blacks really twice as likely to commit a crime with a knife? Or are they just twice as likely to get convicted?

3. The AC poster is clearly a troll and probably doesn't even believe in what he's saying. So there's that.

Re:Plausible deniability...

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no understanding of statistics if you think that the probability of seeing a dinosaur is 50% because you will either see it or not, Correctly collected statistics are facts. They are fact by the very definition of the word fact. The interpretation of those facts, to infer meaning from them is what you have a problem with. They do not "imply fact" they are facts and simply stating them allows the reader to imply a more generalized meaning from them.

Re:Plausible deniability...

[Anonymous Coward]

Allow me to point out that a large majority of white collar criminals are whites... so that makes it even... doesn't it?

Re:Plausible deniability...

[Kjella]

That's all well and nice, but people act on indicators not causation. To take an example I'm a male and most rapists are male and most rape victims are female. So if I happen to be walking in the same direction as a woman late at night she's got far more reason to fear that I'll drag her into the bushes and rape her than I got reason to fear that she'll drag me into the bushes and rape me. None of this has of course anything do to with causation, unless you're the kind who thinks women are "asking for it". Is it sexist or just good threat assessment? Now repeat the same with a potential mugger and a potential mugging victim, are you then a racist if you fear the black guy more than the white guy?

Of course we're all individuals, and I'm not guilty of anything because someone else who shares some physical or other characteristic with me commit crimes but you can't tell that from looking at me. Prejudice you can cure through knowledge, but what of statistical "truths"? Say you have two possible hires, practically identical resumes and interviews but you know one belongs to a group you know that's generally known to worker harder and complain less, which do you pick? Here in Norway we've had companies now pretty plainly state that they prefer Swedes for bars and restaurants and Poles for construction and industry and somehow that's not discrimination based on nationality - I guess it helps we're all white. But if someone were to say something of Somalis or Iraqis or Afghans, they'd be burned at the stake as racists.

In short my impression is that you get plenty discrimination, but only certain groups in certain situations gets to call foul and say it's racism. We're all equals but as usual some are more equal than others, the rest of us are just supposed to take it when we're being discriminated against. Why am I supposed to take blanket statements about us when I can't make the same kind of blanket statements about others? Same with our department of equality, you'd have to search long and hard to find a case where men were discriminated rather than women, sexism is another one-way street. But if you point that out it's STFU you're a white male, you got nothing to complain about - as if that wasn't the most racist, sexist remark of them all.

Re:Plausible deniability...

[burningcpu]

I don't understand what your rationale is here.
If you divide the number of crimes perpetrated by one group by the number of group members, and then take the ratio of those values, you'll get a measure of how often one group commits a crime versus another.

Re:Plausible deniability...

[Nemyst]

Regardless of the bad analogy, you've modified the original statement from "in a random robbery, it's 8 times more likely that the crime has been committed by a black than a white" into "black people are 8 times more likely to commit robbery." That's an important difference because black people in and of themselves are no more likely to commit robbery, but there are more black people in the socioeconomic conditions that increase the likelihood of criminality. The second phrasing implies some form of causality which just isn't there.

Re:Plausible deniability...

[mattie_p]

Considering the dinosaur clade includes birds, there is almost certainly a dinosaur in your backyard, if you have a backyard. The odds of seeing one would depend upon your eyesight, if you have a dinosaur feeder, if you have binoculars, day vs. night, etc. But I think we could use 50% as a nice estimate for daylight hours.

Re:Plausible deniability...

[rohan972]

I think that one thing we can agree on is that statistics are total horseshit.

No they aren't. Statistics would also tell you that blacks are more likely to be victims of crime. Racism (including racist interpretation of statistics) could be described as horseshit. Horseshit is in reality far more useful than racism, but we get what you mean.

Re:Plausible deniability...

[Pieroxy]

Statistically (And I didn't count, but if you disbelieve it please speak out) AC's comment tend to be more trollish and flamebait. Just look at the GNAA posts for a good example of what I'm talking about.

Hence, a portion of the people posting AC are just AC to troll in all anonymity. Hence, a lower credibility rating.

Looks like my "tiny little narrow-minded world" is still an order of magnitude larger than yours.

Re:Plausible deniability...

[Pieroxy]

Frankly, I really don't care what the reason is. Sure, prattle on about socio-economic injustice and all that. I don't care. I wasn't even born yet during slavery, Jim Crow, or segregation. It was none of my doing, none of my responsibility; and I will accept none of the blame.

What I do care about, in the here and now, is the safety and security of my family, myself, and my friends. Period. Full stop.

Wow. What an arrogant jerk. The fact that you weren't born does absolves you from any responsibility to what your forefathers did, this is true. It doesn't prevent you from recognizing what happened and try to understand that not all black people are criminals. It's not in their genes, not anymore that practicing slavery is in white people's genes. You know, so that your offspring can develop some ability to do some critical thinking by themselves and outsmart you very quickly. THAT is the legacy you should leave to your kids.

Re:Plausible deniability...

[dkf]

2. Who's collecting these statistics? The judicial system? The judicial system has been proven prejudice by hundreds of studies over the years. They convict more minorities of crimes, they give them longer sentences, they charge them with more infractions. They pull over a white kid with a pocket knife and they call his parents, they get a black kid with the same knife and he's getting charged with a felony. Are blacks really twice as likely to commit a crime with a knife? Or are they just twice as likely to get convicted?

The core problem is that it appears that people who are black in the US are more likely to be in poverty than the national average. Worldwide, being poor is more strongly correlated with crime (whether as perp or victim) and that particularly holds true for violent crime. Just that, in itself, is sufficient to imply a higher likelihood of being a prisoner if you're black (in the US; I'd expect different race-based statistics in Russia, for example).

So any study that you conduct into conviction rates has got to first take into account the offending rate, but the problem is working out what that rate really is. It's perhaps most easily done with very serious crimes like murder, since it's presumably considered pretty heinous everywhere and by everyone; every modern society is pretty down on random private killings. Given that, the questions to ask would be what is the rate of accusation relative to the local population, what is the rate of conviction relative to the rate of accusation, and what is the distribution of sentencing given the conviction. Are these questions being asked? (I genuinely don't know.) We have an ideal of justice being blind, but in reality it is important to monitor whether the systems we have really are fair: to simply just assume it is clearly foolish, as it would be entirely possible for there to be systematic problems which we are unaware of if we don't look.

Re:Plausible deniability...

[Pieroxy]

Granted, the signal/noise ratio is pretty low for registered users, but it is still much much higher than the S/N ration of ACs.

Re:Plausible deniability...

[Pieroxy]

Granted, the benefit/crime ratio is pretty low for <insert race here>, but it is still much higher than the benefit/crime ratio of <insert race here>.

Almost. Really trolling eh?

ACs were not born ACs. The became ACs on their own willful actions. One of the reason is to hide themselves. Therefore, the mere fact that they post as AC *does* say something about them.

Their race does not.

Re:Plausible deniability...

[hairyfeet]

Actually, and I'm sure the left leaning on this site will scream and hit the downmod for me daring to point this out but it isn't blacks its AMERICAN blacks which have embraced a VERY destructive pattern of attacking those that try to get an education while worshiping the wasting of money and the whole "thug life!" bullshit that is the cause of the much higher crimerates among blacks, that and 50 years of white guilt that caused more damage to the black community than dropping an atomic bomb on them. Instead of hand ups all they got were hand outs that rewarded destructive behavior like having more unwed mothers with more unwanted children and the community itself not only not condemning this behavior but actually treating it as a valid "lifestyle" certainly didn't help matters any.

But if you do look at the stats you'll see a black just off the boat from Africa, despite language and culture barriers, is something like 9 times more likely to become middle class than an American black that has the advantage of being born here. I would argue this is entirely due to culture and the almost pathological hatred for anything that can be considered "white" like education. I have actually witnessed this myself, with friends that were actually trying to get ahead being openly ridiculed and attacked by others in the community and even in their own family, who have a "you think you are better than me Uncle Tom?" attitude to those trying to get ahead. i just haven't seen this kind of hatred for those trying to do better in any other race. Hell when my son was accepted into the college's premed on a full scholarship we were all happy he was gonna do better than us, but the attitude in the black community would have been to attack. To me that just doesn't compute and its no wonder there is so much crime when you have the worship of money in the form of wasted wealth like "bling" and rims and Caddys but attack the ways one can legally earn those things.

As for TFA as more and more people live off their cell i'm sure we'll see this more often, big bro don't like not being able to get into anything they want at anytime. i have to wonder if it is not sheer laziness on the part of the police, as in the old days they would actually investigate whereas now with GPS and cells and a bazillion other easy sources of information all it takes is access to the data and you can find out anything you want about an individual. Kinda sad that you don't really need big bro to plant a tracker on you as the corps have made sure you are shackled to that smartphone 24/7 that makes it easy enough to track your every move. I have to wonder if that isn't the real future of big brother, that it won't be the governments who will just become impotent stoolies but the multinational corps who end up ruling vast nation states like in the classic rollerball. As someone with whom i was discussing Brave New World VS 1984 pointed out to me we are living in BNW right now, with every pleasure on demand and endless information and he wondered if they aren't simply too sides to the same coin, you start off with BNW and then as the system breaks down as more and more simply can't afford the endless distractions and trappings of BNW it slowly morphs into 1984 as the elite build more and more safeguards into the system to protect themselves from the masses of poor who get tired of being hungry and never getting ahead.

Re:Plausible deniability...

[Lumpy]

Don't forget that untreated and under treated mental illness runs rampant in the poor. Go into any poor community and look at the number of people rocking violently, talking to themselves, etc... The "greatest healthcare in the world" is only for the rich. It's an utter failure for the poor.

If you look at the real data of all crimes and violent crimes. Drugs and mental illness are the top tiers of what the criminal is suffering from. Gang Bangers for the most part are drugged out nut cases that should have had treatment years ago, many times bi-polar or even schizophrenia victims. They self medicate with drugs and alcohol and become sociopaths.

This only happens in the poor community where there is no healthcare to take care of the problem. You don't see multi millionaire's kids going out and killing people because they "dissed my homies".

Re:Plausible deniability...

[Bongo]

That sort of culture isn't just part of one group, though.

I recall my Scottish grandmother showing similar contempt for her children when they made moves to improve themselves. It became a life long resentment that destroyed the relationships and the hatred was never healed. Another example from a previous generation, a son and his wife who left Pakistan for the UK, to find better opportunities, was spat at by his mother and she said she hoped they all died on the voyage.

Modern life demands that individuals leave their family and community loyalty behind and go where the opportunities are.

Those who don't shift into that modern mindset will remain poor.

If that sort of attitude sounds hard to believe, you have to bear in mind at that time in Scotland, it was considered wise to have all your teeth pulled when you were a teenager so you wouldn't face medical bills later on. When people are very poor all they have is family loyalty. So what makes you strong is also what holds you back in modern life.

Re:Plausible deniability...

[stdarg]

What is the point of asking who is black? Everybody identifies black people in their own way, usually by visual assessment, not a study of their ancestry. And your point about the judicial system discriminating against blacks proves that the randomness of everybody's individual assessment is actually consistent and focused... it's not possible for the "black kid" to be consistently discriminated against if a large number of people don't all see him as black.

I don't know where you got your anecdotes about the white kid being let off easy and the black kid being sent to jail. That sounds like it may have happened in the 1950s. Today it's often the opposite.. since authorities (schools, police, judges) are constantly being watched for signs of racism and discrimination, a non-racist authority figure is more likely to be harsh on a white person than a black person, just to keep their numbers looking more fair. I don't have a lot of experience with major crimes but I've seen it happen plenty of times in minor situations, like kids acting disrespectfully at school to teachers, cheating, and harassing girls.

Re:Plausible deniability...

[stdarg]

On the other hand, his modification made the statistics sound better than they really are, since only about 12.6% of the population is black compared to 72.4% white (2010 census). If the perpetrator is 8 times more likely to be black than white, then blacks are about 46 times more likely to commit robberies than whites. Of course that's assuming the "8" figure is right to start with.

Re:Plausible deniability...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have actually witnessed this myself, with friends that were actually trying to get ahead being openly ridiculed and attacked by others in the community and even in their own family, who have a "you think you are better than me Uncle Tom?" attitude to those trying to get ahead. i just haven't seen this kind of hatred for those trying to do better in any other race.

I recall my Scottish grandmother showing similar contempt for her children when they made moves to improve themselves.

I can attest that this attitude is very common in working class (white) communities in the UK. I had a (white) friend at Uni in the UK who would tell people at home that he was working construction in the city rather than admit that he was going to university. I have lived in both the US & UK; so much behavior which gets chalked up as a race issue in the US is easier to see as socioeconomic in the UK.

Re:Plausible deniability...

[cayenne8]

The core problem is that it appears that people who are black in the US are more likely to be in poverty than the national average.

True...but I think a lot of this, in this day in age, is a problem the black community has with their value system. You don't see blacks (largely) trying to promote someone getting an education, and trying to get a job and have good family life.

The careers they often glorify are:

1. Athlete

2. Rapper / Thug

Well, #1, just doesn't happen to the majority of people, and well, #2 doesn't happen that often either, and strangely enough, #2 has glorified connections with music to gang life...and that's another dead end street.

What can be done about it? You can't legislate it...it has to come from the black community themselves. I've heard leaders, and successful black people extoll the same....Bill Cosby for example, stands up and has said it like it is, for blacks to take responsibility for their own lives and success, for fathers to be responsible to their children.

Sadly, often, other blacks put them down for telling the truth that many out there see.

Back when I was in school...I saw this in action. I saw fellow black students, who WERE head of the class, involved in the school (student govt., student body president), in the honors classes.....yet, they were openly put down by the majority of blacks in the school....actually telling him to "stop acting white". I mean....with that kind of attitude and culture that perpetuates itself....sure, you see blacks stay in poverty. You also see the ones that DO get an education and work and succeed...move the fuck out of the black community, so that their kids don't get caught up in that 'culture', which often leads nowhere, and at its worst...prison and/or death.

Sure, there is still racism. For that matter, you see it on BOTH sides of the black and white line....lots of hatred towards whites from blacks, I see that too. But it isn't the impediment to success that it was decades ago. Somehow, the culture of victimhood for blacks, needs to be tossed out and have a culture of success and hard work and family values embraced.

But, like I said before, you can't legislate that. It somehow has to be generated from within....but only the black community can do that themselves, and well.....that certainly doesn't seem to be working, at least from someone like myself looking in from the outside.

Re:Plausible deniability...

[hairyfeet]

I used to think that the whole "stay the fuck away from black women" by black men was bullshit...until i spent nearly two years playing in a black band as the only white guy. in fact the singer used to diffuse tense situations when we'd first go into a black club by saying "Haven't you people heard of affirmative action? this is our token white boy!", but not a single one of them would EVER so much as speak to a black woman, much less date one. One night at the club I just flat out asked "Why? there are plenty of seriously hot women in this club, why wouldn't you even speak to them?" and finally Charles the singer said "Go try it, and see for yourself". i did and fuuuuuck, talk about queen bitches of the western world! they make it VERY fucking clear they look at you as nothing but a walking wallet, really don't give a fuck WHAT you think, and are more fucking bossy than a damned dominatrix. When I went back to Charles they were all snickering at the thousand yard stare I had on and I was all "Holy shit, not if they was the last fucking females on the face of God's green earth would i put up with that much domination!"

So I can see why black men completely avoid black women and won't stay with one, I wouldn't have one on a bet! I've dated White, Asian, Latino, and my current GF is Cherokee and I have NEVER seen women that are so damned emasculating as the black. I even thought "Maybe its just a fluke, i'll try the next state over when we play there on sat" and nope, not a fluke, being a ball breaking superbitch is pretty much SOP for the black female, and talk about racist! There are many of them that made it quite clear they look at any race other than black as beneath them, which is of course ironic as hell as the black males don't want a damned thing to do with them on account of their ballbusting. No wonder in cities like Atlanta there is less than 2 black men for every 10 black women, because the black men that actually want to keep a pair sure as hell ain't gonna go near them bitches!

Re:Plausible deniability...

[Larryish]

The reason for anonymity is to air your views while avoiding persecution by those who disagree, be they legislators or moderators.

Re:Plausible deniability...

[oreaq]

Let'ssee. Blacks are 8 times more likely than whites to commit the crime of robbery. FACT. Facts don't care how you feel about them.

That's probably a lie not fact. Capitalization doesn't change that. The "fact" you are referring to is: In America a black person is 8 times more likely to be convicted for the crime of robbery than a white person.

Equal opportunity is a great wonderful thing. I hope it never goes away.

When did it start?

Re:Plausible deniability...

[Pieroxy]

Well well, here is an interpretation of what I didn't write !

Saying that a lot of ACs post anonymously so that they can troll isn't a surprise or a discovery for you I hope. But AC is not one person, it is a community as you pointed out.

So no, not all ACs are trollish and as you rightfully pointed out, some of the most insightful comments in most stories are posted by ACs.

But, noone can track ACs history of posting, because you all hide under the Anonymous "account". Hence, when reading an AC comment, I tend to be more critical, because most of the time it is just a casual troll. But it doesn't matter in the end, a troll is a troll and a valuable comment is a valuable comment.

That said, I did not call you a troll unless you are the poster of the comment #39359657.

And my mistake was just to address the poster as "AC" and since you post as AC as well, you took it for yourself. My bad on a bad terminology.

Re:Plausible deniability...

[Kurrel]

I have seen this tragic attitude on Native American reservations as well. The parents openly ridicule education and root for their children to fail, so that they will stay at home for their entire lives. It is a terrible cycle and is yet another contributing factor to the cultural suicide they seem intent on committing.

Re:Plausible deniability...

[stanlyb]

I happen to know how the statistic is calculated, and i also happen to know what fact is:
1. Fact: Something that happens 100% of the time.
2.Statistic: Something that happens with less than 100% of the time.
Here, take this, write it down, and show it the girls next door. There is some chance you will end up in their bed, but as you already know, it is not fact.

Re:Plausible deniability...

[Eristone]

Talk about thread drift... but

Cayenne8 - I would disagree with your assessment somewhat about the "community taking care of it internally" --- and while I absolutely agree with Mr. Cosby about individuals taking personal responsibility for their lives, you have to take into account the 300 years of American history that have played into what we see today.

1) "Level Playing Field" -- Generation "Y" (people born roughly after 1990) is really the first generation of Black children who have opportunity that was not legislatively restricted. 1964 was the first year that the government was not actively playing the part of "The Man Keeping You Down". Any successful Black person prior to that date did it *in spite of* the system. In addition, the "unwritten" social code was still deeply entrenched until the early 90s. (and still exists today, but that's another discussion) The "color barrier" that was broken to allow entry into country clubs, positions that were previously thought of as "a black person can't do" - head coach of a football team.. or quarterback for instance.

2) "Standard Intelligence Curve Applies To Community" -- Your average group of people, no matter the color of their skin, are generally going to be a couple of really smart ones, a couple of really dumb ones and a bunch of people in the middle - average. The smart ones are either going to leave a situation that is detrimental if they are able (and an unsafe community is definitely detrimental) -- the dumb ones won't be able to do anything and the average ones will split between leaving and staying.

3) "Time" -- it takes time - generations - to undo wholesale systemic marginalization. And education. And mindset change. You also have to fight the inertia of people who are happy with the way things are, both inside and outside the communities.

I can go on .. but you get the basics here. It's not a simple "hey - be responsible" problem - you have to have a place to start that allows you to be responsible individual and not everyone has the "self starter" gene (as I have to point out fairly often to my wife).

Re:Plausible deniability...

[Eristone]

Of course when you look at the socioeconomic family statistics that show 60% of the black population is middle income or lower (and 33% is within 150% of the poverty line) vs. 40% of the white population (and only 27% is within 150% of the poverty line), that should skew your analysis a bit, should it not? In addition when you look at the distribution of the populations and also when you take into account that historical data is in place for the original numbers (when black people were arrested because they were black.. ) Statistics are fun. So is looking at society and the reasons behind the numbers...

Re:Plausible deniability...

[Jawnn]

Jeezuz...
Stereotype much? Not saying that bitches (and I use that word in a very calculated manner here) like those you've described don't exist. They do, and in high concentrations in locations like that. But to lump all "black women" in that category, just because of the color of their skin is, well, staggeringly fucking stupid.

Re:Plausible deniability...

[hairyfeet]

Do you think that songs with lyrics like 'can you pay my bills, can you pay my telephone bills' became megahits because there are a FEW of them? How many states have YOU toured through friend? how many all black clubs, parties, BBQs, and get togethers have YOU been to? because for nearly three years that was ALL I did, in fact for that period other than the white women dating the black men i was pretty much it, just one white guy in a sea of black folks. And i hate to break the news to ya it ain't racism if its fucking true, that would be like saying its racist to say black folks got curly hair or we Irish tend to freckle, that's just how it is. Like I said I talked to black women from one side of the country to the other because i wanted to make sure it wasn't a fluke, and we played just as many private parties and get togethers as we did clubs so you can't say it was just club girls.

But tell ya what Sparky, i'm sure there are black clubs in your area and you're not racist right? go talk to them yourself and see how quick your balls try to climb up in your chest to get away from them, because I can telly ya Skippy there ain't nothing more domineering in this world than a young single black female, especially when they are around other black females. Frankly calling them ball busting bitches is kinda a insult to ball busting bitches as we really need a new word to describe THAT level of emasculation. Hell why do you think damned near every black guy, from celebrities like Ice T to the guy down the street, are with white women? its because they like having their balls attached and being looked at as something other than a wallet with feet THAT's why.

But you go on back to your PC approved world where the black men aren't dating the white women or the white men are dating the black women, the rest of us have to live in reality. But if a stereotype is 100% accurate, should we still call it a stereotype? How high of a percentage do you need? 65%? 75%?

Re:Plausible deniability...

[hairyfeet]

Well in the case of the natives i have to wonder how much of their own self hate comes from being told that they are ugly. It has taken me years to undo some of the damage living next to the rez did on my little Cherokee princess because she was told almost from the first day of school she was ugly because she didn't look white. She didn't have "good" hair or features which of course are white hair and features. The Cherokee female appearance is very typical for the plains Indians, they are short, with wider hips and wider noses, nothing like the typical European female. Hell it took me forever just to get her to actually raise her voice and get mad at me and the first time she did she actually cried because she realized that even if we argued i wasn't gonna beat her. they had broken down her self esteem so damned much that she thought expressing herself would automatically get the back of my hand.

In the end all I can do is stick with her and let her see that not all men are gonna use or abuse her, but it takes time. at least the blacks had sense to accept their own features after the whole "black is beautiful' thing in the 70s, but even to this day you go anywhere near the rez and its nothing but self loathing, damned sad if you ask me because I personally find the complexion and features of the plains Indians to be quite lovely. Not to mention they age REALLY well, at 44 my Cherokee princess has skin as soft as any 20 year old, I just wish I could get her to quit dying her damned hair as i like the grey streaks but she says "men with grey are distinguished, women just look old" though I suppose the fact that she'll put her foot down and tell me no is progress i guess.

Re:Plausible deniability...

[airdweller]

"the probability that you will see dinosaur is 50%"
"no matter what the "fact", i mean statistic says. "
I don't think you understand probability or statistics.

Re:Plausible deniability...

[airdweller]

"statistics are total horseshit."
Yes, b/c if something is wrong then everything is wrong. That's insightful.

Re:Plausible deniability...

[cusco]

Substitute "Latino kid" for "Black kid" and I can tell you from the personal experiences of friends and family that it continually and consistently happens every day in pretty much every state in the US. I don't have close enough personal contacts in the black community to know for sure that it's still the case there, but I'd be very surprised if it weren't.

Re:Plausible deniability...

[Charliemopps]

You're talking about their pop-culture. What the African American community "glorifies" in their music. I listed to death metal, which, by your definitional "glorifies" serial killers, murder, satanism, Vikings, planets exploding, fictitious gods from fantasy books, etc... And yet, I've strangely never tried to blow up the earth. Music is music, and has nothing to do with reality. The same goes for the African American community.

Re:Plausible deniability...

[ffflala]

Consider your environment -- the women you encountered were those who *go out to the club*. It's not a representative sample. Bands try to project an image of material success and excess; of course this will attract materialistic, controlling people.

I'm lucky enough to work in a field that both (1) attracts a lot of women and (2) has a decent amount of ethnic diversity. The black women I've encountered in my work and personal life, and those that I've dated, do not behave the way you describe.

You should try chatting up the next cute black librarian you encounter, and see if you encounter the same problems.

Re:Plausible deniability...

[stdarg]

Absolutely not.

What you could do is use statistics to show that there are other variables that lead to more precise correlations with crime, and maybe income level is one of them. But that does not allow you to change "in a random robbery, it's 8 times more likely that the crime has been committed by a black than a white" into "black people are 8 times more likely to commit robbery."

Statistics ARE fun, and can be confusing, but this is not such a case. It's very straightforward.

Re:Plausible deniability...

[stdarg]

I'm not saying it doesn't happen to black kids or latino kids. I'm saying it also happens to white kids.

Just another reason...

[registrations_suck]

...to avoid dependence on "free" information services.

Re:Just another reason...

[registrations_suck]

....my point was that you're better off running your OWN information services (for example, your own mail server, etc.), rather than trust it to someone 3rd party who will happily hand over whatever info may be found there.

Re:Just another reason...

[PNutts]

So you're saying that if you are served a subpoena you won't comply? Better lawyer up!

Re:Just another reason...

[hot soldering iron]

But that doesn't mean I have to go dig it out of my closet to hand it to them if they can't find it themselves. I don't have to incriminate myself. I think your interpretation of the fifth amendment may need some fine tuning.

Re:Just another reason...

[registrations_suck]

I'm saying I have 5th amendment rights.

Re:Just another reason...

[Oo.et.oO]

while i agree this is the way it should be. there is recent federal precedent where they forced a defendant to supply the decryption passcode for her laptop even after she claimed 5th amendment rights.

this is even more egregious w/ regards to phones which at the moment don't have as much access to encryption, let alone hidden partitions, etc.

Ars Technica Lnk

[DarkHelmet]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/03/fbi-stumped-by-pimps-androids-pattern-lock-serves-warrant-on-google.ars

The one thing I found amusing about the whole thing is that PhD supposedly stood for "Pimpin' Hoes Daily". Then I read this:

Her $500 a night went straight to Dears, though, who "took care of her" in his own special way. As San Diego's Union Tribune reported, Dears found out the woman had spoken to a man who wanted to help her get off the streets. So Dears "beat her up in the back seat of his Cadillac and then forced her to get into the car's trunk, she testified. While in the trunk, she was driven from East Main Street in El Cajon to Hotel Circle in Mission Valley, she testified."

Major league asshole. I hope he gets the book thrown at him.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[yurtinus]

I wonder how much rage we'll see in the discussion on this article... Now, not that I'm a lawyer or anything, but it looks like a properly served warrant for access to a specific device. Pretty much exactly what I would expect (and want!!) law enforcement to do while investigating a crime. I suppose it remains to be seen if the information they get allows them to unlock an arbitrary Android device or just this one.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[billcopc]

Yes, but the problem I see is: they already had him behind bars. He was released, and he went back to being a parasitic sack of shit. This is a failure of the penal system to rehabilitate convicts, a failure of the legal system to legalize prostition, creating this black market where thugs thrive, and finally a failure of the economy for creating an environment where crime pays way better than any proper career this Dears twit could ever possibly sustain. Heck, $500 a night is more than I make as an I.T. contractor.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[Anonymous Coward]

Me too, but... is it right if he causes the FBI to take any slim protections we might still seem to enjoy with him?

Methinks they can figure out other ways to get the information they need to nail his dick to the cross. They're just being government-lazy.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[oakgrove]

When you try and fail to unlock an Android device enough times and fail it just asks for your gmail password. I doubt Google will do anything more than give them that which would be pretty worthless against any other Android phone.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[russotto]

Now, not that I'm a lawyer or anything, but it looks like a properly served warrant for access to a specific device.

Well, first of all, it's a rubber stamped warrant. Literally.

Second, Google is unlikely to have some of the information requested; the PUK of the SIM would be known by the SIM manufacturer, not the maker of the phone's operating system. Same goes for text messaging; it goes through the carrier, not Google.

Third, the records are unlikely to be physically at Google Legal Investigations Support.

Fourth, some of the "items requested" amount to a fishing expedition -- so much for "particular" descriptions of the places to be searched or items seized.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[Anonymous Coward]

Major league asshole. I hope he gets the book thrown at him.

Sure, but once it becomes known how to take personal data off a locked Android phone, this will be used millions of times per year on people like you who don't remotely qualify for the "end justifies the means" treatment that we assume is OK in this case.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[amiga3D]

Exactly! This is how law enforcement is supposed to act. They have a suspect, they provide reasons to a judge, get a warrant and Google opens the device. If you're involved in crime don't keep anything incriminating on your phone. I mean really, these are the kinds of assholes law enforcement should be locking up.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[Anonymous Coward]

Silly me - here I was thinking it was a failure of Mr. Dears to behave in a socially responsible adult manner, instead of engaging in petty crime and preying on the weak.

Society doesn't owe him a $500 a night job. Society doesn't owe him a cushy life free of any bad luck.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[EdIII]

It should not be that much of a problem for Google then.

There lawyers could just have fun with it. A nice lunch with some IT guys and a hour or so later you have a well written response with supporting documentation on why the FBI are complete technology retards.

They could have a few pages on how PUK and SIM actually work, and even being helpful, list contact information for the manufacturers.

Judge would just love reading that the FBI was wasting the courts time because they could not even figure out who to serve a warrant to. :)

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[joebagodonuts]

"Rehabilitation" isn't the goal.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[Anonymous Coward]

I would hope that Google doesn't know my gmail password. I hope they use some security system that is similar to a salted one way hash. For example with Windows, the password is not known by the domain controller and it cannot be retrieved (short of doing dictionary hacks against the hashing function). I'd expect Google to be even more secure there and not have access to my password. Now, they could absolutely RESET my password. That's a different ball game than being able to produce my existing password on demand. One is scary. The other is just inevitable.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[cpu6502]

It doesn't look like the warrant was issued yet. The judge may turn it down, or severely limit its scope (only require Google to provide the passgesture, if they have it).

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[interkin3tic]

So not only does he deal in human sex slavery, he also is acting as a catalyst for the FBI to erode our right to privacy a little bit more.

And both are eroding a little more of my faith in humanity.

FBI, instead of trying to get a skeleton key to all our phones, including me who has never made a woman sell herself for money, how about you just pass a law that people convicted of pimping can't have phones? No objections from me on that one... anyone else?

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[Anonymous Coward]

The PUK is also unnecessary since it's only used to unlock the phone's SIM card (and hence it's contacts.) If you fail too many times it self-destructs.

The Wireless provider knows the PUK as it's based on the serial number of the sim card, so Google certainly wouldn't have it.

Text messages are bit of a "maybe yes", while they are transmitted through the carrier, for billing purposes, the carrier has no way of reading them unless they've been stored. Having worked for AT&T, their customer service software, and all the support software doesn't let you read text messages, but it does let you send text messages anonymously to phones. If you're a technical staffer who can manually provision phones, you may have access to the SMS in-transit, but I don't think they're stored unless the FBI has been requiring it.

The actual storage of SMS messages are on the phone/SIM if not deleted. It largely depends on what the phone's software is setup to do. On early Motorola and Nokia phones, all the contacts were stored on the SIM card, but on later models (post 2005) they are stored in the phone memory by default.

So there's no need to get the SIM card PUK, It's just the easiest way to bypass the PIN password. If you remove the sim card and replace it with another one without a PIN, it will give you access to the phone and all it's data anyway. Depending on the device, you may have better luck simply syncing the device to a computer.

As for what you can do with a stolen/lost phone, not a hell of a lot. If you're looking to wipe it so you can keep it, it's much easier to do that, than to use it for identity theft. As a golden rule, I never "save my password" on any device. I'd rather a lost device be wiped than someone using the data for nefarious purposes.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[Anonymous Coward]

Right - because if prostitution were legal, non thugs would be signing up all over the place to run brothels, just like strip clubs.

I hear you on legalizing, but really, it would still be run by thugs. its prostitution. it's never going to be legitimate even if its not illegal.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[bmo]

It's not the goal because nobody ever thinks of the long term effects of the system we have versus the system we could have.

And we, as a society, pay through the nose for it. If you think corrections costs too much, look in the mirror.

--
BMO

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, yes, it is. The whole point of the prison system as it stands today is to rehabilitate criminals and release them back into society as free men. If that weren't the case, they'd never be released, and we would probably just kill them instead to save money.

As for actually rehabilitating people, it's pretty obvious the system has failed miserably. But hey, that's just what the government does. War on drugs, war on terror, apparent war on the economy; total failure has never stopped them before and it won't stop them now.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[msobkow]

The defendant will always claim a warrant was "rubber stamped."

But at least it's some sort of oversight on the process, and beats the heck out of the "security first" fanatics who keep wanting to remove the "obstruction" of a warrant completely.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[Anonymous Coward]

Resetting the gmail password won't help if the phone is locked. The phone still needs the old password to unlock it.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[Kalriath]

One question: are your private prison operators paid on a per capita basis per incarcerated person, or on a performance basis per rehabilitated person? Ours are paid per rehabilitated person. Et tu?

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[Anonymous Coward]

To use google (ldap) directory sync with google apps, you need to use unsalted SHA1, or cleartext passwords in the directory you wish to sync.

So, maybe? maybe not.

BTW, windows does _not_ use salted passwords, that is why it is so fast/easy to crack windows passwords-- since you _can_ use precomputed hashes in a rainbow table, unlike pretty much any other OS.

Also, windows has an option to use reversible passwords in AD.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[grainofsand]

"Asshole"? Really? My limited understanding is that he is an innocent person until found otherwise, no?

It is all too easy to cast allegations around. At this stage he is not an "asshole" but instead a wholly innocent person accused of serious crimes.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[martin-boundary]

I don't care. If the police's whole case stands or falls on a single cellphone password, then they're not doing their job properly. They should have several leads and avenues to explore, and they should not rely on getting special treatment.

It's a slippery slope, regardless. We're encouraged to trust Google with our data, and yet it's "ok" if the government gets to walk all over that trust. It's sloppy thinking, and I don't like it.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[sg_oneill]

Its a bit more complicated than that with SMS. SMS isn't a point-to-point protocol, if the reciever isn't available, it stores somewhere and waits its turn. Its then up to the implementation as to whether its filed away in some database or deleted. SMS's are tiny little messages so its not certain that it would be delted. On the other hand theres no overwhelming reason not to delete either , unless some sort of data retention mandate is in place.

I do not believe any of the current generation of smart-phones by default store contacts on the card.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[Obfuscant]

"Asshole"? Really? My limited understanding is that he is an innocent person until found otherwise, no?

No. He's either guilty or not. He cannot be innocent today and then guilty tomorrow for something he did last week.

The legal system is required to treat him as not until proven otherwise. That, however, does NOT mean that the legal system cannot get a search warrant to obtain evidence that can be used in a court to allow the court to make that determination, so even the claim "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply here.

As for how the rest of the world treats him, we have no limits on calling him guilty because we aren't the legal system.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[marcello_dl]

Putting criminals together in the same place and not monitoring them 24h (aren't we monitoring the ordinary citizens more than criminals?) means: jail is an academy for criminals.
A sane society would be damaging itself by not fighting crime, but another kind of society may need criminals to do the dirty jobs in exchange for money, a society based on money may need crime to strip people of excess money and keep them thinking about getting to the end of the month instead of having their needs satisfied and them wondering how things work in politics, economy, arts. Does this happen to us?
Then cops keep criminals under control so they don't get too powerful, laws keep cops under control, corruption keeps laws under control.

Here in Italy they are discussing amnesty, mere years after one was granted, for the same reasons: it's obvious that a remedy that lands you back at square one is a failure, but not obvious to politicians. Now, we can believe that people able to change things do not understand cause and effect, ok. But I'll take ANY crackpot theory over the theory that idiots rule the world, I see the latter not happening in the small so it can't be happening at the top, the ladder that is based on nothing can't stand. The idiots are there on top, but they are not the rulers.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[rrohbeck]

Rehabilitate?
I think this is the first time I've heard that term used in relation to the US penal system. Isn't it just about putting people away and using them for cheap labor?

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[Obfuscant]

It's not the goal because nobody ever thinks of the long term effects of the system we have versus the system we could have.

Actually having that system is, unfortunately, not a unilateral decision on the part of society. What that means is that the criminal has to want to rehabilitate before we can have a system that rehabilitates people.

You can't force someone to rehabilitate who doesn't want to, just like you can't force someone who doesn't want to "wage peace" to do so.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[russotto]

IMHO the case as such is sufficiently egregious so as to justify an extremely broad warrant without much consideration by a judge.

First of all, the Constitution doesn't allow warrants which don't particularly describe places to be searched and things to be seized, no matter how egregious the circumstances. The Supreme Court has ruled that the judges do have to exercise judgement when approving them (though this is honored more in the breach than the observance).

Second, law enforcement is very good at painting defendants in a bad light. Look up the Kevin Mitnick case; whatever Mitnick did, it is NOT true that he could have started a nuclear war by whistling into a pay phone. In this case, they use "human trafficking" as a scare term; it appears he's actually a run of the mill pimp.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Silly me - here I was thinking it was a failure of Mr. Dears to behave in a socially responsible adult manner, instead of engaging in petty crime and preying on the weak.

Silly you indeed. We are society so we can change it. We are not Dears so we can't change him. That you equate fixing systemic problems with giving criminals "a cushy life" indicates that you don't really give a damn about society.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[cduffy]

Stop crying to me about how "society" is to blame for Mr. Dears decisions. MR. DEARS is to blame for his own decisions.

Sure, he's to blame; nobody doubts that -- but some of us care more about fixing things than we do about placing blame.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[Imrik]

I wouldn't say nobody thinks of it. The people in charge of the prison have probably considered it, but they have a vested interest in more crime.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[rrohbeck]

What do the two have to do with each other?

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[Golddess]

Question, are Nevada's brothels run by thugs? I ask because, though I always thought they were run by non-thugs, I honestly don't know.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Stop crying to me about how "society" is to blame for Mr. Dears decisions. MR. DEARS is to blame for his own decisions.

That's a canard, no one, not even the post you were responding to has said one word about absolving Dears for his actions. Strawmen are easy to knock down because no one was supporting them in the first place.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[anagama]

There's a saying along the lines, "ugly facts make bad law" -- this is exactly why. Yes, this guy is an uberjerk, no doubt, and because of that, the courts are likely to look for any possible means to get around privacy issues. Understandable in this case, but then whatever precedent results, get used against a reporter or peace protester or what-not.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[Ethanol-fueled]

Bullshit. The middlemen (pimps) would be taken out of the equation entirely because prostitutes would be empowered to have total control over their enterprise, as they do on craigslist and other sites.

Legalizing prostitution increases profits (not having to pay a pimp), allowing women or men to "vet" their dates in advance(the high-class prostitutes are frequently grad students who target single and successful dorks like you for $400 per session) and eliminates violence and urban blight by shifting the acts to private residences.

But like the lazy, brutish, and entirely misguided crackdowns on Marijuana; legalized prostitution ain't gonna fly in Ammurika anytime soon, especially with loonies like Santorum seriously considered candidates for president.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[javascriptjunkie]

My big question is... is it an encrypted device? There's nothing in the article or the affidavit that says it was. And if it's not, then why can't they just take the hard drive out and put it into something that can read micro hard drives? With all the billions of dollars we as tax payers are paying to keep the FBI running, you would think they would have at least some OEM equipment at their disposal. It doesn't exactly inspire faith in the Bureau when this kind of thing illustrates that the "experts" in Computer Crimes don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[whoever57]

So there's no need to get the SIM card PUK, It's just the easiest way to bypass the PIN password. If you remove the sim card and replace it with another one without a PIN, it will give you access to the phone and all it's data anyway.

Some Motorola phones have versions of "Motoblur" that require a login/password when you put in a new SIM. I don't know how secure this is, but access to the phone if it were a Motorola phone (I think it is actually a Samsung) may not be a simple as putting in a new SIM.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

So not only does he deal in human sex slavery, he also is acting as a catalyst for the FBI to erode our right to privacy a little bit more.

Like they need an excuse.

FBI, instead of trying to get a skeleton key to all our phones, including me who has never made a woman sell herself for money, how about you just pass a law that people convicted of pimping can't have phones? No objections from me on that one... anyone else?

Yean I object. A phone is pretty much a requirement for anyone to find legitimate work. What you propose will make it just that much harder for criminals become former criminals - the only ones who would obey such a law are the very people you would want to have a phone.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[geekoid]

I can not believe you are modded up.

A) They have cause. AS in peple testifing against him, accusing him.

B) They know he did business on his phone

D) It's not a fishing hunt. It is a normal, reasonable and valid request.

The only question is 'Do they need permission for a wiretap'?

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[Anonymous Coward]

I really have to wonder who the FBI has working for them in their technology forensics and support. Do they not know how modern cell phones work, much less more advanced smartphones? Hell, I know how they work, especially data recover, and that's the least required knowledgable portion of my standard IT office support job.

This doesn't give me a very high opinion how the forensic aspect of the FBI functions when it comes to tech.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[tftp]

a society based on money may need crime to strip people of excess money and keep them thinking about getting to the end of the month

The primary reason for not fighting the crime is that the crime is a necessary boogeyman. The populace needs to be scared into obedience. The government can't openly say that if you don't vote for more taxes we will kill you. However the government can say - and does say - that if you don't vote for more taxes then the police forces will be reduced and if you get killed by a criminal then it's all due to your own actions. Criminals are government's "brownshirts," not a very accurate weapon but perfectly deniable, and well suited for blackmail.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows has not used unsalted passwords for a long time. Older versions of Windows (until 2000, at least) did use unsalted passwords which (among other reasons) is why that used to be true.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[NemoinSpace]

The FBI is not allowed to spy on US citizens, that's what the CIA was created for. Seems those SS uniforms seemed kind of flashy to Truman.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[misexistentialist]

"Slavery" can only exist as allowed by law. The only sex slaves in modern society are husbands.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[DurendalMac]

I'm sure they do have other avenues. However, in law enforcement, you often need to grab everything you can to throw at the guy. That includes evidence that could easily be on his cellphone. And yet it's "walking all over that trust" when law enforcement has good cause and gets a legitimate warrant? Are you kidding me?

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[swillden]

To use google (ldap) directory sync with google apps, you need to use unsalted SHA1, or cleartext passwords in the directory you wish to sync.

That doesn't mean Google stores unsalted hashes or cleartext, it just means that whatever Google stores is computable from those.

(Disclaimer: I work for Google, on security stuff, but I don't know anything about how user passwords are stored. I will say that storing unsalted hashes or cleartext would be very out of character for Google. Google tends towards great caution when it comes to security, and employs a lot of serious security experts and cryptographers.)

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[bmo]

But unless you offer the choice to rehabilitate, you get recidivism in spades.

--
BMO

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[DurendalMac]

And things should be fixed. There are laws that can be passed or pulled that can try to reduce this sort of thing.

In the meantime, scumsucking thugs like Dears need to back behind bars for a long time, and no matter how just and proper the laws are, filth like him will always exist.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[mspohr]

Nevada (in the US) and many cities in Europe have legal prostitution run by "non-thugs". It is legitimate.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[elbonia]

What is "rubber stamped" on the warrant since it was when he was caught lying to his parole officer and violating parole? "Dears had denied to his parole officer that he owned a mobile phone, and in January the parole officer went to Dears's apartment and seized the phone."

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[elbonia]

He was found guilty, did partial time and placed on parole for the rest. He lied to his parole officer which violated parole.

Agents conducted surveillance on Dears and found that he was using a mobile phone to allegedly communicate with prostitutes and other associates. Dears had denied to his parole officer that he owned a mobile phone, and in January the parole officer went to Dears's apartment and seized the phone.

And he is an Asshole since he was CONVICTED of various crimes including human trafficking. "one minor female testified how Dears had recruited her out of a homeless shelter.... Dears found out the woman had spoken to a man who wanted to help her get off the streets. So Dears "beat her up in the back seat of his Cadillac and then forced her to get into the car's trunk, she testified. While in the trunk, she was driven from East Main Street in El Cajon to Hotel Circle in Mission Valley" http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/03/fbi-stumped-by-pimps-androids-pattern-lock-serves-warrant-on-google.ars

So yah he's an asshole

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[couchslug]

There is nothing intrinsic to prostitution requiring pimps.

For your consideration:
The Mafia had its hooks into meatpacking, garment, construction, toxic waste disposal, restaurants, and other LEGAL businesses.

The way to keep "thugs" out is by enforcing the law, not "giving up" because some areas of human activity are presumed to be the domain of "thugs".

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[rhook]

In this case, they use "human trafficking" as a scare term; it appears he's actually a run of the mill pimp.

Pimping is human trafficking, just like selling drugs is trafficking in drugs.

Human trafficking is the illegal trade of human beings for the purposes of reproductive slavery, commercial sexual exploitation, forced labor, or a modern-day form of slavery.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[plover]

So you think "run of the mill pimps" somehow deserve a pass on human trafficking? Is that because they're too numerous to arrest? They have too much evidence against cops, judges, and politicians? Or is it because they just traffic in "hoes", not "people"?

The Ars article mentions a woman who he locked in the trunk of a car to prevent her escape. In what corner of the world do you live in where would that be dismissed as "run of the mill"? What kinds of people are willing to accept that behavior? Is it because she's not your daughter or sister, so it's OK that a pimp keeps her on the streets?

I agree that law enforcement often overstates their case, and try to throw a dozen charges at someone in hopes that one might stick. But this is the signed statement of an agent who interviewed a witnesses who directly observed the convicted parolee texting women who then appeared and delivered money to him throughout the evening. That's plenty of evidence to at least ask a judge to issue a search warrant for the phone. The judge could say no, of course, but this affidavit doesn't seem out of line for such requests.

He's already violating the terms of his parole agreement by not divulging his password to the FBI. The guy could certainly rot in jail for the rest of his sentence, with no more effort on anyone's part. But if additional crimes have been committed, they should be tried as well.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[JakartaDean]

So not only does he deal in human sex slavery, he also is acting as a catalyst for the FBI to erode our right to privacy a little bit more.

And both are eroding a little more of my faith in humanity.

FBI, instead of trying to get a skeleton key to all our phones, including me who has never made a woman sell herself for money, how about you just pass a law that people convicted of pimping can't have phones? No objections from me on that one... anyone else?

Huh? I know you didn't RTFA, but I did (at least the Ars one) so I'll point out:

1. They are asking for access to one guy's gmail password.

2. Said guy was banned from owning a cell phone while on parole, but he had one.

3. Said guy was wearing a tracking device, so he was making money "phone pimping."

4. Said guy had already signed away his Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search.

But, thanks for posting that the FBI is eroding your faith in humanity. Mine is eroded every time post uninformed opinions as suggested policy. My faith suffers a lot more regularly...

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[grainofsand]

My point remains, the overwhelming majority of your post consists of allegations and on these current charges he has yet to be found guilty.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[plover]

He's already guilty of the crimes he committed before, and he has not yet completed his sentence for those crimes. He's on parole after being released early from prison. Actually, he's on parole for a second time, after having violated the terms of his parole earlier and going back to prison for an additional year and a hafl.

One of the terms of his parole is that he must not have a mobile phone. Another one of the terms is that any passwords, encryption, to any information whatsoever that he has, he will immediately provide the means to access that data upon demand of his parole officer. He denied to his parole officer that he had a mobile phone, but his parole officer found it and seized it. The parole officer had every right to do so under the terms of his parole. He's also refused to provide the account and password information to access it, even though he agreed to provide it as a condition of his early release. So he's already in violation of two of the terms of his parole, and for that alone he gets to go back to prison. There is no additional trial needed -- he has already been found guilty of his original crimes. The terms of parole have nothing to do with "innocent until proven guilty." That bit of justice ended with his verdict. He is guilty.

As far as these new allegations and crimes go, he needs to stand trial for them. But he's already a convicted felon who was let loose from prison too early, twice. "Wholly innocent" is not a factual statement one uses to describe this felon.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[LordLimecat]

In this case, they use "human trafficking" as a scare term; it appears he's actually a run of the mill pimp.

What is it that you suppose a pimp does, exactly?

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[LordLimecat]

The FBI is not allowed to spy on US citizens, that's what the CIA was created for.

Except that the CIA is forbidden from operating within our borders, while the FBI is not.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[LordLimecat]

No, silly you for thinking that society can fix the problem of crime:

and finally a failure of the economy for creating an environment where crime pays way better than any proper career this Dears twit could ever possibly sustain.

Name a society that has ever come close to creating an environment where crime does not pay. Bonus points if you do manage to come up with one thats not a nightmarish police state.

And the point of a legal / justice system isnt to rehabilitate, its to punish and dole out some mediocre degree of justice.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[LordLimecat]

Heres a country that has legalized prostitution and still has a rather sizeable problem with human trafficking.

There isnt a silver bullet to this, but you damn sure cant blame society when a person commits a crime. People make their own choices, and to have any sort of a legal / justice system we need to assign responsibility to whom it belongs.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[LordLimecat]

CS Lewis commented on this in one of his books, and posed a rather startling question:
If society determines that proportional punishment and justice are no longer relevant in the legal system, and that all that matters is rehabilitation, what prevents a petty thief from being deprived of his freedom until society determines that he is cured? What limit is there on his detention? If society determines that he is not yet cured, can they hold him indefinitely?

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[LordLimecat]

Despite prostitution being legal in Amsterdam, this indicates that they have a rather large problem with human trafficking.

How do you explain this?

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[dryeo]

They're paid by unit of work done by the prisoners as well as per capita. Very lucrative business having slaves where the upkeep is paid for by the tax payers and the profits of the labor go to the stock holders.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8289

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[rrohbeck]

I asked what cheap prisoner labor and the cost of lodging in those fine institutions have to do with each other.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[witherstaff]

That is part of what the government does. It outsources huge contracts to private contractors that lobby very hard. And then people wonder why nothing ever changes.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[BenJCarter]

it looks like a properly served warrant for access to a specific device. Pretty much exactly what I would expect (and want!!) law enforcement to do while investigating a crime.

Exactly. If the State has to get a search warrant in order to access this alleged scumbag's data, regardless if they succeed, I feel better about my rights as a (mostly)non-scumbag.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[wrook]

You certainly do have limits in most countries. Calling someone guilty of a crime in public may very well be libel or slander. If the person is declared innocent in a trial your assertion that they are guilty could land you in hot water.

I haven't even RTFA so I have absolutely no clue one way or another. But it isn't unheard of for the press to take a juicy story and run with it, leaving just enough unsaid to protect them from a lawsuit (sometimes they don't even do that). Judging people based solely on reports in the newspaper is quite unfair and legally dangerous.

Of course, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[Nursie]

I can't name the society you're after, but I can make a couple ofr suggestions -

Stop criminalising things that people want to pay for.

Obviously this doesn't extend as a blanket rule. I'm sure some people would like to pay for murder, and we don't want to legalise taht. But in terms of drugs and prostitution we have a situation in which large numbers of otherwise law-abiding citizens are conspiring with the criminals to get money to them for goods or services. The result is that you get a mess of violent gangs with a lot of funding, you get low-quality drugs, you get human trafficking and abused women.

Legalise and regulate both and you eliminate a lot of this crap because you take away the black market aspect that keeps the cash flowing to criminal organisations. You won't end up with a perfect utopia by any means, but you will end up with a lot less people acting as willing accomplices to criminal arseholes.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[Pi Is A Rational]

This is marked troll because?

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[bmo]

We already have that, by not focusing on rehabilitation.

Some people even commit crimes to go back into the institution because the system didn't provide them with any skills to re-integrate into society.

Most people on the "inside" do not have high school diplomas. A frightening number do not have the ability to read and write.

--
BMO

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[Anonymous Coward]

Comparing this case to Kevin Mitnick's is laughable. Hilarious, really. In fact I'm rolling on the floor at a suggestion that these cases are in any way alike.

Parent was pointing out exactly how the two cases are identical in one aspect... The fact the government lies about why they arrested someone.

So your entire argument is that you honestly believe Kevin Mitnick *COULD* start world war 3 by whistling into a phone.

You sir are a grade A moron for believing that. For a so called geek, you sure do not know much at all about how phones work, nor how modems work. Or technology in general.

How about we point out another case where it would be the same.
You "the eric conspiracy (20178)" are a child molester! Some of those children were as young as 3 years old too!
You should be in prison for life with no trial for that.

Thankfully, you agree. As you said, the people accusing others are always 101% right and never could possibly be wrong, either mistaken or trying to be evil. Since you say you will believe my words blindly without thinking, and that makes it the truth, you have now just admitted to being a sexual molester of 3 year olds.

I really do hope they throw the book at you!

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[I(rispee_I(reme]

The whole point of the prison system as it stands today is to rehabilitate criminals and release them back into society as free men.

If that is the case, then why is it that so many states have laws that prevent felons from voting even after they have served their sentence and been released?

If the purpose of prison is rehabilitation, not revenge, why is nothing done to prevent inmates raping other inmates? I don't mean a token gesture, either, I mean a commitment to ending it.

If the purpose of prison is rehabilitation, why is there capital punishment at all?

These rhetorical questions are asked with the intent of shedding light on the true purpose of the penal system.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[martin-boundary]

Needing to grab some evidence on a phone is a goal. Having Google hand over the passwords for a phone is a means (not the only one) to achieve that goal. It's simple, reliable, and overkill. It encourages Google to set up a turnkey spying system to serve law enforcement, and it encourages law enforcement to rely too much on an oracle.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually there's another question - what happened to C?

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[bickerdyke]

..and still they don't go to the guys who could provide what they were looking for: Phone company and phone manufacturer. Are there any Android phones that really use the software as it is provided by Android devs? (is that even google or is google just the largest contributer in an alliance?) And when phone manufacturers brand their images, isn't a custom password salt the first thing you'd do? That should be in a headerfile _phone_provider_constants.h

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[WrongSizeGlass]

I really have to wonder who the FBI has working for them in their technology forensics and support. Do they not know how modern cell phones work, much less more advanced smartphones? Hell, I know how they work, especially data recover, and that's the least required knowledgable portion of my standard IT office support job.

This doesn't give me a very high opinion how the forensic aspect of the FBI functions when it comes to tech.

Looking at the bigger picture, they are trying to accomplish two objectives:
1) Gain access to this particular cellphone.
2) Set legal precedent that allows them to gain access to a device without the owner providing the password.

Number 2 is very important considering the 5th Amendment interpretations that prevent someone from providing evidence against themselves in the form of the password/access code/gesture/etc. By soliciting the information from another party - in this case Google - they can circumvent the owner's rights ... and who knows, maybe even argue that if a third party has the information it may not be "as protected" as the owner claims.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[Hatta]

If anyone in the government actually cared about the welfare of these women, they'd be pushing for legalized and regulated prostitution. This is nothing but a bunch of boys feeling big by playing with guns Both sides are reprehensible.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile, I haven't gotten mod points in fucking ages. What the fucking fuck, man...

Posted AC because I don't feel like fucking logging in. Fuck.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[MarkGriz]

"Asshole"? Really? My limited understanding is that he is an innocent person until found otherwise, no?

It is all too easy to cast allegations around. At this stage he is not an "asshole" but instead a wholly innocent person accused of serious crimes.

Why can't he be both. Based on his history, he sure sounds like an asshole.
Asshole is not a legal standing. Whether he is guilty or not guilty of the crimes he's accused of is another matter entirely.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[Meriahven]

/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i

You of course know the answer already, since you posted the quiz in your sig, but I though it might be fun to post the quiz in a more explicit form, so that more people have a chance to participate. So here goes:

What is the difference between these two groups?

Group A

• .startdot@example.com
• two..dots@example.com
• twodots@example..com
• enddot.@example.com
• startdash@-subdomain.example.com
• enddash@subdomain-.example.com

Group B

• ipv4@[127.0.0.1]
• ipv6@[IPv6:CAFE::BABE]
• !#$&={|}~?^/@example.com
• user@localhost.localdomain
• "quoted"@example.com

Three point hint: it has to do with RFC 2821.

One point hint: out of the approximately 200 000 people who have implemented a way to pattern match an email address, approximately seven have ever actually bothered to read the RFC.

</Offtopic>

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[darkmeridian]

Also, note that under the Constitution, parolees are afforded less civil liberties in return for early release. Parole officers can do a lot of stuff that would normally require a warrant. Certainly, prisoners don't have a right against search and seizure of their cells. Therefore, parolees aren't protected against illegal search and seizure of their personal property. In this case, the government has all sorts of strong corroborating evidence in support of their warrant.

Thus, I'm not too worried about this. It isn't a warrantless search against some innocent guy. It's a well-supported motion against a guy who is on parole for doing lots of shitty things, which means that he was jailed, then released conditionally on him not continuing his asshat activities, and it seems that he has violated the terms of his parole.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[darkmeridian]

It's not only that he was released after serving his prison term; he was released on PAROLE. If he had served his term, then the slate is wiped clean and the presumption of innocence is restore. However, he was released conditionally on parole, which requires him to not act like an asshat. Thus, he is presumably an asshat for the crimes that he was convicted of by a jury of his peers, and the law can still see him that way.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[darkmeridian]

This kind of free market rhetoric doesn't really play out in the real world. Does a prostitute really have the ability to defend herself against being raped and robbed by her johns? Even if you vet a guy, and he beats the shit out of you, what can you do as a prostitute without muscle behind you?

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[webnut77]

No, instead it's a failure of the penal system in rehabilitating him.

Agreed. Although, I think some people won't accept rehabilitation.

It's a failure of the legal system to not legalize prostitution

Well, prostitution is legal in some counties in Nevada so apparently the legal system is not a failure. And where "we the people" don't want prostitution, it's illegal.

It's a failure of the economy to not provide a job that pays the same as his $500/night life of crime.

But there are jobs that provide that kind of income, and more. It's just that it may require you to expend some effort (i.e. get an education) to land one.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[LordLimecat]

Some people even commit crimes to go back into the institution because the system didn't provide them with any skills to re-integrate into society.

The problem is that you fundamentally do not seem to accept that those people have free will and the ability to make their own choices. That they chose badly is their responsibility.

Certainly society can help them, but at the end of the day the failure is theirs, not the government's.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[LordLimecat]

As I posted elsewhere in this thread, Amsterdam has legalized prostitution and certain drugs, and they still have large problems with both.

In fact, apparently Amsterdam is one of the top destinations of trafficked humans. Legitimizing it doesnt magically solve the problem.

You know, people will also pay to watch dogfighting, buy sex slaves, buy servant slaves, buy nuclear warheads, and watch snuff films. You want to legalize all of that? Perhaps we should decriminalize it?

I can guarantee that if your policy for getting rid of crime is to legalize every criminal act, then you will end up with a crimeless wreck of a country that would be an absolute nightmare to live in.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[webnut77]

The middlemen (pimps) would be taken out of the equation entirely because prostitutes would be empowered to have total control over their enterprise, as they do on craigslist and other sites.

It doesn't work that way.

The house normally gets half of the negotiated amount. If the customer arrives by cab, the driver will receive some 30% of whatever the customer spends; this is subtracted from the woman's earnings.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[Nursie]

As I posted elsewhere in this thread, Amsterdam has legalized prostitution and certain drugs, and they still have large problems with both.

Yes, they have problems with illegal drugs, many of which also ought to be regulated instead of banned, IMHO. As for prostitution - there are other models. Australia and Nevada are two. Nothing will create a utopia.

You know, people will also pay to watch dogfighting, buy sex slaves, buy servant slaves, buy nuclear warheads, and watch snuff films. You want to legalize all of that? Perhaps we should decriminalize it?

Did you catch the part where I said it wasn't a blanket rule at all? Did you also catch the part were drug use is a victimless crime (in a world where proceeds go to regulated business) and prostitution can be (when properly regulated) between consenting adults, and how none of the rest of your examples are in any way comparable?

I can guarantee that if your policy for getting rid of crime is to legalize every criminal act, then you will end up with a crimeless wreck of a country that would be an absolute nightmare to live in.

And there you go, spouting utter bullshit. Nobody is suggesting that, idiot.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[billcopc]

Free will is an illusion in this world. Society pushes you in a certain direction whether you like it or not. And sure as shit, when they stumble, society is right there to kick them while they're down.

I don't claim to understand the entire psychology of crime, but I do know that people only resort to it because it's the most appealing option available to them. Do I really believe I belong in my current job, chopping up web sites and mobile apps for business clients ? No, I feel it's a huge waste of my time and abilities, but right now it's the best way for me to pay the rent and feed myself, while hopefully saving up enough to launch the business I actually want to be in.

I consider myself lucky, because I was a "gifted" child and was able to assimilate a very broad spectrum of knowledge-based skills. If I.T. didn't work out, I could easily have become a mechanical engineer, chemist, architect or any number of brainy careers. For people who aren't so blessed between the ears, whose job options are much more constrained, I can very easily see why they would choose a life of crime. If I were in their shoes, I'd do the same. Why make $11 an hour at Wal-Mart working for assholes when you can make $1000 a week, tax-free, slinging party favours at the club ? Or what about the taxi driver who sells a few cases of beer after hours to double his income ? I cannot easily fault these people, they have been backed into a corner and are doing whatever they can to make it in this greed-obsessed world. People are not born criminals, that's just a label.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[LordLimecat]

Criminals are those who go against society's rules. Acting on the assumption that free will is an illusion will lead you to create a society that cannot work-- for our world to function you MUST assign responsibility for the actions that people take.

And if free will is an illusion, then there is no point having a conversation: all of our responses are predetermined, as is your retort and mine. You probably are trying to assert that strong pressures may push people in one direction or another, and that is true; but it does not remove personal responsibility for the decision ultimately made.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[HybridST]

When i want mod points faster i meta-mod and usually i get more points within a few hours. Of course i seldom use all of them and usually i keep getting more but i have seen dry spells of a couple of pointless weeks.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[LordLimecat]

Before you resort to ad hominems (or just being unpleasant, whatever you want to call it),

Stop criminalising things that people want to pay for.

Those are YOUR words, and what I based my response on. You are suggesting that if people want to pay for something, we should decriminalize it.

The examples I gave are all things people want to pay for, and they are all things that I think most people-- yourself included, if you would rein in your retort for a second to think about it-- would agree SHOULD be criminalized.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[bmo]

>And if free will is an illusion, then there is no point having a conversation: all of our responses are predetermined, as is your retort and mine.

If absolute free will is not an illusion, how come you're not actually His Holiness Emperor Limecat of the Federated Nations of the Planet Earth By God's Grace?

All the world is contingency. You make do with what you have. It's true from everything from biology to society. Jared Diamond wrote extensively about it in "Guns Germs and Steel" and the theme runs through many of Stephen Jay Gould's work.

Excuse me, I am now going to go spin up the song "Born Never Asked" by Laurie Anderson, one of her more accessible songs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5lrV487Fjg

--
BMO

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[amiga3D]

He might be on the jury though. And just where is he wrong? He (the perp) is legally innocent until proven guilty "in a court of law" but he can be guilty in public opinion. After all, just because someone beats the rap in court it doesn't mean he didn't do the crime, just he wont be doing the time. O.J. Simpson for one example. Although O.J. kept at it until he finally got his ass in a sling.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[amiga3D]

Civil court differs much from criminal court. Evidence that wouldn't be allowed in criminal court is often allowed in civil. This is why so many times these slander cases go nowhere.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[javascriptjunkie]

Right, but probable cause isn't spying. If there's grounds for a warrant, there's ground to take out the phone hard drive. They do it with desktop computers and laptops all the time. How are phones different?

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[LordLimecat]

You confuse free will for omniscience.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[bmo]

Oh come on, how come you haven't bootstrapped your bootstrappy butt into becoming emperor?

The Randroids insist you can. They are really bootstrappy.

Why remain merely a lord?

Yes, I am poking fun. That's because the whole self-made-man is a myth and that our choices in life are limited to who and what we know, mostly who. Nobody got anywhere in the world by lifting himself by his own bootstraps, because it's figuratively and literally impossible.

--
BMO

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[DurendalMac]

It does not encourage a turnkey spying system. It means that, at the most, Google would have a way to unlock the contents of a user's phone should law enforcement present them with a warrant when law enforcement has possession of the phone itself. That's hardly "spying". Quite frankly, as long as law enforcement has a legit warrant obtained through the proper channels, I don't see why people would get bent out of shape.

Re:Ars Technica Lnk

[cusco]

I'll name two; the Inca and medieval Japan. The penalty for pretty much any crime was death, quickly administered.

Don Mancio Serra de Leguisamo — the last surviving Conquistador of Peru—wrote in the preamble of his will:

We found these kingdoms in such order, and the said Incas governed them in such wise [manner] that throughout them there was not a thief, nor a vicious man, nor an adulteress, nor was a bad woman admitted among them, nor were there immoral people. The men had honest and useful occupations. The lands, forests, mines, pastures, houses and all kinds of products were regulated and distributed in such sort that each one knew his property without any other person seizing it or occupying it, nor were there law suits respecting it the motive which obliges me to make this statement is the discharge of my conscience, as I find myself guilty. For we have destroyed by our evil example, the people who had such a government as was enjoyed by these natives. They were so free from the committal of crimes or excesses, as well men as women, that the Indian who had 100,000 pesos worth of gold or silver in his house, left it open merely placing a small stick against the door, as a sign that its master was out. With that, according to their custom, no one could enter or take anything that was there. When they saw that we put locks and keys on our doors, they supposed that it was from fear of them, that they might not kill us, but not because they believed that anyone would steal the property of another. So that when they found that we had thieves among us, and men who sought to make their daughters commit sin, they despised us.

As part of a case, okay sure, why not

[sandytaru]

If they have enough probable cause to suspect there's even more evidence on the phone and are going through the proper procedures of obtaining a warrant, then I don't have a problem with this. If they were not in the middle of a trial case, however, I'd think this would fall under "unreasonable searches and seizures."

Re:As part of a case, okay sure, why not

[artfulshrapnel]

Yeah, seems reasonable to me.

Your cellphone is not some magical box of protected data. If you've been committing crimes, and you get arrested for it, everything you've ever recorded is going to get looked at during that case. That includes the contents of your cellphone, and the police have the legal right to force entry to just about anything once they have probable cause.

I mean, it's not like they randomly pulled this guy out of line at an airport and demanded he unlock his phone. They've got witness testimony, previous convictions, and I'm assuming some more concrete evidence that he is a criminal. They're just trying to figure out if he's done anything ELSE, and corroborate their evidence wherever possible.

Re:As part of a case, okay sure, why not

[Anonymous Coward]

Former prosecuting attorney here. (Did it long enough to turn it into private sector bank). If the DA wants to drag you in court for bullshit reasons, you will be in court for bullshit reasons. I saw a guy brought up on some pretty serious drug dealing charges. The right judge signed off on everything put in front of him (had a pretty noticeable case of alzheimer's), the grand jury only sees what you want them to see. At the last minute the charges were dismissed (without prejudice) after he spent at least 6 figures on attorneys. Not one piece of evidence, but he was allegedly fucking the wife of somebody important (didn't find any evidence of that, either)

tl;dr -- you and all your fish eating friends can go fuck yourselves,

Re:As part of a case, okay sure, why not

[geekoid]

wile I agree in general, I think it's important..no CRITICAL, to remember people suspected of crimes get arrested..and yes this includes people who didn't actually commit any crimes.

So we need to be sure we are protecting the innocent people who are arrested/...which is everyone.

Yes, this evidence is enough to warrant a.. ah, warrant.

Re:As part of a case, okay sure, why not

[triffid_98]

On January 3, 2011, in The People v. Gregory Diaz, the Supreme Court of California ruled for allowing warrantless search by the police of suspects' cell phones at the time of the arrest, on the grounds of preventing destruction of evidence such as text messages...

This should be interesting

[amginenigma]

Can you say whoops.... "The FBI special agent who wrote the affidavit also requested that Dears not be told about the information request, however the search warrant and affidavit were not sealed." Pretty sure the whole planet knows now dood...

PhD

[owenferguson]

Push here, Dummy.

Hashes

[hilather]

If his credentials are being properly stored as SHA2 hashes, I don't think Google could comply with this anyways. This is the whole point in using hashes over encryption.

Re:Hashes

[anilg]

If this is the 9-dot pattern they are talking about, even a hash would be easy to brute force,. the worst case being 9!, but the average case being 4-6! as these are the sizes commonly chosen for phones.

However, the limitation could be the delay/lock after some unsuccessful tries. If they need to see that phone's memory, they need to maybe use a 0-day exploit that google knows of, but has not yet been fixed for that phone?

Re:Hashes

[kenshin33]

depending on phone it is easy, samsung usually have an unlocked bootloader ... you can flash whatever recovery image you want, if the phone is not encrypted ... well you get access to any data you want (using adb, CWM recovery has adb enabled with root access by default).
if it is the nexus S there's an easy way to unlock the bootloader without wiping the device (found on xda). for the see previous paragraph.

Re:Hashes

[Americano]

However, the limitation could be the delay/lock after some unsuccessful tries

That's exactly what happened:

Technicians apparently mis-entered the pattern enough times to lock the phone, which could only be unlocked using the phone owner's Google account credentials.

Re:Hashes

[malakai]

This.

It's incredibly easy to access data on a phone that isn't using device level encryption. And even then, it's not impossible.

First off, if this isn't some device level encryption option ( which some android phones do have ) all they have to do is hook it up with a usb cable, use ADB and root it. I don't know any android phone that can't be rooted currently.

If it is fully encrypted, and the bootloader is somewhat secure ( like the moto razr's ), then just social engineer the guy. Give him a phone that looks exactly like his real phone, but is a trojan. Tell him he's been allowed by the state to make phone calls using it. Wait for him to unlock it it, and then take the device from him.

All in all, i hope were missing some information. This makes the FBI looks like newbs. Maybe they just did this first because they wantto save money, in which case fine.

Obviously, the most expensive way to solve this is to remove the built in storage, solder it into a SD card or wahtever it happens to be, and plug it into a pc. Then mount it.

Re:Hashes

[swillden]

However, the limitation could be the delay/lock after some unsuccessful tries

That's exactly what happened:

Technicians apparently mis-entered the pattern enough times to lock the phone, which could only be unlocked using the phone owner's Google account credentials.

Which Google also almost certainly doesn't have.

What Google might be able to tell them is how to root the phone, or how to take the phone apart and read the contents of the flash directly. AFAIK, you have to use a password/passphrase, not a pattern, if you want to use whole-device encryption, so the flash should be unencrypted.

Re:Hashes

[ArundelCastle]

However, the limitation could be the delay/lock after some unsuccessful tries

That's exactly what happened

I keep my iOS devices set to wipe after 10 fails just in case I lose them. Doesn't Android have that option? Surely it must.
I'm not kidding myself that it's an industry grade wipe that will stand up to forensics, but between that and remote wipe option it makes me feel a little better about only having 4 to 8 numbers between a lock screen and most of my data.

Re:Hashes

[LordLimecat]

It wouldnt be 6!, but 9*8^(n-1), where n is the number of elements. First dot has 9 possibilities, the remaining dots have 8 (since you cannot use the same dot twice in a row).

If you cant repeat elements, it would be 9Pn, where n is the number of elements (that is, if n=4, 9*8*7*6)

Re:Hashes

[LordLimecat]

Tell him he's been allowed by the state to make phone calls using it. Wait for him to unlock it it, and then take the device from him.

Might'nt that fall afoul of 5th amendment protections?

Re:Hashes

[anilg]

Ah right.. thanks for the correction.

Re:Hashes

[swillden]

Technicians apparently mis-entered the pattern enough times to lock the phone, which could only be unlocked using the phone owner's Google account credentials.

Which Google also almost certainly doesn't have.

Why would they not have this?

Because I'm sure the phone owner's Google account credentials are stored as a salted one-way hash. But the phone will demand the cleartext be entered, because it's going to do its own hashing, using the salt stored in the phone's DB. So I doubt Google can provide any information which the phone would accept for unlock. This assumes the phone is checking the credentials against internal data, rather than going on-line to verify against Google's authentication database. I'm basing that assumption on the comments of other posters to this story, and on the fact that I can see numerous potential difficulties with doing that securely.

If, in fact, the phone does query Google's on-line authentication services to do the unlock, then Google could reset the account password and give the FBI the new one. But I don't think that's how it works.

Re:Hashes

[swillden]

or they could just change his google password to something they can give to the FBI...

Assuming the phone does an on-line verification, rather than comparing the entered password to a locally-stored value. Based on some other comments here, and on the fact that I see potential usability and security problems with doing an on-line verification for screen unlock, I suspect it does an off-line check.

Re:Hashes

[kenshin33]

the data/system partition are untouched, only the recovery partition.
and by that logic, if it is feasible then anything from that phone is inadmissible in court (since "they" could have injected the incriminating data), the minute they got their hands on the phone.

Re:Hashes

[polymeris]

There are even less combinations, because the minimum number of dots is, if I remember correctly, 4. Plus, some you can't "skip" dots, e.g. you cant go from the upper left to the lower right without activating the middle dot.

How many combinations exactly are possible is left as an exercise for the reader.

Re:Hashes

[LordLimecat]

No, that equation I gave includes the requirement that there be 4 dots. To allow for more dots, you would do 9 + 9*8 + 9*8*7 + 9*8*7*6. In other words, you would add the permutations for each length of dots.

And at least on my motorola admiral, you can indeed go from any one dot to any other dot, skipping ones in the middle.

Thought there was a cop device to just read phones

[jbeach]

Called Celebrite. I thought it was supposed to be able to read all data off of SIMS and such. http://ebongeek.com/2011/04/20/the-cellebrite-ufed-allows-law-enforcement-to-download-all-your-smart-phone-data/ I would think that a search warrant covering the phone would be enough for the FBI to run such a program - am I missing something here? Or is this due to some possibly technology-ignorant FBI possible boomer crying that Google doesn't automatically hand them everything they want through the magical power of the interwebs?

Re:Thought there was a cop device to just read pho

[Anonymous Coward]

It works only on selected handsets and I believe it still depends on user compliance. I read as much data as I could find on the topic and I'm under the impression it works on a phone which is not currently locked. In other words, if you hand over your phone and comply with their request to unlock it they can then access pretty much everything on a supported model. Including stuff you deleted. If you refuse to unlock it, I don't think that device will do much.

Brute force?

[subreality]

I'm surprised the FBI can't just dump the flash and brute force it. There are only about 100,000 possible patterns.

Re:Brute force?

[betterunixthanunix]

I am not even sure why they would need to brute force anything -- if they can dump the contents of the phone's memory, why not just inspect the contents? Unless I am mistaken, those lock screens are not being used to encrypt the contents of the phone.

Re:Brute force?

[Anonymous Coward]

Newer versions let you encrypt the phone, but my recollection is you can't use the pattern to do it :)

Re:Brute force?

[subreality]

Numeric lock codes can be used to encrypt; there's no reason the pattern locks couldn't be used that way as well, though I haven't tried it.

If it's not encrypted, I'm REALLY surprised the FBI can't figure it out. Flash chips are very easy to dump.

Re:Brute force?

[artor3]

My Android (a Motorola Droid X2) uses encryption based on the screen lock pattern. At least I assume it's based on the lock pattern, since you need to use a lock pattern for encryption to be enabled.

Re:Brute force?

[silas_moeckel]

Not allways that easy, not all phones have jtag headers or even a way to get to the exposed leads. Chip lapping seems rather excessive.

Re:Brute force?

[betterunixthanunix]

As numerous other people have pointed out, the key space for that pattern is tiny -- less than a million keys. Even if it were the case that the phone was encrypted using the screen lock pattern as a key, it would be essentially trivial to crack.

Re:Brute force?

[Anonymous Coward]

Boot to the recovery rom, use adb or fastboot to access the filesystem. You can usually read from the phone without rooting.

Re:Brute force?

[Overzeetop]

The security is in line with the cargo value. While you may be carrying the nuclear codes on your iPhone, the average consumer is not, and the most important thing being protected is having their facebook status pranked by a roommate. Security and convenience are mutually exclusive, and I'll give you three guesses which one matters the most to consumers.

Re:Brute force?

[artor3]

Well, yeah. But you said that the lock screens aren't used to encrypt the content of the phones, and I was simply correcting you on that point. Obviously there are at most 9!+8!...+1 patterns, around 400k total, and in practice only around 100k would actually be used.

Re:Brute force?

[betterunixthanunix]

Except that we want people to start using their phones in lieu of credit cards.

Re:Brute force?

[Imrik]

Last time I checked credit cards stored important information in plaintext.

Re:Brute force?

[betterunixthanunix]

Which has always been a problem, and which is why we should be getting things right with smart phones.

Re:Brute force?

[swillden]

Which has always been a problem, and which is why we should be getting things right with smart phones.

Google Wallet stores the credit card number and other sensitive information in the "secure element", a special-purpose high-security chip that is separate from the main system, with its own CPU, it's own OS and it's own storage. The secure element (SE) is actually a smart card chip, which has the benefit of almost 30 years of evolution, as attacks were created and countermeasures added. Nothing is 100% secure, but smart cards are pretty darned good.

Among other things, they wrap the storage in cladding layers which are physically bonded and chemically similar, so peeling or dissolving the cladding to be able to get to the EEPROM is extremely difficult, and highly likely to destroy the EEPROM. They're also careful to expose no leads which can be used to directly manipulate the memory, etc.

There have been some minor weaknesses found in Google Wallet, which Google has fixed or is fixing, but nothing that would expose the credit card number, because it's locked securely in the SE. We are getting things right with smart phones; at least Google is. I imagine ISIS is also.

(Disclaimer: I work for Google, and have even done some work around Google Wallet, though that's not my primary job. However, everything I stated above is public knowledge, filtered through 10+ years of experience working with smart cards and SEs while at IBM.)

Re:Brute force?

[LordLimecat]

9!+8! is much more than 400k.

9! in particular is almost 400k on my own (I know this because for some odd reason I know 10! by heart).

The number of combinations at MOST would be 9!, but more like 9! - n! where n=9-number_of_elements

Re:Brute force?

[Inda]

Possible patterns has been mentioned before and I don't buy it.

1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9

Although my pattern can't seem to travel directly from 1 to 9, 1 to 3 or 1 to 7, it can with the remaining numbers.

The pattern on mine crosses 8 points, but I'm sure the limit is higher, if there is one. (no, it's not a square. Honest Mr Policeman)

I don't want to look foolish with my maths, but that's nearly 2 million possibilities, no?

Re:Brute force?

[subreality]

If you could use any permutation of the 9 numbers (including 1 to 9, 3 to 7, etc), you would have 9!==362,880 permutations. Excluding all the moves you can't do, it supposedly comes down to 100,000 or so (I haven't worked it out myself).

Even if it was 2 million possibilities, and assuming it's key-strengthened so that each try takes one second of arm-CPU time, it would only take 23 days to brute force on a similar CPU. With a multicore AMD64 processor, GPU, cluster, etc, it could be done much faster.

Re:Brute force?

[subreality]

Is there a way we could also store our encryption keys in the SE?

Re:Brute force?

[swillden]

Is there a way we could also store our encryption keys in the SE?

Potentially. The SE provides a full suite of cryptographic capabilities and can securely store and use keys. It can even generate keys, so you can have keys which are never, ever exposed outside of the SE, but use them as needed. It can further even implement access control logic to limit the ability of an attacker who gains control of the phone to use those keys. In short, it can be a micro-HSM for your phone. Which I think is very, very cool.

I'd like to see Google make SE-based security APIs generally available to all Android apps who care to use them. Unfortunately, I can't say anything about what Google may or may not be doing in this direction.

Re:Brute force?

[subreality]

That is very cool. If anyone who makes decisions is reading along, I would love to see an API like this made available!

Is there a datasheet for the chip that I can read in the meantime?

Re:Thought there was a cop device to just read pho

[silas_moeckel]

Assuming you can get all that through the usb port. Having dealt with the FBI they are in general technology challenged. My favorite was the computer forensics expert they could not get a .tgz open.

Re:Thought there was a cop device to just read pho

[Lehk228]

it can only read what is stored on the sim, if the data is encrypted on the phone reading even the RAM module will just get you an encrypted block, that reader works on blackberry phones too as long as you don't need to be able to READ the data, just copy the block

Re:Legal system

[nedlohs]

Which part of " FBI officials have requested a search warrant" do you think isn't about getting a warrant?

Re:Legal system

[Beelzebud]

It's also called RTFA, or in this case, RTFS...

Are you telling me?

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Are you telling me that you can't unlock one of these phones, without a PhD?

Re:Are you telling me?

[Trecares]

Well the police does hold a PhD.....

Re:Are you telling me?

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Can I haz cheezburger? They don't think it be like it do, but it does?

Re:Are you telling me?

[__aaltlg1547]

Well the police does hold a PhD.....

Only in a cell.

Passwords are stupid

[ehiris]

Passwords are a stupid way of securing a device. The "password" on the device should be a passphrase for a key on the phone's encryption system. Both Apple and Google are making the same security mistake. iTunes could be a million times safer if they used public key authentication instead of their awful password system.

Re:Passwords are stupid

[jtownatpunk.net]

Yeah. I should have to provide a fresh DNA sample to unlock my phone. Giggity.

Re:Passwords are stupid

[AvitarX]

Where is the key stored?

You say phones encryption system, presumably they have access to that key, and then you're back to the get the password issue.

Re:Passwords are stupid

[ehiris]

I don't assume but everything points to it. There are multiple passwords to begin with and even if the lock-screen password does something, it's probably encoding and not encryption as you are never asked to generate a random key pair.

If iTunes worked that way, you wouldn't have to change your pass-phrase through their web site.

Re:Legal system

[Black Parrot]

Which part of " FBI officials have requested a search warrant" do you think isn't about getting a warrant?

Which brings up the question... WTF is this newsworthy?

Why don't they ask Apple - they own swipe 2 unlock

[hashish]

Why don't they ask Apple - they own swipe to unlock

But that is no fun...

[NotQuiteReal]

THAT article basically changes it from "google, unlock this phone!" to "google, please tell us what you about this account". Being specific is good when you are doing improv comedy, but not when you want to provoke discussion.

Weak Investigation

[xxMSAxx]

It seems to be pretty weak investigative work if the stone of truth depends solely on a cell phone record. Sure the guy is a scum ball, but if its so evident then there has to be a way to prove it that doesn't involve hacking into a computer device. As smartphones become databanks of personal information here also comes the advent of lazy detective work which would rather usurp expected privacy as the norm instead of hitting the streets to get their gumshoes dirty.

External mind storage

[unlocked]

With all the talk of not keeping things on phones. Maybe it is time to debate if these devices could fall under an external human memory that should have the same considerations to the contents of your mind. They can't just request the content's of your brain. 5th amendment. As more technology invades our lives the more these devices are turned into surveilance sources. Should they not be totaly encrypted and carry the same protections as or your brain. Just a thought, maybe wrong about it.

FBI wants Google to provide user's SSN?

[schwit1]

Why would Google have his SSN?

Re:FBI wants Google to provide user's SSN?

[dacarr]

They don't. Asking for anything, as near as I can tell, is SOP for service of a warrant - it's to cover all possible bases by a law enforcement agency.

Re:FBI wants Google to provide user's SSN?

[AvitarX]

and why would google?

Re:FBI wants Google to provide user's SSN?

[ArundelCastle]

They would if Mr. Dears ever worked for them.
I'm not wishing to troll, I just think stranger things have happened...

Like for instance, Google asking for partial SSN's for a kid's art contest...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-bowdon/why-has-google-been-colle_b_825754.html

I think assuming there is information Google *doesn't* have is the first mistake.

Catch 22 for Google....

[Above]

Unlock the phone, and prove to all Android users that Android's "security" is weak and/or has a back door.

Tell Law Enforcement they can't help with their warrant, and piss off Law Enforcement for future requests against google.

I'm glad I'm not Google.

Re:Catch 22 for Google....

[zoloto]

Oh you're funny. Really funny.

A warrant *is* enough, conditionally

[dacarr]

Picking through the details, it's pretty simple. The FBI served Google a warrant for a user.

What they will get out of it is any information on the perpetrator that Google has in their control - so Gmail, Picasa, anything on their servers. This is what a warrant does, and any content provider such as Google will have this in their TOS.

What they *might* get is a replacement account password to access the phone. That's unclear to me. It's in that respect that I don't know how Google will proceed.

What they will NOT get, however, are unlocks, text messages (unless he backs those up into his Gmail account), device passwords, device unlock patterns, or anything that would be used to unlock the device. That's all up to the mobile carrier or (possibly) the device manufacturer - not Google.

And for those who think Google made the device, no, they didn't. Somebody else did. May have been Motorola, LG, HTC, or Samsung, just to name the big four phone makers who put out Android off the top of my head. Google's support ends at the operating system development level, and whatever they have on their network. Demanding of Google whatever's on the mobile network or the device unto itself is like demanding an Amtrak schedule of Pepsico.

Re:Legal system

[AvitarX]

That the warrant is being served potentially on someone with no interest in the case.

It's an end-run around the password issue to serve google. It sidesteps the issues of the password case that was of recent concern, but raises new ones, thus is interesting.

doin it wrong, FBI

[Anonymous Coward]

If they truly want any information on the guy, just have FBI officials disguse themselves as reps from an advertising firm. Google would gladly sell every piece of information available on the suspect.

weak security

[tverbeek]

Setting aside the serious legal implications of this case, I'm amused that the authorities are stymied by a gesture code, because those are ridiculously insecure. They're even easier to pick up than PINs via over-the-shoulder observation (even watching someone do it with the screen away from hem, an observer can narrow it down to a feasible number of alternatives to try), and furthermore the gestures leave telltale smudges that can often be observed after taking the device from the user. I do front-line tech support, and I've had people hand me their phones after unlocking them, and on several occasions I was able to guess their gesture code just from those clues.

Re:weak security

[wvmarle]

Person is arrested, his phone seized. How much chance do you think there is they have observed him unlocking the phone? Not too much, I'd say. Unless they've been tailing him from pretty close range for longer time before the arrest, and seizure of the phone.

You may call it "ridiculously insecure" - yet this very story proves that the security of Android devices is actually pretty good. If law enforcement with all their technical knowledge can't get into the phone, then I'd have to call it good security.

The swipe has some 100,000 combinations - that's more than your typical four-digit ATM card PIN code. Which can also be read quite easily over-the-shoulder. Yet it's pretty darn good enough, the number of cards stolen with known PIN codes (without this info being forced from the owner) is small.

Re:weak security

[tverbeek]

Person is arrested. How much chance do you think that he has time to wipe the screen down to hide the smudges from the unlock gesture he keeps using over and over? And what are the odds that he's actually used a combination that's takes advantage of that potential 100K combinations? Every time I've seen someone use this method, they pick something really simple to do, because they choose this method for the fact that it's easy to unlock. Which is exactly what makes it easy for other people to unlock. Which is why the security policies imposed by the corporate e-mail client that we use on Android devices requires the device to use a more secure unlocking method.

I'm not questioning whether Android devices are secure. Calm down, fanboy. I'm just pointing out that this particular choice of authentication method is a poor one.

Re:weak security

[wvmarle]

Well first of all I'm not a fanboy of any particular system; and second of all the story all by itself proves that this method is secure enough to cause serious problems for people trained in breaking such devices (I may assume that the forensic analysts are trained). I'm not making that up. And for the smudges: I for one tend to keep the screen of my phone pretty clean and wipe it really often. I hate smudges on my screen. So even if I were using such a lock, not much chance for obvious smudges.

Re:Wha???

[houstonbofh]

I did not know hooking it up to your USB port and looking at the file system was considered "hacking." That would sure has come down a bit...

Re:Wha???

[lsolano]

This is not a technical case. It's a legal one.

They want to be able to hack the phone the "legally", so the alleged proof can be use in court.

don't keep anything incriminating....

[schlachter]

on your phone, in your house, on your computer, on physical media, on your person, in your car, in your work place....damn it...where should we keep our incriminating stuff?

Re:don't keep anything incriminating....

[Neil Boekend]

Put it on Facebook and mark it "private".

Re:don't keep anything incriminating....

[Larryish]

I keep all of my incriminating stuff on microfilm in a tiny plastic capsule stuck into the hole on the end of my wiener.

Re:don't keep anything incriminating....

[yurtinus]

This made me cringe.

Re:don't keep anything incriminating....

[oreiasecaman]

DON'T keep any incriminating stuff... better yet, don't do anything incriminating at all, and you're all set.

try working days...

[schlachter]

If you make less than $500 a night as an IT Contractor...you should try working days....much easier on the soul.

Re:Thought there was a cop device to just read pho

[geekoid]

You know the FBI on your tv shows aren't real, right?

Re:Thought there was a cop device to just read pho

[dragonsomnolent]

Probably why he had mentioned the expert he knew couldn't even execute a simple tar command properly

lazy law enforcement

[PopeRatzo]

The request is part of a case involving an alleged gang leader and human trafficker named Dante Dears in California.

If the only way they can bust a "human trafficker" is by getting into his cellular phone, maybe they need to do a little more police work.

The criminal justice system allows a hell of a lot of latitude to law enforcement. Legal wire taps, surveillance, search warrants. Informants, RICO, DNA evidence, even tax evasion investigations.

I've seen The Wire and The Shield, Kojak, Columbo and even Mannix. There are plenty of ways to take down a perp, and if all else fails, you put a couple in his noggin, drop a throw-down piece on him and say he drew down on you. Then you go home and sleep like a baby.

But they tell us the only way they can lock up a gang leader involved in human trafficking is by checking his Angry Birds high score.

Just sayin'...

Re:lazy law enforcement

[Robert Zenz]

The request is part of a case involving an alleged gang leader and human trafficker named Dante Dears in California.

Emphasis are mine...I want it back when you're done.

Re:lazy law enforcement

[jeti]

The article states that the pimp had already been under house arrest and was conducting all of his business over the phone.

Re:lazy law enforcement

[wvmarle]

Not many people can get convicted on a single piece of evidence. Usually there will be a host of clues all pointing in the same direction, plus some very clear and obvious pieces of evidence linking a person to a crime. Contacts, call history, message history, and other info from a smart phone can be very valuable evidence to unambiguously link a person to other people, for example. And it can give great information on other people involved in the same crime, for example.

So well I can easily imagine that this mobile phone data is key to a conviction. After having many clues pointing at that individual (circumstantial evidence), this information can provide the direct link and hard proof they need to get a hard case.

Re:lazy law enforcement

[PopeRatzo]

The article states that the pimp had already been under house arrest and was conducting all of his business over the phone.

That's why God made Predator drones.

Re:Wha???

[__aaltlg1547]

No, the story says the phone in question is a seized phone. It's evidence in their possession. They just can't read it.

can't force unlock?

[__aaltlg1547]

The original article says Google may not have the tools to force the phone to unlock.

That's extremely unlikely. And if it's true, it's inexplicable. What company wouldn't build a foolproof mechanism to unlock its operating system if it gets into a bad state?

Re:can't force unlock?

[wvmarle]

They should have such a mechanism in the form of a factory reset tool.

That's the one and only acceptable such tool. You locked up your phone hard? Well we can recover it but all your personal data is gone and overwritten, and the phone's OS will be restored to the factory default. That prevents your information to fall into the wrong hands if your phone is lost/stolen.

And it's still useful for testing and development. If you really mess it up, then you still have a way out. When testing you won't put valuable information on that phone anyway. But of course it sucks for law enforcement...

Re:Wha???

[MimeticLie]

I assumed that too, but it doesn't seem true in this case:

Technicians apparently mis-entered the pattern enough times to lock the phone, which could only be unlocked using the phone owner's Google account credentials.

Why they were even bothering with the unlock screen rather than just slurping up all the data on the phone with a UFED is beyond me.

In Soviet Russia

[Roachie]

FSB android locks-up user!

small correction

[nimbius]

"Dears served several years in prison for his role in founding a gang in California called PhD, and upon his release he realized his felony conviction prevented him from everything from gainful employment to food stamps and voting.
Upon applying to several minimum wage jobs only to be turned down, he also realized that credit and felony checks performed by apartments and landlords would also preclude him from securing affordable housing without a large security deposit.

defeated, frustrated, and with little prospect of ever reintegrating into society, he went back to his activities with the gang.
perhaps he learned the value of human life in jail, perhaps a newfound respect for his fellow human,
but he would never know life outside of the only institution to provide for him, the gang.

Re:small correction

[oreaq]

So you're saying the poor guy just has no other choice than to rape woman, punsh them in the face, enslave them, torture them, and rent them out to other victims of society?

FBI really that clueless?

[WaffleMonster]

Why can't they use jtag or flash a tiny spy rom that does nothing but download contents of flash? Heck I would bet there is a diagnostic tool that already does that.

Asking google seems foolish. If they can do it and they use the capability that capability is degraded.

Re:Thought there was a cop device to just read pho

[LordLimecat]

To be fair, .tgz is super obscure. I mean, not even WinZip is able to handle tgz.

Re:Wha???

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Why they were even bothering with the unlock screen rather than just slurping up all the data on the phone with a UFED is beyond me.

Because cops are idiots and the only reason the system works is because criminals are usually even dumber ?

Hey FBI, look at this post!

[toadlife]

1) Flash a rooted kernel and CWM recovery with ODIN (all Samsung phones allow this)
2) boot into recovery
3) connect to the phone using ADB
4) Using sqlite, update the settings database and disable security

You're welcome.

Re:Hey FBI, look at this post!

[wvmarle]

Which means you apply major changes to the phone using unauthorised software (Google nor Samsung et.al. authorise rooted kernels). Info gained from the phone is not likely to be accepted as evidence.

Re:Hey FBI, look at this post!

[toadlife]

Sorry, I don't work in forensics so I don't have the "clean-room" mentality, so allow me to expand a bit.

Any type of forensic analysis requires "tampering" with the machine to some degree. Proper documentation of the methods involved, and how those methods affect the data on the phone would be needed, of course.

The kernel and recovery do not contain any user data - they are only writable while in download mode using the programs ODIN or Heimdall, or if the phone is already rooted. Samsung engineers could be subpoenaed to testify to this fact if it was brought up as an issue in the case.

If you are concerned that much about data integrity, instead of step four, you could instead do a dump (using dd) of all of the phone's data partitions while in recovery. I've done such dumps myself in order to create bootable/flashable file system images. These file system images could then be flashed to another identical phone using ODIN or Heimdall and that phone could be examined/abused with the original phone's user data partitions left un-touched and open to re-examination by the defense.

Re:Hey FBI, look at this post!

[wvmarle]

Your final option sounds the most reasonable to me. Data integrity is of course paramount in legal examinations: any moment you do something to the phone that does not guaranteed leave the data untouched is an opening for the defense to break your case. And rightly so, I'd say.

From what I've heard before, when a regular hard disk is examined, it is first copied using a special read-only device in between (so guaranteed no change of the data on the disk). Then the data is examined. And the original data is left untouched, so the evidence is there for re-examination later (by either side).

Also I wonder whether phones will allow you to just make a data dump of its storage just by connecting it to USB. My phone just charges when connected, doesn't go into USB drive mode (which afaik still doesn't allow access to the complete storage even, like contacts and so), though I have debug mode on so it does accept certain commands (including installing of apps, and running that app). But if that goes as far as allowing you to do a data dump, I really don't know. And most people will not have debug mode enabled to begin with.

Re:Hey FBI, look at this post!

[toadlife]

Also I wonder whether phones will allow you to just make a data dump of its storage just by connecting it to USB. My phone just charges when connected, doesn't go into USB drive mode (which afaik still doesn't allow access to the complete storage even, like contacts and so), though I have debug mode on so it does accept certain commands (including installing of apps, and running that app). But if that goes as far as allowing you to do a data dump, I really don't know. And most people will not have debug mode enabled to begin with.

This is where the rooted kernel and recovery comes in. The kernel can be configured so that debug mode is turned on and root shell via ABD is enabled by default before the kernel even boots android. All that is needed is a few lines in one config file in the kernels initramfs. This means by flashing the kernel and custom recovery you can get root access to the device without ever even touching the data partitions.

As for doing a dump purely over USB, I'm not so sure if that's possible. I'm sure there is a way, but it's above my pay grade. What I would typically do is do the dump to an external SDCard (obviously the feds wouldn't use the suspect's card) and then pull that file to the computer using the `ADB pull` command. If the phone doesn't support an external SD, some other methods might have to be employed. You could do `adb pull / c:\suspectsphone` and it would pull the entire file system, as mounted to the local directory on the hard drive.

Keep in mind that the FBI booting the phone up and trying to unlock it are hardly using a clean-room method. That would be the equivalent of booting a PC up on the original hard drive and trying to guess the password. As you've already pointed out, when they do PC forensics, they would *NEVER* let the PC boot up on the original hard drive.

Re:Wha???

[bemymonkey]

And even if that thing were for some reason not to work, I'm sure you could just rip out the NAND chips and copy /data/ off with a reader of some kind - it's pretty unlikely that this would be out of reach for the government.

I wonder if they've bothered to check for root and a custom ROM... it may be as simple as booting the phone into an already installed custom recovery and just copying the files off using ADB and a MicroUSB cable.

Re:Wha???

[hankwang]

Do these forensic extraction devices really work on an arbitrary phone, or only if the phone is configured to go into usb debug mode as soon as a usb cable is plugged in?

My Android phone defaults to "usb charge only". I find it difficult to believe that a special usb host would be able to take control over the phone.

Re:Wha???

[gl4ss]

maybe it didn't work.

if the forensics device promises more than the guys in chinatown can get you, there's a chance it's horseshit. you need to open the device to enable adb/mtp/whatever protocol it is that it uses for file transfers, not all devices have manufacturer modes to slurp everything out either(and that's no good if they're actually after the online accounts the phone has access to). it's easy to do the things ufed promises on most devices which have adb enabled, but if you don't have that enabled then it gets trickier, the bootloader would need to have some special dump everything mode.

or maybe they can't use it because they've accepted the eula on some device at some point in their life.

it's a bit silly asking for google for this information though, but maybe the phone manufacturer said that they got nothing to do with it - or the phone manufacturer isn't american whilst google is. another thing to ask is.. do they even know the google account the phone is tied to?

it's pretty certain that they are NOT after the sms's or call history - they have that from the phone company. they want the rest, which means they're actually after his email accounts which he probably used since he probably knew that the sms/calls would leave a log that would be used against him in court.

Encryption?

[mshenrick]

So is it encrypted? If not, I'm sure the techies can work around it without Google's help. If it is, then Google can't help anyway

Re:Wha???

[YeeHaW_Jelte]

Because according to the link you provided Android support is not included on this UFED thingy?

Re:Google it right

[TaoPhoenix]

Interesting rant but maybe a little off key. The key sentence is"perceived need". Since in fact it is not needed - "https://www.google.com/search?q=warterboard" works just fine, it's that other story about your privacy being worth 60 cents.

I'm tend to think all that junk in there is tracking junk.

More to the point you want "refine and improve", it works for cars, just less nicely for information.

Consider a physical analogy

[Hal_Porter]

The guy has a lock up and is arrested and accused of human trafficking, drug dealing and so on, or indeed anything else.

The FBI find out about it.

Don't you think they'd get a search warrant? I don't see why a locked phone or PC is any different. Your right to privacy is severely restricted as soon as you are arrested or even under investigation, because a jury needs to have all of the facts of the case.

In fact if they serve you with a subpoena you pretty much have to comply with it or risk being found in contempt of court. Even Nixon had to hand over his tapes when he was hit with a subpoena and he was POTUS at the time. In the physical lock up case I think they could subpoena the key or combination to a lock, assuming they couldn't just get a search warrant and pay someone to break in.

And if you destroyed evidence in response to a search warrant or subpoena that would itself be illegal.

I think if you're relying on the fact that you've got 4096 bit encryption and/or self destruct mechanisms to nuke data to get out of criminal charges you're doing it wrong.

Human Trafficking / Slavery

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

"Plausible Deniability" only matters when you're guilty, or when you are railroaded. There's been no accusation of railroading here. "alleged human trafficker" usually means "human trafficker." Which means "slave trader."

And human traffickers are just about the lowest form of life known to man. It is often about a thousand times worse even than the *production* of child pornography, if it is possible to compare things that bad on a moral level. The production of child pornography only happens to a child once. When a child is sold into slavery, that slavery is ongoing.

pipewrench decryption algorithm

[torgis]

They could always use the cheap, efficient pipewrench decryption algorithm. Works every time.

Re:No, don't Google it.

[Sqr(twg)]

In the olde days, a Google search would produce the same results for the same search term. Not so anymore. If I search for "waterboarding" I get Wikipedia, NPR, and a number of human-rights activist sites. If Dick Cheney searches for the same term, he gets "Waterboarding magazine", "50 fun ways of torturing a PoW", and newamericancentury.org
So to be re-usable the URL must include lots of information about the person who did the search, like age, religion, political beliefs, sex (with whom, how often), and so on. I'm actually impressed they can fit all that in 250 characters.

Re:No, don't Google it.

[RenderSeven]

+1 Agree. Im worried that the most obvious next step is a new 'feature' for search that would let me specify "Show Dick Cheney's Results". Dont get me wrong, that could be Fun & Useful, but presumably Dick Cheney would be clicking on "Show RenderSeven's Results". Or "Show Everyone That Clicked On This Result". Its not hard to imagine the FBI and DHS automating a lot of enemy lists based on mining this data. "Do No Evil" doesnt enter into it: its as simple as that if someone collects that data then its a given someone will use it, and not necessarily for its intended purpose.

Re:Wha???

[MimeticLie]

I take it you're assuming that based on Android not being specifically mentioned in the second link? Because according the the manufacturer, Android is definitely supported.

Re:Thought there was a cop device to just read pho

[silas_moeckel]

Yea work in hosting for awhile you will get to talk to the FBI etc, so far the secret service have been the most technically competent.

And yes IRL not on TV.

Re:Wha???

[goose-incarnated]

Why they were even bothering with the unlock screen rather than just slurping up all the data on the phone with a UFED is beyond me.

Because cops are idiots and the only reason the system works is because criminals are usually even dumber ?

What makes you think that the system is working?