Slashdot Mirror
Apple: Terrorist's Apple ID Password Changed In Government Custody (buzzfeed.com)
An anonymous reader writes: The Apple ID password linked to the iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino terrorists was changed less than 24 hours after the government took possession of the device, senior Apple executives said Friday. If that hadn't happened, Apple said, a backup of the information the government was seeking may have been accessible.
Had that password not been changed, the executives said, the government would not need to demand the company create a 'backdoor' to access the iPhone used by Syed Rizwan Farook, who died in a shootout with law enforcement after a terror attack in California that killed 14 people. The Department of Justice filed a motion to compel the company to do that earlier Friday.
Had that password not been changed, the executives said, the government would not need to demand the company create a 'backdoor' to access the iPhone used by Syed Rizwan Farook, who died in a shootout with law enforcement after a terror attack in California that killed 14 people. The Department of Justice filed a motion to compel the company to do that earlier Friday.
They have somebody on the inside to mess with it? Chain of custody for evidence in major federal incidents is usually watertight specifically to avoid this kind of thing.
or just a asshat nutcase? He targeted a place he worked. Back in my day we just called this "Going Postal" and acknowledged that whatever flimsy excuse the shooter used was largely irrelevant. I don't know, but I do hate seeing crap like this scaring the hell out of Americans and making them willing to chunk freedom and demands for better living/working conditions out the door if only someone will please protect us from these terrorists...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
A known way around the encryption, if you backup to iCloud, is to reset the password on the iCloud account and restore the iCloud backup to a new device.
I thought that was obvious. But this little detail would present the government in a VERY bad light. To put this in perspective, that change in password would make anything found on the phone inadmissible in any trial as it indicates the chain of custody was broken.
It will be interesting to see how the judge reacts to Apple's revelation that the only reason the government is locked out of the phone is because the government changed the password.
1. The government is asking Apple to disable the feature that erases all the data from the device after 3 failed login attempts. The government than could brute force the password.
2. This tool could be run by Apple and then the device returned to the government. They don't have to distribute this tool to the government or anyone else.
3. The device in question is the property of the state and not this persons own phone. The state has given the FBI permission to access their device.
4. Any incriminating evidence found on the device cannot be used against the user because he is dead.
5. There have been 70 other instances where Apple was served with a warrant to provide data on a users phone and they did so without complaint. In these cases the users in question were not dead.
6. Apple has all but admitted they can give the FBI exactly what they are asking for and if Apple can do it there are other highly skilled people who can also do the same thing.
7. The FBI has been upfront about their request and got a court order which is the legal process. They are not sending Apple classified NSL's demanding actions which never see the inside of a court room.
8. It seems people really don't have a problem with this particular case but they are worried setting some kind of precedent that can be used in the future. Giving current criminal activities a pass because you are worried about some consequence in the future is ridiculous.
9. Apples refusal doesn't have jack to do with user privacy concerns it is all about Apple's bottom line.
This whole charade smells of the government abusing this one request to make precedent for future requests.
I have to admit... I've been wondering if this whole charade is related to some sort of parallel reconstruction attempt; as in the NSA has figured out how to break AES 256 but doesn't want to publicize that fact.
#DeleteChrome
It's not a subpoena. It's a writ of assistance. These... don't have the best history on this continent.
And your argument is wrong. The fault isn't the adminsitration's, but that of those who fought it all the way up. They picked a bad test case for "tax as a means of force". That's why so many cases go uncontested. Roe vs Wade was the test case because Roe was raped, so it was a question of can you abort a rape baby. Rosa Parks was a good case to focus on because it was a Black woman sitting in the Black section who didn't get up when the driver ordered her to. The white man who the bus driver was clearing the space in the Black section didn't even want her seat, though I have no idea if that's because he didn't want to displace a tired person already settled in for a long bus trip, or he objected to sitting in the Blacks section.
Those that funded the attack on ACA, if they really were constitutional purists, should have picked a better test case, ACA is effectively a head tax levied by the state and paid to the feds (explicitly legal, and how much of the taxes went for many years). The only "new" thing was having people pay the insurance "tax" to the private company directly, or the federal government. Worded right, it's not a problem.
But the feds ordering Apple to make something or get taxed is different, and would likely fail. And ACA isn't a precedent making that legal, but the legal hurdles for it may be harder now because the incompetent and trigger happy ACA haters have a similar case where an arguably similar thing was legal. Blame the ACA haters for bringing a poor suit and losing it. That's what set the precedent. ACA didn't set a precedent at all.
Learn to love Alaska
A 10 million dollar daily fine would only be about $25 per iPhone sold. I would pay an extra $25 to know my phone is uncrackable.
They are right. It's very typical behavior by the u.s. government and really all governments.
The only think Apple could do would be to comply- then make it impossible for them to comply in the future with hardware and software changes.
Then when the government compelled them to comply they could say, it's not possible to comply from the ground up on this new phone.
Otherwise use of the new ability will be used generally in mass murders, then any murders, then child porn and sex trafficing, then in tax fraud cases, then as a general case for any crime including misdemeanors and apple will banned from talking about the tool.
it's the pattern the government has used for other tools.
Look- if the NSA hadn't abused the hell out of this, and if the police hadn't abused the hell out of property seizures, and if the police and FBI hadn't secretly abused the hell out of stingray, and if the police, nsa, and fbi all hadn't been caught lying over and over... we might trust them (the FBI used to be a lot more trustworthy unless you were a commie- in which case they were completely untrustworthy and would even make shit up to destroy your life). Okay, so really they were never trustworthy really.
They'll use this ability and then they'll abuse this ability... massively and secretly.
EVERY SINGLE TIME there is as terrorist incident security agencies all clamor for backdoors to encryption and in almost every case so far it turns out the back door wasn't needed. Heck, the paris attack master piece was on the cover of an english language arabic magazine months saying he was planning a terrorist attack against paris months before and no intelligence agency caught it. And yet they immediately said encryption was a problem.. and then the terrorists turned out to be using open text unencrypted SMS messages.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I am not a legal scholar but I am a curios onlooker. I've not yet read all the documentation concerning this case and not all of it has come to light.
However, I have a question. Who, specifically, has been charged with an offense at this time? If the answer is nobody, and if there is no specific defending party - at this time, then by what authority does the court issue this writ?
I do not know. If they're doing a post-mortem trial, what authority does that have in the US? Have they actually followed the process to have a posthumous trial? If not, and depending on the limits imposed, that might actually be a valid argument to present for a ruling. Has anyone published Apple's legal response and see what they're actually challenging and what arguments they are going to make?
I am not entirely familiar with it, nor a lawyer. I do have a bit of an understanding of law and procedure. I should think that they'd be exploring that argument as well but I do not believe I've heard that mentioned specifically.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."