San Bernardino Police: Reasonably Good Chance Nothing Of Value On Shooter's iPhone (businessinsider.com)

San Bernardino police chief, Jarrod Burguan, who was part of the investigation into the two shooters who killed 14 during a mass shooting event last December, says there probably isn't any useful information on Syed Farook's government-issued phone. "I'll be honest with you, I think there is a reasonably good chance that there is nothing of any value on the phone," Burguan said. Burguan is siding with the FBI, though, which is seeking to compel Apple to build custom software to allow law enforcement to extract data from Farook's phone. "This is an effort to leave no stone unturned in the investigation," Burguan told NPR. "To allow this phone to sit there, and not make an effort to get the information or the data that may be inside of that phone is simply not fair to the victims or the families."

Comments

More than likely

[ickleberry]

They already know there is nothing on it but selfies but they want to get people used to the idea of 'Feds' extracting data from people's iPhones, or else just give would-be terr'ists the idea that their data is secure, when Apple has in fact implemented a backdoor years ago

Question.

[fahrbot-bot]

I'm not an iPhone user so I thought I'd ask. Wouldn't Apple have to push out an update to this phone to implement what the FBI wants - unlimited password attempts w/o bricking the phone? If so, can this absolutely be done w/o the owner's consent? It seems that I can disable auto-updates on my Android phone and/or restrict updates to be over WiFi only - both of which would require manual intervention to initiate.

Re:Question.

[Bite The Pillow]

This could be done without the owner's consent, and shipped to everyone. Apple does not want to do that at all costs. And you could disable auto-updates, knowing that a device without updates is not secure. So you would be pwned either way, likely.

The FBI is willing to allow Apple to send an update to this specific phone, in an Apple lab, while Apple retains custody of the phone, as long as the data on the phone can be copied and given to the FBI.

In this case, the owner cannot consent and the phone is prosecutorial evidence, so the owner need not consent. And if a warrant were issued to compel Apple to send out an *existing* backdoor to gather evidence, Apple might have no choice but comply, with a probable gag order so the user is not notified.

Ergo, Apple wants to avoid creating this backdoor in the first place, so they can legit claim it doesn't exist for future requests.

The fun part of this is that the prosecution is willing to burn this bridge, and encourage Apple to redesign the security so this can't happen in the future. Capturing an Apple master signing key wouldn't be enough to make a backdoor this way, if Apple succeeds. Knowing in advance that the evidence would probably not help makes it head-scratching that they would go so far to basically declare in public what their capability is for reclaiming encrypted data.

Now everyone knows:

1) Disabling cloud sync means the data is on the device only
2) Apple currently won't make a backdoor
3) Feds don't have a backdoor
4) Future phones will likely not even be able to be backdoored

This is very much Snowden level releasing of national security secrets to enemies, only it's being done in public for no gain. Which makes it really fishy, unless some prosecutor really believed that this request would result in no change in technology nor blowback from the tech world. Which is the opposite claimed by everything about the Snowden files, so he can't claim ignorance. Given that the tech world moved to encryption because of Snowden's revelations as well as intrusions and data dumps, that's exceedingly bizarre.

Re:Question.

[smooth wombat]

In this case, the owner cannot consent

The owner has consented. It's the property of a county in California, not the terrorist. The county has already given permission to search the phone.

The problem is some lazy ass person within the county IT department never bothered to load the MDM software, which they had paid for, on the phone. This software would have allowed the county to say, "You want to see what's on the phone? Give us ten seconds."

I used to manage iPhones for a government agency I worked for. On a few occasions I had to use MDM software to unlock someone's phone or even reset their password. This could have been over a long time ago had someone done their job.

Re:Fairness

[KGIII]

As I mentioned above. For some unknown reason, this is all backwards. I've been listening to Fox News Radio during this - I've been listening off-and-on for a little over two weeks now. At least it feels like that long... And no, it's well known where my politics are - I'm a pretty staunch Sanders supporter.

The folks who call in, talk to the DJ, and the DJs themselves are, by a wide margin, in favor of Apple...

I did not type that wrong. The vast, vast majority of folks on Fox News Radio are against the FBI and their court order and are in favor of Apple fighting the government on this. No, I do not know why. Yes, the rest of what they're saying is largely crazy. However, for whatever reason, they are in favor of Apple and by a pretty large percentage. I've not written it down or anything but I have been keeping mental track. I'm as baffled as you are.

NPR, on the other hand, is the exact opposite. The people they have commenting in interviews, the people they have commenting, the hosts, and the callers are largely in favor of the FBI. It's starting to equal out as of yesterday and I didn't listen earlier today. So, NPR may have changed their tune since Friday morning but they were getting more people in Apple's favor come the morning show that comes on after BBC goes off and they start playing more local content.

It's like Opposite Day or something. I really have no idea what prompted the Fox News folks to make a rational choice or, at the very least, to clearly articulate a choice that I agree with.