Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by BeauHD on from the you-can-never-be-too-certain dept.

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."

63 of 110 comments (clear)

  1. More than likely by ickleberry · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

    1. Re:More than likely by ickleberry · · Score: 1, Funny

      We all know every terr'ist loves a good cat video

    2. Re:More than likely by bloodninja · · Score: 1

      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

      Over at the Security section of Stack Exchange, the idea of anything of value being on the device is almost taboo, and deemed a political issue, not a security issue:
      http://security.stackexchange....

      --
      Lock the wife and the dog in the boot of the car.
      Return one hour later.
      Who's happy to see you?
    3. Re: More than likely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You mean that terrorists don't actually keep their jihad plans on company issued iPhones? That is a shocker.

    4. Re: More than likely by Darinbob · · Score: 4, Funny

      I keep my terrorist plans on Google+. That way no one will find them.

    5. Re: More than likely by Izuzan · · Score: 2

      Of course all on the one piece of technology they didnt smash and destroy.

    6. Re:More than likely by KGIII · · Score: 1

      20 years ago, I'd have called you an idiot.

      I'm not sure how to feel about that.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    7. Re:More than likely by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      Every serious villain has a cat.

  2. Nothing of any value? by jenningsthecat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Even if there's no worthwhile information, the phone is still of immense value to those who want to take what's left of our privacy. You know, the same people who have us taking off our shoes in airports, in a security theatre exercise that would be farcical if it wasn't doing such a good job of making compliance with authoritarian demands a knee-jerk reflex among the citizenry.

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    1. Re:Nothing of any value? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, this has nothing to do with the particular phone in question other than it's from an honest-to-Allah terrorist. It is a 100% lie-through-the-teeth publicity stunt by the FBI.

      Nothing to see here, move along.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Nothing of any value? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yep. Orwell's vision is becoming reality. Most electronic gadgets, if the FBI wins, will become telescreens!

      It appears that Orwell, much like Murphy, was an unrequited optimist.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:Nothing of any value? by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      Even if there's no worthwhile information, the phone is still of immense value to those who want to take what's left of our privacy. You know, the same people who have us taking off our shoes in airports, in a security theatre exercise that would be farcical if it wasn't doing such a good job of making compliance with authoritarian demands a knee-jerk reflex among the citizenry.

      According to the article, this is a government issued phone, issued by his employer. As such, there is no "privacy" issue as anything on the phone belongs to the government. If this was his personal phone, that might be a different situation. But, now, after hearing this, it sounds like the government is asking Apple to allow them into their own phone that may have data related to a crime that one of their employees committed. That is not a personal privacy issue.

    4. Re:Nothing of any value? by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 3, Funny

      This is why I don't remove my shoes or jacket until they explicitly ask me to. I also always refuse the nudie cancer machine. They want to waste my time and take my dignity, so I waste their time and take their dignity as well

      And the time of everybody else behind you in line. Thanks.

    5. Re:Nothing of any value? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Sometimes that's just the deal you sign up with when you decide to travel by air.

      You're welcome.

    6. Re:Nothing of any value? by kenwd0elq · · Score: 2

      So, let the FBI open the phone. They have every right to do that. What they DON'T have the right to do is to conscript Apple to write custom software specifically for this task. The software to do this DOES NOT EXIST. It would have to be written, tested (although the literal order of the court would prohibit any testing, because the software that Apple is ordered to create may ONLY work on the subject device and NO OTHER, precluding any testing on any other iPhone 5C), and the Feds expect Apple to do this work for free.

      If I were Tim Cook, I'd say "We'd be happy to decrypt that phone for you. The Professional Services cost for this will be TEN BILLION DOLLARS, payable in advance. My programmers will begin work as soon as your check clears."

    7. Re:Nothing of any value? by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      According to the article, this is a government issued phone, issued by his employer. As such, there is no "privacy" issue as anything on the phone belongs to the government. If this was his personal phone, that might be a different situation. But, now, after hearing this, it sounds like the government is asking Apple to allow them into their own phone that may have data related to a crime that one of their employees committed. That is not a personal privacy issue.

      This IS a personal privacy issue. Not so much for the phone in question (the guy is dead, though sometimes the dead want their privacy), but everyone else's privacy.

      Because it's not just one phone, it's 15 more phones they want Apple to unlock. We don't know why those phones are there, but they're there. And another couple of hundred if you expand it from DoJ to LEOs all over the country.

      Heck, if you travel - want your phone searched just like your laptop? Doesn't matter if you object or anything.

      Tim Cook knows once the software is written, it's game over. It doesn't matter if just this once it works on this phone and everything destroyed (documentation, software, source code, servers, computers, etc) - you can do it once, you can do it over and over and over again. The software must not be allowed to exist.

      Apple doesn't want the data. In fact, it's the government's phone, and if they take it to an Apple store, the geniuses will simply wipe and reset the phone since you're supposed to have a backup of it. Apple makes it easy to back up your phone in case anything bad happens (alas, backing up Android is far harder). You can back it up to iTunes, encrypted even (and there's lots of good reasons for that - encrypted backups store EVERYTHING, including credentials. Regular iTunes backups don't store credentials). If you trust Apple, you can back up to iCloud. Or use both, because Apple intentionally makes it impossible to recover - the only way is to wipe and restore. Which is why an iPhone today can back up to either every time you charge it and it's connected to WiFi.

      That's why the software doesn't exist. Apple doesn't want it to exist, and they make it so for Joe Q. Average, they won't lose all their data by offering multiple ways to back up their data. Lose your phone? Wipe it! The backup's there for you to recover.

      And anyone find it funny that the government/FBI changed the password? Isn't the first line of action on a lost phone to wipe it remotely?

    8. Re:Nothing of any value? by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      So, let the FBI open the phone. They have every right to do that. What they DON'T have the right to do is to conscript Apple to write custom software specifically for this task. The software to do this DOES NOT EXIST. It would have to be written, tested (although the literal order of the court would prohibit any testing, because the software that Apple is ordered to create may ONLY work on the subject device and NO OTHER, precluding any testing on any other iPhone 5C), and the Feds expect Apple to do this work for free.

      If I were Tim Cook, I'd say "We'd be happy to decrypt that phone for you. The Professional Services cost for this will be TEN BILLION DOLLARS, payable in advance. My programmers will begin work as soon as your check clears."

      Those are two separate issues -- the unlocking of THIS phone versus EVERY phone. Apple won't even unlock this phone. Actually, they were not asked to, they were asked to remove the feature that automatically slows down retry attempts and then wipes the phone if still unsuccessful. According to the court records, Apple refused to do that so the FBI went to the courts for a remedy. That's how the system is supposed to work.

      If Apple tried to charge an enormous fee like you suggest, it would probably result in additional Justice Department investigations into Apple and various practices. Remember the Samsung case that Apple lost, but then somehow won?

      The government's relationship with Apple is a lot like it was with Saddam Hussein. As long as you do what they want, they protect you. Cross the line and they put their full force on you. Apple has billions in cash. Of course, if they get charged with something, the government could freeze those accounts and their accounts in countries that the US has treaties with.

      As previously reported, Apple has unlocked phones for the FBI over 70 times. What is different about this one?

  3. Why "not fair"? by khasim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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."

    Why is it "not fair"?

    You know who did it.
    You know why they did it.
    You know that they are now dead.

    Why would it be more "fair" to the families of the victims to destroy the security of everyone using an iPhone?

    And yes, the tech would leak out. And be abused. Today "terrorists" and tomorrow everyone.

    1. Re:Why "not fair"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe all phones will lead to other connections. Maybe we should have the government tap/access them too. It's nothing more than a fishing expedition.

    2. Re:Why "not fair"? by PPH · · Score: 1

      And that helps the current victims' families how exactly?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re:Why "not fair"? by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

      Because maybe the phone will lead to other connections, people willing to do the same violent act...?

      Like how they linked Kevin Bacon to Al Qaeda?

    4. Re:Why "not fair"? by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that some of the families of the victims have come out against the FBI forcing Apple to do this.

    5. Re:Why "not fair"? by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of the headline from The Onion: "Kevin Bacon linked to Al Qaeda".

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    6. Re: Why "not fair"? by Lenny369 · · Score: 1

      Exactly the example we needed. Since nobody here has mentioned it, this concept has a concrete basis in precedent. You've heard of it. It's called Blackstone's Formulation. It is better to let 10 guilty men go free than accost one innocent. In other words, those families can go love themselves. Their anguish holds no sword to my liberty.

    7. Re:Why "not fair"? by Frequency+Domain · · Score: 2

      Because maybe the phone will lead to other connections, people willing to do the same violent act...?

      I don't know about you, but the only contacts I have on my phone are people I call. I'm highly confident that the carrier has already given the FBI the phone logs, so the address book on the phone would yield no new info.

    8. Re:Why "not fair"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No one claimed that it would help the families, but the families probably hope that by analyzing their particular tragedy we can prevent more such tragedies, and it would be unfair to them if the police didn't make that effort and their loved ones died completely in vain.

      In St. Louis you get what a couple deaths every day or so from a shooting. Maybe spending some of the resources spent tracking down "terrorists" to find and eliminate the root causes of these deaths would be a more cost effective use of resources.

    9. Re:Why "not fair"? by dsmatthews9379 · · Score: 1

      I agree with the principle that the victims and their family are no more important that any other citizen when it comes to the legal system's obligations to protect, investigate and prosecute, because in such crimes the attack was against your entire society, way of life, and political system.

      As for your view that your phone is currently secure, well that is just naivety, the problem is that the cost involved in cracking it open safely is very high. It is not a question of if it is possible. The FBI just want Apple to help do what is possible (by others) but faster and for less cost.

    10. Re:Why "not fair"? by kenwd0elq · · Score: 1

      We can easily prevent more such tragedies by better vetting jihadi war brides from Pakistan. Which the government REFUSES to even consider.

    11. Re:Why "not fair"? by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Because maybe the phone will lead to other connections, people willing to do the same violent act...?

      You mean his co-workers, who are also as unhappy about their co-workerst that they want to kill them?

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  4. Fox: Reasonably good chance of grapes being sour by spiritplumber · · Score: 1

    n/t

    --
    Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
  5. Question. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Question. by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Question. by Fahrvergnuugen · · Score: 2

      A new version of iOS can be be uploaded to a phone when it's put into DFU mode without a passcode and without wiping out the data.

      Have a read here for more info.

      --
      Kiteboarding Gear Mention slashdot and get 10% off!
    3. Re:Question. by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      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.

      The have the owners consent. San Bernardino County is the owner. The killer was an employee of San Bernardino County, and the phone is his works phone.

      The question is: Can Apple, on Apple's premises, with the phone in their hands, with more knowledge of how an iPhone works than anyone else, possibly with tools that nobody outside Apple has, update the firmware of a phone that is locked with an unknown passcode? The answer is: Nobody really knows, and Apple tries very hard not to be forced to find out.

    4. Re:Question. by smooth+wombat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    5. Re:Question. by kenwd0elq · · Score: 2

      The Court's order is quite specific; the hack must only run on the target device and no others. That means that Apple is prohibited from testing the hack to see if it works. That also means that the court is, as usual, shooting off their mouths knowing virtually nothing about technology.

  6. Stupid argument. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    NOTHING will help the dead or their families. Playing that card is craven and crass.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  7. Wait a Fucking Minute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It was government issued and the government didn't know the password?

    WTF

  8. Re:This is a rope a dope. by gtall · · Score: 2

    Stop watching crime shows, it is bad for you...and they are not real.

  9. Re:Fairness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    One of the world's largest companies should have to inconvenience itself a little because there is a serious crime that needs investigation? Sounds like the judge in the Kesha case.

    Don't get me wrong, I think Apple is in the right here, but that's a silly argument.

    When someone thinks about this issue with any clarity, all of the claptrap about us having to give up our freedoms for security is only the issue on the face of it.
    We have a faction of government that wants to turn America and the world into a 1984 esque police state and influence the technology to where government and corporations have all the power and the individuals have none. (basically they want the world to go back to 1965, socially and business wise.)

    No matter what terrorist attack happens, it is not an excuse to sign away any of our constitutional rights. There needs to be another definition of idiot in the dictionary, defined as anyone who can be scared into giving up their rights by threat of hypothetical slippery slope logical fallacies.

    Apple is 100% right to tell the FBI or any other 3 letter agency wanting them to install back doors or anything vaguely going in that direction, to get bent and stick it where the sun does not shine. They are right to do this and then take any communication trying to compel them to betray their customer's trust like that.. and make it public. Just exactly what Tim Cook did.

    Think for yourselves people, stop listening to Fox news and Donald Trump and Republican assholes. Seriously, THINK FOR YOURSELVES!

  10. There is at least a text message by Ardipithecus · · Score: 1

    "Be sure to drink your Ovaltine"

  11. Re:Fairness by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

    One of the world's largest companies should have to inconvenience itself a little because there is a serious crime that needs investigation? Sounds like the judge in the Kesha case.

    Don't get me wrong, I think Apple is in the right here, but that's a silly argument.

    I used to agree with Apple until the bit of information about this being a government issued phone, not the personal phone of the shooter. As such, there is no privacy issue as anything on it is public information. If the shooter misused his government issued phone for personal business, well, that was his mistake and doesn't change the fact that the contents are subject to open records laws.

  12. Re:Fairness by gnasher719 · · Score: 2

    Apple is 100% right to tell the FBI or any other 3 letter agency wanting them to install back doors...

    Note that Michael Hayden, former chief of NSA and CIA, is absolutely _for_ secure encryption. Secure encryption protects terrorists, but it also protects average citizens, and it protects government agencies. In Michael Hayden's calculation, the overall effect of secure encryption gives it a 70:30 advantage to the alternative, no encryption. The FBI obviously has a different view; they want to solve crimes, not prevent crimes.

  13. So in other words, cracking this phone could be... by rwyoder · · Score: 2

    ...as exciting as watching Geraldo Rivera opening Al Capone's vault!

  14. Re:Fairness by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

    I used to agree with Apple until the bit of information about this being a government issued phone, not the personal phone of the shooter. As such, there is no privacy issue as anything on it is public information. If the shooter misused his government issued phone for personal business, well, that was his mistake and doesn't change the fact that the contents are subject to open records laws.

    There never was a privacy issue. The FBI does have a search warrant. They have the _right_ to gather any evidence they can gather. They don't need permission of the owner of the phone. Apple has handed all information that they had in their possession and did their best to help the FBI getting more information (which didn't work because someone at the FBI messed up).

    The one issue is that the same hack that opens up this criminal's phone to the FBI can open _your_ phone to hackers and criminals, can open the phones of politicians to foreign governments, and can open the phones of people fighting terrorism to ISIS operatives. So there is a very good reason for Apple to keep the FBI from making this foolish mistake.

    The other issue is that Apple doesn't own this phone. If the owner wants to unlock it, let the owner unlock it. Just the same as what happens if you stupidly forget the passcode for your phone and take it to the Apple Store.

  15. Re:Fairness by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    because there is a serious crime that needs investigation?

    What crime? The crime is over. The perpetrator is dead. This is nothing but a fishing expedition - which is absolutely contrary to law. You are supposed to know what you're looking for before you ask a judge for a warrant. That's how police work is supposed to be. We're slipping back a few hundred years and saying "oh he's supposed to a bad person, let's keep going through his stuff until we find something that will incriminate him". If we slip any more backwards than that, then accusation should be enough to condemn you, or even better, you get to fight it out and obviously God will pick the winner because if you lose the fight and die, obviously you were guilty.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  16. Re:Fairness by KGIII · · Score: 1

    I think the mods might have mis-read the post I'm replying to. By my reading, it's factiousness and intentional - and certainly as a parody.

    Err... Unless the mods think that Apple should comply? If that's the case then, never mind... And if that's the case... Well, if that's the case I think that's tantamount to -1 Disagree.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  17. Re:Fairness by KGIII · · Score: 2

    Due to some prompting here on this very site, I've been forcing myself to listen to some Fox News Radio. I still listen to NPR and I still listen to NRP more than I listen to anything else. Make sure to keep up with that.

    I'm pretty damned left. I'm like left of Sanders. Yeah... I am *LEFT* of Sanders. I'm left of him quite a bit. He'd be as left as I am but he's gotta get elected. Also, I'm on the left for very different reasons than most.

    I tell you that so that you can understand that I'm being objective, or as unbiased as I can be, but I have been keeping mental track. Fox News Radio's announcers, commentators, and callers are on the side of Apple on what has to be better than 2:1 on NPR.

    Yes, you heard that right and make no mistake, I'm shocked by this too. They were like this on DAY ONE. They didn't fuck around. On day one, as soon as it was announced, they had people on there being right pissed off by the government issuing this writ. They're also far more likely to call it a court order, order, or writ as opposed to a "warrant." NPR's reps are still calling it a warrant but Diane Rehm's show's email answering person sent me a reply saying thanks and the lady who was filling in has since started calling it a court order. However, she and the majority of her callers and commentators are on the side of the FBI and the government.

    You have this backwards. No, I have no idea either. However, since day one - I'm not kidding, Fox News Radio has had more people speaking out against it than speaking for it. One of the day-time dudes was against it on the first day. By the second day he was changing his mind and he had changed his mind by mid-show. He's the guy that blusters and talks over anyone that calls in? I don't know his name or anything. He also kind of hates Trump but he doesn't seem to really hate Sanders as much as I'd expected.

    Yes, I'm as shocked shitless as you are. I'm not bullshitting. I'm not making it up. I sure as hell have nothing to prove. It's an embarrassment to see how the left has dealt with this. I thought about it, however... Clinton is for it (though she seems keen to be wishy washy but I don't think she can backtrack on this subject) and they're pretty heavily in favor of Clinton. They really can't have a bunch of people not supporting Hillary and being given a voice. So, I hate to say it but I think the two are related.

    I really was not expecting this. I was expecting the Fox News Radio crowd to be in favor of the FBI. They're not. Hell, on day one they had not just one but two (that I heard) people call in that claimed to be computer scientists - well, one was in college and the other claimed to have been in the field for "over 20 years now." I'm inclined to believe both of them - they were familiar, fluent, and both were in favor of Apple challenging the order. The younger of the two didn't really seem to understand the political process, he thought it was a warrant. The older one specifically referred to it as a court order - while everyone else (pretty much) was still running around screaming that it was a warrant.

    Yup... I mentioned it to Pope and then mentioned it the following day. I'm too lazy to dig it out. They did have some lunatics who thought that Apple should give them anything they asked for. However, those are actually few and far between. Don't get me wrong, they're still largely a bunch of reckless lunatics who play politics like a team sport but on this one particular issue - they are very much in favor of Apple.

    Maybe, just maybe, you should try listening to Fox New Radio too? I'm absolutely baffled. I just turned it on and they're discussion hating Trump some more. They appear to have moved on from Apple and have something new to be outraged about.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  18. Re:Fairness by KGIII · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  19. Re:Fairness by Dog-Cow · · Score: 2

    The criminals are already dead, killed in a shootout with police. This is a power grab, and has nothing to do with justice for anyone, least of all the victims' families.

  20. Re:Fairness by Dog-Cow · · Score: 2

    In this case, the criminals are dead. This is not about solving crimes.

  21. Re:Fairness by KGIII · · Score: 2

    Slight point of order... The FBI doesn't have a warrant. They don't *need* a warrant. The lawful owner of the device has given them the rights to do anything they want with the phone.

    However... That still doesn't obligate Apple to do a damned thing. Apple has not been hit with a warrant. They've been hit with a writ, court order, and are challenging that order. The laws, specifically the Fourth Amendment, still carry weight but probably not as much weight - they are not Apple's papers, possessions, etc... There's maybe some Fifth Amendment issue - they might be incriminating themselves, I suppose they can argue that.

    If I were Apple and a lawyer, I am neither, I'd have a bunch of assistants crawling over any precedent concerning orders given where a third party was *forced* to act in accordance to a writ based on a subpoena. What everyone seems to be missing is that this is still in the early stages. So, who - specifically, has been charged? Nobody, right? So, if nobody has been charged AND this is not a warrant but is a writ, then by what authority does the judge issue this order? There's nobody being, you know, judged?

    However, I'm sure they've got someone smarter than I looking at it. I'm still curious as to why nobody has approached it from that angle yet. I guess they could claim a few things (in chambers) about their possible guilt and then plead the 5th. So, between the above and the 5th, there's some possible actual Constitutional debate to be had. It is important to remember that "reasonable person" is an actual legal concept. Which is where it ties into the 5th... I think...

    The 5th? Well, this is kind of sketchy and judge's don't really like weasel words and semantic arguments. But, hear me out... Apple has been marketing their devices as secure. If they show that they're not actually secure, as a reasonable person would expect, then they are subjecting themselves to potential charges for fraud, civil suits, and potentially criminal charges from violating any one of a number of statutes and regulations handed down by the FTC. I think there's a reasonable argument as a Constitutional matter.

    Again, I'm not a lawyer but I do know a wee bit about the law and the procedure. Procedure is an important thing. I'm not positive but I am not sure that procedure is being followed. There has been nobody charged - at all. That's easily remedied, by the way. It would give the government a way out. "Oh, we have to charge someone..." Then the issue goes quietly into the night.

    The thing is, I'd not actually be surprised to see it go into the night. No. I want this to go to court. I want this to get tossed out now. I want this to be in the courts while the public is still speaking about it. I want this to be in the courts while the people are still capable of outrage. I don't want them pushing this down the road and then continuing to proceed with the court order after we've gotten wrapped up in something else.

    I don't want them to see that the public is outspoken and against this and let it drop only to find a new case down the road (and there will be) where people are less outraged because they've seen it before and are expecting it to be overturned. I forget the name but that's an actual named political strategy where they wear you down and then let it pass later on. It's usually used for the creation of laws and it'll be a damned shame (even more of one) to see it used in the in both the legislative and judicial branches.

    Nope, I am not a lawyer. I am not your lawyer. That is not legal advice. If you have any questions, consult a legal professional in your jurisdiction.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  22. Re:Fairness by kenwd0elq · · Score: 1

    Why would you think that Syed Farook used his work-issued phone when coordinating this terrorist attack - when Farook went to special pains to destroy his PERSONAL iPhone, but didn't bother with his work iPhone?

    I'm very much on Apple's side on this. There's no evidence at all that Farook used his work-issued phone for criminal purposes. If the San Bernardino Department of Health (the owners of the phone) had bothered to configure the mobile device management features, they would be able to take control of the phone and the entire point would be moot. If the SBDH, under urging by the FBI, hadn't changed Farook's iCloud password prematurely, then Apple - which DOES have ways to get into anybody's iCloud account - would have been able to log in to iCloud and force the phone to send current backups right to them, and the entire point would be moot.

    No, there are SEVERAL government fuckups along the way, but now the FBI wants to get a do-over at Apple's expense.

  23. Re:Apple's Privacy Statement is in Conflict with C by kenwd0elq · · Score: 1

    It was an iPhone 5C, running iOS9. Different license agreement.

  24. Re:So in other words, cracking this phone could be by kenwd0elq · · Score: 1

    Exactly! And since Farook took special pains to destroy his own PERSONAL iPhone, but did nothing to his WORK iPhone, I am confident that if the FBI ever does get into the phone, they'll find nothing in it except the San Bernardino Department of Health roster of phone numbers (some of which will be out of date) and records of calls that he had made to his clients and co-workers.

    And perhaps some text messages like "Mrs. Jones wants to reschedule your 3 o'clock appointment for next week".

  25. Re:Fairness by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

    I am not saying that he used his government issued phone for planning any of this. However, it is his government issued phone that is locked and Apple is claiming it violates personal privacy if they unlock it.

    My point was that on a government issued phone to a government employee, there is not personal privacy, whether phone, messages, email, etc. That has been decided by the courts long ago. If Apple doesn't want to unlock it fine, defy the court order. But don't claim it is for personal liberties of its users.

      Furthermore, I do agree that there is FBI overreach here. It would be one thing to ask to unlock THIS phone. It is quite another to ask to be able to unlock EVERY phone. However, that is a separate issue from whether or not Apple should unlock this particular phone.

  26. Re:Fairness by KGIII · · Score: 1

    Yes, yes they'd be taking that pill but they'd be hiding it in chambers. So, it's there as an option. If anything - if it went that way, I'd expect the government to use that as an excuse to stand down and not lose face.

    As for the second, that *is* my point. What authority does the judge have to issue these orders? If there's nobody charged then how, exactly, does a judge get to make these orders? Under what authority does the judge issue this writ? There's no case - so how do they get the authority to issue this order? Nobody has been able to answer that question.

    As near as I can tell, judges do not have the authority to just issue orders to people when there's no court case. This is easily fixed, by the way. The government just has the dead folks indicted and charges them - at that point, the judge will probably have some say. Right now, as near as I can tell, they're just handing down orders that are without power, they had no right to issue the order. Unless, of course, someone can explain under what authority the judge issued this order.

    So far, nobody has done that. "Because." Is not an answer, by the way. I can read, show me where they get this authority.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  27. Re:Fairness by Jeremi · · Score: 1

    Well, it wouldn't be the first time the conservatives have stood on the side of a corporation to be free of government regulation and control.

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  28. Re:Fairness by pnutjam · · Score: 1

    Careful, that's how they get you. They take a side and the people who agree find themselves listening, slowly other things creep in.

    NPR usually strikes a more balanced view. While you and I have (the same) well thought out opinion, not everyone has made up their mind and it's only fair to give both sides of the issue. It gives people experience in sniffing out the crap and hearing what is not said.
    Fox just wants to feed you stuff, it's the political equivalent of watching QVC.

    --
    Cheap storage VM.
  29. Re:Fairness by KGIII · · Score: 1

    Oh, absolutely. It's propaganda and control. It's like the politics scene in general. I'll use Hillary as an example...

    Hillary doesn't have to appeal to the typical Democrat. They're going to vote for her regardless. She has to sway those who might otherwise vote differently. This means, sometimes, appealing to some of the lunatic fringe in rhetoric if not also in deed. So, you get what we have here. This is much the same.

    The interesting thing is, as near as I can tell, the callers aren't (well) vetted. One of the shows that I am recalling seems to have people who call in on a regular basis. The host seems to know some of them and is able to recall (or reference - perhaps computationally) prior conversations. He was (seemingly) taken aback by some of their comments. It was (seemingly) unscripted. On day two, during the middle of it, the host appeared to be changing his views on it.

    Do note the caveats in parenthesis. I trust 'em about as far as I can throw 'em.

    I could go on and elaborate but I'd be preaching to the choir and I have a boo-boo on my finger. Yes, yes I am about as mature as a five year old. If you don't believe me, leave me unattended with a button that says, "Do not push!"

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  30. Re:Fairness by KGIII · · Score: 1

    There is that. I've not looked at it like that. Now that I think of it, a small number did say something akin to, "They shouldn't force the company to ..." However, the majority seemed inclined to postulate that it was a security and privacy overreach that could be used in more than one case. Of course, I think some of these people were also the ones who supported the TSA, DHS, and NSA's snorting up data like McAfee and an eight-ball of coke.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  31. Re:Fairness by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    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 like Opposite Day or something.

    Opposite day? More like every day....it's not referred to as National Pentagon Radio for nothing, or Nice Polite Republicans, if you prefer.

  32. Re:Fairness by q4Fry · · Score: 1

    ...now the FBI wants to get a do-over at Apple's expense.

    Point of clarification: at the expense of Apple, every technology company who might have a security defect of some kind, and every citizen henceforth who believes that being "secure in their personal effects" includes "not having secret letters commanding a technology company to subvert one of those personal effects without being able to tell anyone about it." This case is not about the 4th Amendment, but you can bet your ass that the next case will be.