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

Re: More than likely

[Darinbob]

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

Re: More than likely

[Izuzan]

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

Nothing of any value?

[jenningsthecat]

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.

Re:Nothing of any value?

[ColdWetDog]

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.

Re:Nothing of any value?

[ColdWetDog]

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.

Re:Nothing of any value?

[Dcnjoe60]

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.

Re:Nothing of any value?

[kenwd0elq]

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."

Re:Nothing of any value?

[tlhIngan]

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?

Why "not fair"?

[khasim]

"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.

Re:Why "not fair"?

[Frequency Domain]

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.

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.

[Fahrvergnuugen]

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.

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:Question.

[kenwd0elq]

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.

Stupid argument.

[BarbaraHudson]

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

Re:This is a rope a dope.

[gtall]

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

Re:Fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:Fairness

[gnasher719]

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.

So in other words, cracking this phone could be...

[rwyoder]

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

Re:Fairness

[KGIII]

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.

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.

Re:Fairness

[Dog-Cow]

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.

Re:Fairness

[Dog-Cow]

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

Re:Fairness

[KGIII]

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.