Slashdot Mirror
FBI Delays Case Against Apple; May Have Way To Break Phone (threatpost.com)
msm1267 writes: The FBI has delayed its case against Apple less than a day before a scheduled court hearing and showdown over its demands that Apple help unlock a terrorist's iPhone. The government late Monday afternoon filed a motion to vacate its case, putting a halt to a saga that began in mid-February when a federal magistrate ordered Apple to help the FBI access a phone belonging to one of the shooters involved in last December's attack that killed 14 in San Bernardino, Calif.
The motion also indicates that the FBI may have found a way onto the phone without Apple's help. "On Sunday, March 20, 2016, an outside party demonstrated to the FBI a possible method for unlocking [shooter Syed] Farook's iPhone," the motion says. "Testing is required to determine whether it is a viable method that will not compromise data on Farook's iPhone. If the method is viable, it should eliminate the need for the assistance from Apple Inc. ("Apple") set forth in the All Writs Act Order in this case." Update 3/22/16 at 01:05:00 GMT: The story was updated to reflect the correct information that the case was delayed, not dropped. A federal judge agreed to postpone the oral arguments between Apple and the U.S. government.
The motion also indicates that the FBI may have found a way onto the phone without Apple's help. "On Sunday, March 20, 2016, an outside party demonstrated to the FBI a possible method for unlocking [shooter Syed] Farook's iPhone," the motion says. "Testing is required to determine whether it is a viable method that will not compromise data on Farook's iPhone. If the method is viable, it should eliminate the need for the assistance from Apple Inc. ("Apple") set forth in the All Writs Act Order in this case." Update 3/22/16 at 01:05:00 GMT: The story was updated to reflect the correct information that the case was delayed, not dropped. A federal judge agreed to postpone the oral arguments between Apple and the U.S. government.
1. "The government actually had this capability all along; they just wanted the precedent."
No...just, no. Facts not in evidence. Also makes no sense, because if "the government" had the capability, and was able to use it in secret, the whole discussion is moot.
2. "But they need the precedent so they can force companies to weaken/break products that they really can't break in the future."
Again, no. As I can't guarantee the sun won't explode tomorrow, I similarly can't "guarantee" anything with regard to precedent, but it does not follow at all that any government victory in this narrow case somehow translates into the government being able to "force" vendors to do any such thing.
3. "The government was afraid it was going to lose, so it had to slink back into the corner with its tail between its legs."
No. If the government did lose on this specific case, it would change nothing, because the phone would still be locked, and the questions still need to be answered.
4. Further, you couldn't really ask for a better case to use if all they were really going for was "precedent": an older, breakable phone made by a US company, used in an international terrorist attack on US soil, owned by a US county government agency, which has given full permission to search the device. So it's not like "the government" is now going to "wait for a better case".
5. If the government does drop the request, people get exactly what they wanted: the status quo.
But all of these questions still need answers:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/co...