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.
Sounds like the FBI will be busy unlocking phones for hundreds of LE agencies now. Way to turn the burden around. In the meantime, the FBI posts "Now hiring for iPhone repair positions".
I certainly don't think that any information about this phone (or some new approach to getting info off it) is what prompted the change here. Giving up at this stage means one of two things:
1. They flinched. They thought they'd lose, either in court or in public opinion - so they kicked the can down the road.
2. They've already won; they know that legislation is about to become more favorable for them, and they'll have the tools they want without needing a precedent here.
3. They've already lost; they know that there will soon be enough robust/secure devices in the wild that having leverage over companies like Apple won't actually help them (because the Apple's of the world may not be able to break their own devices)
We'll find out which it is over the next few years.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
Translation: Next time the FBI sues someone to force them to break encryption it will be someone that can't fight back, and they will get their precedence then.
The last salvo from Apple's lawyers was fairly devastating to the DOJ's case: It pointed out errors of law, errors of logic, technical mistakes and omissions, and general arrogance. The DOJ knew lat week that they were getting shot down, so they'd rather not have that happen in court where it could affect their future error-and-arrogance-filled filings.
Last week someone pointed out that Apple has far better lawyers than the DOJ. True. Tragic, sad, demoralizing as an American, but obviously true.
I think not...(*poof*)
My guess: "shit we aren't winning in public. How do we retract this without saving face."
There was always a way for them to gain access to that particular phone because it was an older model that didn't have the security features of their more recent devices to prevent those kinds of attacks. Basically some hacker found that they could hook a device up the phones innards and just try brute forcing the 4-digit PIN and that if they cut all power to the device on a failed attempt quickly enough that the system wouldn't register the failed attempt and wipe the device.
The FBI could always get into this phone, but they wanted Apple to give them the keys to get into any iPhone anytime that they wanted to. The only thing the FBI has probably done is drive Apple and other device makers to build security systems that they have no way of exploiting themselves, even if they have the ability to write a custom OS.
The government needs to stop trying to illegally invade the privacy of its citizens. All it's really doing is to hurt US businesses because foreign countries don't want anything to do with a country that's going to spy on all of their information or communications.
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.
No, because having the precedent would make the FBI's access into secure devices much easier in the future.
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.
Why not? If the government can force Apple to write a whole new operating system so that it can break iPhone security, then what else could they force vendors to do?
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.
Uh, if the government lost, then there would be concrete case law on the books that the All Writs Act isn't a "give us whatever we want" card.
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".
Quite possibly. This case was pretty strong, in that a lot of people were supporting Team FBI.
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:
Yep. I just hope the answer isn't going to be making National Security Letters the new standard MO.
John McAfee, obviously.
My money's on the NSA.
But whoever it is, I believe they knew they had this option all along.
They had the best experts in the world telling them that it could be broken, but they pursued the matter in the courts instead.
I can see the fnords!
Basically some hacker found that they could hook a device up the phones innards and just try brute forcing the 4-digit PIN and that if they cut all power to the device on a failed attempt quickly enough that the system wouldn't register the failed attempt and wipe the device.
But that would void the warranty.