Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Won't Sue FBI To Reveal Hack Used To Unlock Seized iPhone (appleinsider.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the legal-jargon dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from ZDNet: Apple will not pursue legal action against the US government to discover how federal agents broke into an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters. Attorneys for Apple speaking on background during a media briefing call on Friday said that it believed the method used to unlock the iPhone 5c would be short lived. It follows similar comments by FBI director James Comey who said in a speech on Thursday that the hack used to unlock the encrypted phone works on a "narrow slice" of devices. Apple attorneys said that the company is "confident" that the security weakness that the government alleges to have found will have a "short shelf life." The FBI's hack in the San Bernardino case would not help agents access a newer iPhone 5s used by a drug dealer in New York, where Apple faces a similar case against the government.

43 comments

  1. If they know he's a drug dealer by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

    ...Then why do they need his phone? They're calling him a drug dealer already, so it sounds to me like they have a conviction already. However if they don't have a conviction and fail to get one, they're looking at some potential civil liability...

    1. Re:If they know he's a drug dealer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They could be looking for his supplier and move up the food chain from there. You want prosecute the people making decisions and not their peons.

    2. Re:If they know he's a drug dealer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't need his phone for that. They just need to interrogate him in an "enhanced" way. He probably has a phobia about drowning that can be exploited.

    3. Re: If they know he's a drug dealer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They also don't need that since they can subpoena the call records and see who he has been in contact with.

  2. Cause of Action by davesays · · Score: 1

    [Apple faces a similar case against the government] I find it very difficult to believe that Apple brought a case in New York state, asking them to crack an iPhone.

  3. Chicken shit by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    Apple is really just chicken shit. They should've sued the FBI

  4. DMCA Violation? by brian.stinar · · Score: 2

    Doesn't it violate the DMCA, section 1201 which bans reverse engineering? I wonder if anyone could bring suit for the (potentially criminal) DMCA violations?

    1. Re:DMCA Violation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, see DMCA sections on legal security exploration when not for copyright violation, and very direct exemption for law enforcement (including FBI).

    2. Re:DMCA Violation? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2

      law enforcement is exempted from most laws, including the DMCA, dummy.
      see subsection "(e) Law Enforcement, Intelligence, and Other Government Activities." which is literally right above subsection "(f) Reverse Engineering."

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    3. Re:DMCA Violation? by brian.stinar · · Score: 1

      Oh thank you, I missed that section.

    4. Re:DMCA Violation? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Grabbing someone off the street and locking them up in your house is illegal, but the FBI can do that.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    5. Re:DMCA Violation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but it wasn't law enforcement doing the hacking, they paid a private company to do it. So the company might be breaching the DMCA. I don't believe the law covers the case of knowingly breaking security measures for profit?

      If the FBI wants to do reverse engineering, they need to get their own agents to do the actual reverse engineering....

    6. Re:DMCA Violation? by truedfx · · Score: 1

      That's what "or a person acting pursuant to a contract with the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State" is about. It's covered. It's one paragraph in the law. It's easy to read. Don't jump to conclusions based on merely its title.

    7. Re:DMCA Violation? by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      There's an "Encryption Research" exception that allows to develop products to sell legally is perfectly legal under the DMCA. Since the FBI cannot be sued under the DMCA under any circumstances (there's a whole "Law Enforcement" clause that says so), they are allowed to buy the encryption-cracking product and use it on any device they have the Legal Power to search. So neither the company (which is, IIRC, actually in israel making prosecution for DMCA-violations rather tricky), nor the FBI can be penalized under the DMCA.

      In general, there's absolutely no way for a scenario of this kind to ever happen. The whole architecture of the government is that their legal abilities (called "Powers") are completely different from that of a private citizen's (called "Rights"), so a law giving them the capital-P-Power to send your ass to jail for hacking is almost always gonna have jack-squat effect on the government's ability to do hacking.

      The Feds/Army/etc. still can be restricted by Acts of Congress (to an extent -- if the Constitution grants the Executive or the Judicial a capital-P-Power Congress can't undo that by statute), but the Act that affects your Rights as a private citizen is not gonna be the one that affects their Powers as the government.

    8. Re:DMCA Violation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they bought the tool, which means some non-government org did the reverse engineering.

  5. DMCA by Narcocide · · Score: 1

    Title says it all. They should simply sue the FBI because it was illegal for them to subvert the device's security measures in the first place.

    1. Re: DMCA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong, the FBI should be suing Apple for its refusal to follow the law. When asked by the court to comply, they refused. They should face the same sanctions, anyone else would, you and I would have gone to jail. They got off Scott free. Why, a corporation, according to American law is an individual. And should face the same sanctions as an individual. Just as you or I, they should have been forced to comply, or suffer the consequences.

  6. There's really no grounds for a suit. by BitterOak · · Score: 1

    Apple can't force the FBI to divulge security weaknesses it found any more than the FBI can force Apple to break into phones for them.

    --
    If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    1. Re:There's really no grounds for a suit. by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      Well, also, Apple's engineers probably already have a pretty good guess as to how a previous-generation iPhone was hacked.

    2. Re: There's really no grounds for a suit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Argument is the wrong way again. They, Apple, said in their appeal to the court, they could and have broken into Apple encrypted systems for the FBI previously. That would probably include the latest system. Why stop? The FBI, was trying to establish a legal system, go to an open court, get a legal warrant, so the unencrypted phone can be used as evidence. FISA courts are not legal, not evidence, not evidence, means cannot be used, if used, the person, after discovery is freed. That's the way I see it. No secret court, or the court has to become open, and all the secret dealings against us have to be revealed. No one in the Justice system wants that. So the Justice was going about the right way, why did Apple refuse? Publicity. Plain and simple. So, I'm due a new phone shortly. Encrypted Android. But I will try to avoid Chinese, and Malaysian. Wish blackberry was still around, at least only the Saudis admitted to a backdoor.

  7. Apple is lucky not to be seized for enabling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Laughable that they aren't going to sue the FBI. Apple is so politically correct they think they need to make it easy for criminals and terrorists to use their devices without fear of law enforcement. That doesn't really wash in today's world where hundreds of people are being slaughtered by middle eastern wackos communicating via Apple-phones.

    Their whole refusal is a publicity stunt designed to gain more customers even if they fail to do their patriotic duty. They should be ashamed and eventually prosecuted. We can use their illegal offshore billions to fund Homeland Security after asset seizure.

    1. Re:Apple is lucky not to be seized for enabling by zieroh · · Score: 1

      If I could mod you "-1 Incoherent" I would.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    2. Re:Apple is lucky not to be seized for enabling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Let's see...

      Frito-Lay is so politically correct they think they need to make it easy for criminals and terrorists to eat Doritos without fear of law enforcement. That doesn't really wash in today's world where hundreds of abortion providers have been slaughtered by Christian wackos who eat Doritos.

      Now, did you have an actual point or are you just being a jingoistic troll?

  8. wrong, dummy. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    DMCA, section 1201.e

    (e) Law Enforcement, Intelligence, and Other Government Activities.—
    This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, information security, or intelligence activity of an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or a person acting pursuant to a contract with the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State. For purposes of this subsection, the term “information security” means activities carried out in order to identify and address the vulnerabilities of a government computer, computer system, or computer network.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:wrong, dummy. by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      Yea, yea everyone sites that clause, but there's two things about its use in this case with which I take issue:

      1) It clearly caveats "lawfully authorized" without being clear about whether they mean the agents or their actions have to be lawfully authorized. In this situation I think there is a case to be made that the agents may not have been acting in a lawfully authorized fashion, because they were stepping beyond their authority in their initial request to Apple.

      2) This clause also seems to be only intended to apply to government computers/networks.

      I.A.N.A.L.

    2. Re:wrong, dummy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This clause also seems to be only intended to apply to government computers/networks.

      The Government of California owned the Phone in that case.

    3. Re:wrong, dummy. by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      It takes real talent to fail at being a rules lawyer when you're talking about the legal system.

      There is no Constitutional principle that the designer of a product has to asked permission before law enforcement circumvents it's security features. If there was Kwikset would have to be consulted every time they broke down a door. In fact Apple's entire case against the FBI was all about it's absolute right to have absolutely nothing to do with hacking this particular phone.

      "Lawfully authorized" clearly means that the Search is legal. If the Search was not lawfully authorized there's massive Constitutional issues, which are a wee bit more important then the DMCA.

    4. Re:wrong, dummy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It takes real talent to fail at being a rules lawyer when you're talking about the legal system.

      I don't mean to be snippy, but that is funny, considering you **appear** to make that same error by assuming the constitution grants rights - when it restricts government power.

  9. Not newer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The iPhone 5c was released at the same time as the iPhone 5s. The 5s has more security features though.

  10. Cheaper just to purchase the answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If apple even cares about the method it probably costs less lawyer dollars to just purchase the hack from the same firm. Didn't Cellebrite sell their services to the FBI for $15k?

  11. How narrow for how long? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    As consumers the wider buying population of telco products now has a feel for a backdoor in the hands of state/federal task forces, federal officials, ex staff, former staff, contractors and anyone who can afford expert help from ex staff and former staff.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  12. Apple for the $$$ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Attorneys for Apple speaking on background during a media briefing call on Friday said that it believed the method used to unlock the iPhone 5c would be short lived.

    Apple attorneys said that the company is "confident" that the security weakness that the government alleges to have found will have a "short shelf life."

    Translation:
    It would cost us money to fix any security flaw in "older" iPhones -- this way we can use the fear of insecure iPhones to get them to buy new ones.

    Mo' Money! Mo' Money! Mo' Money!

    1. Re:Apple for the $$$ by cavreader · · Score: 0

      Apple is just pissed off because their own backdoor into the phones has been exposed.

  13. Why waste money? They probably already know. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They likely know that the 5c isn't (as) secure - It's based on the older 5 platform.

    There is a reason they added the secure enclave to the 5S and later.

  14. Why would they care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They don't make that model anymore.

  15. Um, hello by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a Red herring. FBI, "It only works on this specific phone". Apple "Yep, that's correct".

    Both to each other, "Do you think they believe our lies?".

    Methinks they are full of it.

    1. Re:Um, hello by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Of course. If you have physical access to the computing device it isn't secure. Everyone clueful knows that.

  16. nice by grayberry · · Score: 1

    omg, how can i do that?

    --
    games for boys
  17. Are you in need of a Hacker? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you require the services of a hacker?..contact leehacks92@gmail.com for your ethical and unethical hacks,he's time conscious,very discreet and reliable,he’s the best i’ve worked with so far..check him out and you won't be disappointed..serious enquiries only!!

  18. From a financial perspective by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    It would be far easier, and cheaper, to simply pay the company who did it for the FBI vs a lawsuit.

    For that matter, they could also brib. . . . er. . . contribute campaign funds to those in Congress who were briefed on the matter.

  19. If it's a software hack, Apple should be notified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe this time they hacked a phone from the "bad guy", but that company could sell their exploit to anyone, or someone else could discover the loophole. If it's hardware and can't be prevented by update software, they can keep it for themselves (but then there is no point to keep it private).

  20. Have they said what was on it yet ? by Izuzan · · Score: 1

    I notice a distict lack of information as to what they found on it. If it had been something good they would be all over the news bragging.