Slashdot Mirror
FBI Paid More Than $1 Million For San Bernardino 'Hack' (cbsnews.com)
An anonymous reader writes: FBI Director James Comey has indicated the bureau paid more than $1 million for the method used to hack into the iPhone 5c belonging to one of the San Bernadino shooters. How did he allude to it? He said the FBI paid more money than he would make in the time left as FBI director. He makes just under $200,000 a year based on public files and has over seven years left on his term. "How much did you pay for this software?" Comey was asked. "A lot," he said. "More -- let's see. More than I will make in the remainder of this job, which is seven years and four months, for sure," Comey said. "And so it's a -- but it was in my view, worth it, because it's a tool that helps us with a 5c running iOS 9, which is a bit of a corner case, increasingly as the devices develop and move on to the 6 and 6s and whatnot and iOS's change, but I think it's very, very important that we get into that device." Comey said.
...what they found on the phone.
My guess....porn.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
just throw away our money.
There seems to be more bad information about how they unlocked it out there, than what is being said about what is on it.
Truly frustrating.
If he did pay $1m for it, I wonder if he will even be able to finish his tenure.
Just a cool million, for what exactly? Vague words of vagueness to fill lots of triumphant press releases, that's what.
Assuming these guys are really, really good, and worth a billable rate of $250/hr - if they pulled off the job in under 90 days, were there 10+ of them on the job, or did the FBI just pay a super premium for a high profile case to make a political statement?
Glad to know that my ex-girlfriend can't pay someone to do it on her salary.
But it sounds a lot cheaper than the legal case would have been if they had tried to go through the courts.
Morons should have started with that option, not used it only after Apple complained.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Basic income is too much money for nothing.
So they pick up the yellow pages and call "Hackers R Us" and hire a million dollar zero day exploit for an Apple 5c so they can find any information not already captured in the telco's network traffic. What a load of crap. Nothing about this story, the preposterous claim of the value of `anything on an iphone that is not already a matter of record in telecommunication logs sounds like complete baloney. I don't believe a word of what these liars are saying. Not a word of it. If they really believe there is anything of value on a cell phone that does not involve actual network transmission then I would like to know what that is. Lets be clear here - if its on an encrypted iPhone, and it never involved a network connection or transmission, then why does it even matter? If they really think there is anything more of real value then perhaps they should pursue all of the known connections. Or how about, don't shoot ten thousand bullets into the suspects after you have them completely surrounded by armies of law enforcement. Perhaps if these gun slinging assholes stopped to think about the value of a living terrorist over a dead one we wouldn't be wasting tax payer dollars on their bad learning curve on common sense.
Join the Tea Party and say NO to wasteful spending of our tax dollars. This is why we're in debt.
When does the FBI tell Apple about the security vulnerability so that they can fix it?
Or are they going to keep the bug/vulnerability out there so that all the other Iphones (including those used by Government agencies) can be vulnerable to being hacked by anyone else who discovered the same bug or can scrape together enough money to "buy" the same info?
This could be a clever way to pay launder money from FBI.
Here is how it works:
- FBI hacker finds a flaw, but does not tell the boss.
- You tell your boss that you have a cousin who can o stuff
- Your boss pays your cousin $1M. What you and your cousin do is between you two.
Quite frankly, FBI hack was useless. FBI said that they found something valuable, but they only said to justify the expense. They found that he did not communicate with anybody else. THAT, they already knew anyway.
I guess I thought that FBI directors served at the pleasure of the President, but thinking back on recent history it seems like there has always been a continuity of FBI directors regardless of Presidential elections. I'm kind of mentally excluding Hoover, who mostly kept his job because the Presidents in his era were afraid of his blackmail files and he generally made himself into a useful bully on their behalf.
But 10 years? That sounds a little too secure, too much like a master of an empire and not a public servant. I don't buy any functional reason to keep a single director that long, either. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the CIA director don't serve that long.
Surely in a democratic-oriented country changing one's police leaders regularly is just good hygiene.
Nearly everything the FBI says so far is a lie. Why should I believe this statement?
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
maybe the $15k original rumor floating around is accurate and the director is about to get shitcanned for ordering the changing of the icloud account that screwed all this up in the first place.
There, fixed that for you.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
It's OUR money they paid, not THEIR money. The FBI gets it's money from tax payers, and exists because of tax payers.
This is the same issue with all of Government really. The Government is always better off when they are not accountable for spending. I just wonder if they will use this as ammo to convince tax payers that we need a bigger GAO to investigate this incident and others just like it.
Before you say it, Anarchy is not the only or even best alternative. There is a whole lot of space between anarchy and our current overly bloated Government.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Merely the use of "hack" and "hackers" in governmentese was a red flag that nothing actually useful would come out of the entire endeavour.
Spending Millions to break into an obsolete phone? Ug. What a boon for Apple. Every security conscious individual out there now knows to upgrade. iphone 5 and less is worthless for security conscious individuals. You will soon see a surge in iphone 6 sales.
Considering we spend hundreds of billions bombing and fighting in countries over terrorism and potential terrorism, this is a bargain.
Table-ized A.I.
"$1 million dollars".
How much to just rent it?
"$1 million dollars".
I'll take it.
A grocery list? Tax dollars well spent.
...is what the FBI are blowing. Unfortunately, for a lot of people, perception (or propaganda) is reality. I don't believe for a second that the iPhone was cracked, it's all a publicity stunt to discredit Apple. Apple has deep pockets, filled with lawyers, and if the Feds wanted to take it thought the courts Apple would tied it up for years, all the way to SCOTUS.
Especially from the government
ESPECIALLY from the FBI
SUPEREXTRASPECIALLY if they make a months-long media spectacle of it
cuz its true :))))
McAfee would have done it for an ounce or two of blow.
Hey, look on the bright side... it's still cheaper than what the TSA paid for their direction randomization app.
WE PAID FOR IT.
taxes.
did we get any say in this? of course not.
will there be any reasonable return on this 'investment' ? of course not! everyone who cares will be dumping this model of phone as soon as they possibly can.
nice that our fbi ASSHOLES waste money on ego bullshit. really nice.
(god dammit so much!)
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Standard process: Appointed by president, confirmed by senate. The term is ten years, but in practice almost every single director has left before their term is up. I'm surprised the appointment is not more politically contested, given that the director is in a position to influence what crimes the FBI focuses on and thus to advance either party agenda easily.
FBI Director James Comey might as well have said:
"How much did you pay for this software?" Comey was asked. "A lot, too much in fact. We got nothing and we paid a king's ransom to find out what we already suspected. However in another way it was completely worth it. We protected our political position that encrypted phones are terrorist kibble and that we need a back door into these for our own use. Any time, any place, any device, any reason, that's our motto! Also we avoided setting a negative legal precedent and we still have a shot at getting a positive precedent. We are government and we are patient. There is an endless supply of widows, orphans and single moms willing to get their 15 minutes of fame and their point of view out in front of the public. The tech industry is dug in against us and that's a problem, but we are patient like I said and we'll keep coming back, endlessly. We are actually quite bullish on our chances in the long run. We are the Good Guys and everyone knows that. All we have to do is keep harping away that criminals and terrorists are getting away with murder and eventually the public will demand that we get everything we are asking for. It's a good time to be in law enforcement and even though it's a tough job, we're more than happy to do it."
The Director's term is long in order to make the position less political. The Director has a lot of power; so it would be very bad if the Director was strongly partisan. Making the Director's term longer than the maximum term of a president (2*4 years) provides a strong incentive to the president (who appoints the Director) to appoint someone who will be negligibly partisan.
Anyone could have told them there was jack shit on that phone...
Not really buying this logic -- what exactly have lifetime appointments done for partisanship on the Supreme Court? And why wouldn't we worry about partisanship in the CIA or military leadership, with the former being at least nominally more risky due to its clandestine nature.
I would think that you could avoid partisanship in selection by making his term expire two years after a new President takes the oath, thus guaranteeing his post will outlast that of the President who elected him.
There fixed that for you
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
a male CEO with more cash than that, and dicks in his mouth.