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.

28 of 99 comments (clear)

  1. Guess We'll Never Know... by sycodon · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...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.
    1. Re:Guess We'll Never Know... by JackieBrown · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The government is just pissed Apple beat them in the war of public opinion and that they said no to the government.

      That is why we keep hearing them say now that Apple devices are not secure and trying to hurt Apple in a new war of public opinion.

      I wish there would be a push back against the government's use of Apple phones and make public officials give them up since they are apparently so "insecure."

    2. Re:Guess We'll Never Know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Nothing of importance. We know they already were given a copy of the information on the phone from Apple (most recent backup), of which they found nothing. The FBI then themselves said they don't believe they would find anything important, but decided to push through with it anyways. Now they've gotten in, and haven't announced they found anything interesting, so guess what that means?

    3. Re:Guess We'll Never Know... by Hussman32 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Funny, but it's even worse...they confirmed that they did not contact other people during the 18 minute window that they were trying to close, and they called it useful information.

      They knew that the shooters went out of their way to destroy every single electric device they owned, yet they demanded to know that the phone was not used for unlawful purposes. And they paid someone a fortune who probably looked up how to do it on /.

      That's not a good use of taxpayer money to make a point.

      --
      "Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
    4. Re:Guess We'll Never Know... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      ...what they found on the phone.

      My guess....porn.

      Million dollar porn.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    5. Re:Guess We'll Never Know... by ooloorie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The government is just pissed Apple beat them in the war of public opinion and that they said no to the government.

      Maybe among Apple fans, not among the public at large.

      That is why we keep hearing them say now that Apple devices are not secure and trying to hurt Apple in a new war of public opinion.

      By Apple's own admission, Apple devices are not secure.

    6. Re:Guess We'll Never Know... by Rande · · Score: 2

      Shemale midget scat donkey porn. ...Sorry, I meant 'interspecies erotica'.

    7. Re:Guess We'll Never Know... by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately that is a common mistake. The 72 virgins is interpreyed wrongly. They are perpetual virgins which means you would be surrounded by 72 twelve year old sisters and it is supposed to represent the worst kind of hell there is.

    8. Re:Guess We'll Never Know... by qwijibo · · Score: 2

      The funds would never have been available for those purposes anyway.

      No government would fund those, else how would they convince people of the need to raise taxes? Do you think it's a coincidence that education, law enforcement, etc are always underfunded, no matter how many times those reasons are used to justify new taxes, bonds, etc?

      If the net result is that the FBI spends that much less time and resources going after people who violate federal statutes against pot in states where it was been legalized, lets call it a reduced-loss for society as a whole and move on.

    9. Re:Guess We'll Never Know... by ooloorie · · Score: 2

      The FBI has a $8.1b budget and they are going to spend it. Apparently, that's far more than they need, which is why they engage in lots of sting operations and want to criminalize more and more of our daily lives. If they waste $1m on a computer consultant to do anything, that's $1m they can't waste on operations that actually do harm.

      If you don't want this kind of waste, you need to vote for people who will cut the FBI's budget; complaining about how they end up spending the money that was budgeted for them is silly.

  2. How many hackers? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:How many hackers? by alvinrod · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's the government. When you're used to $500 hammers, a $1 million phone hack hardly matters. Part of the cost could simply be that whatever was done would make it obvious how the hack works so it's really only a one-time sale for the person doing the hacking.

      But considering that the hacked device yielded no useful information, I think the only statement that the FBI has made is that they're fucking idiots.

    2. Re:How many hackers? by rhysweatherley · · Score: 2

      Or the hackers know that they'll be faced with a huge legal shitstorm if their name is ever revealed and need the $1 million to cover their liability just in case.

    3. Re:How many hackers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      If it really cost $1 million, I want to know if they found anything useful or not, without some bullshit delay until everyone forgets about it.

      No, they did not.

      but I think it's very, very important that we get into that device." Comey said.

      They didn't GET into the device, past tense.
      They aren't IN that device, present tense.

      But he is hopeful at some time in the far future he may GET INTO that device, future tense.

    4. Re:How many hackers? by tlhIngan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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?

      Or they paid the going rate.

      iOS vulnerabilities and zero-days really are that expensive, because there's so few of them. I mean, there was one last year - 3 prizes of $1M each to break iOS, and only one of the three available was claimed.

      It's why Apple doesn't bother with bug bounties - if people are willing to pay $1M for it, even a $100,000 bug bounty is too little.

      It's not that iOS is bug-free, far from it. It's really because Apple has hardened the entry points that results in breaking in requiring an elaborate set of steps and timing to get in. And the perceived value of the data.

      The FBI didn't overpay, they just paid the going rate.

    5. Re:How many hackers? by mysidia · · Score: 2

      But considering that the hacked device yielded no useful information, I think the only statement that the FBI has made is that they're fucking idiots.

      They were going on a fishing expedition...... Seeing as they had no real reason to believe the phone would have contained evidence of a crime. They just figured that since they knew who the criminals were, there might be a chance that they left some incriminating artifact on their cell phones ---- whose nature they were only guessing.

      If they had put that $1 million into actual legwork, true sleuthing and investigative work on this case early on, and no lazy "Hope to scan their phones bullshit", then they might have solved whatever mystery remained open.

  3. Sounds like it was very cheap by gurps_npc · · Score: 2

    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
    1. Re:Sounds like it was very cheap by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      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.

      You're talking as if this was about the FBI wanting access to a specific phone.

  4. And yet... by BigU+03C0mpin · · Score: 2

    Basic income is too much money for nothing.

    1. Re:And yet... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 2

      Those larger boondoggles employ millions of people. Unfortunately, they disrupt the economy, force retraining onto the working class - migration to find employment, mass consumption of natural resources, and piss off the rest of the world in the process, but there are some jobs for awhile.

    2. Re:And yet... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      So you're saying it's just like universal basic income except it's not so universal, quite a bit more than basic, and it requires the recipients to waste resources, piss people off and kill some for good measure?

  5. Yeah, right. by Bob_Who · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  6. Why does the FBI director have such a long term? by swb · · Score: 2

    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.

  7. Lies by ArchieBunker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  8. "US taxpayers paid more than $1 Million..." by davidwr · · Score: 2

    There, fixed that for you.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  9. Like the FBI cares... by s.petry · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:Why does the FBI director have such a long term by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  11. Re:Why does the FBI director have such a long term by Sara+Chan · · Score: 2

    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.