Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Is Served A Search Warrant To Unlock Texas Church Gunman's iPhone (nydailynews.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the ongoing-investigations dept.

An anonymous reader quotes the New York Daily News: Authorities in Texas served Apple with a search warrant in order to gain access to the Sutherland Springs church shooter's cellphone files. Texas Ranger Kevin Wright obtained the warrant last week, according to San Antonio Express-News.

Investigators are hoping to gain access to gunman Devin Patrick Kelley's digital photos, messages, calls, videos, social media passwords, address book and data since January 2016. Authorities also want to know what files Kelley stored in his iCloud account.
Fast Company writes that "it's very likely that Apple will give the Rangers the same answer it gave the FBI in 2016 (in effect, hell no!)... That may be why, in the Texas case, the FBI and the Rangers didn't even bother calling Apple, but rather went straight to court."

18 of 450 comments (clear)

  1. San Bernadino all over again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The FBI knows EXACTLY what its doing here. They refused Apple's voluntary help just so they could have a nice court order to set future precedent. They are hoping the moral outrage surrounding the Texas massacre will be sufficient to overpower the rational thinkers. They are just using this tragedy to further their own goals of weakening encryption for everyone.

    1. Re:San Bernadino all over again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      probably because Apple did not VOLUNTARILY offer to help at all, they categorically stated that could and would do nothing without appropriate legal process being followed and even then they said they would not be able to do much. This isn't to slam apple, this is actually the approach I think all companies should take.

    2. Re:San Bernadino all over again by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They refused Apple's voluntary help just so they could have a nice court order to set future precedent.

      Exactly, precisely, THIS. It's a war of attrition versus the tech industry; all it'll take is ONCE for Apple to give in, or be forced legally, for any reason, and it'll be Game Over for encryption (except for The Rich and The Powerful, and the cops, of course; they can have all the non-compromised encryption they like, but use peasants/plebs/proles/poor pond scum only get shitty, useless 'backdoored' ersatz encryption, and FUCK US if we don't like it. Well I say FUCK THEM, it's all or nothing: either proper encryption for ALL, or NO encryption for ANYONE.

    3. Re:San Bernadino all over again by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, you have to admit, nobody really bothered defending the important ones that protect your freedom and privacy, but the one that can actually backfire gets defended like it's the only important one.

      That is kinda odd, don't you think?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:San Bernadino all over again by kqs · · Score: 5, Insightful

      63% of those firearm deaths were suicides. Let's face it, there's lots of ways for someone to commit suicide if they're so inclined.

      There are many ways, though most of them are prone to failure. Suicide attempts seem to be fairly similar between the US and other first world countries; successful suicide attempts are rather higher in the US.

      For the same year, the stats for death by other causes are:
      1 in 6,513 persons died by poisoning
      1 in 9,354 persons died by motor vehicle fatality
      1 in 10,122 persons died by a fall
      1 in 6,804 persons died by drug-induced cause

      Your odds of death by firearm in the USA are slim to none (0.0039%) when you exclude suicide as a cause. Your odds are a lot higher of death by poisoning, car accident, a fall, or drugs.

      Most effective poisons are illegal and restricted. The remaining ones (like the crap beneath your sink) are more likely to make you vomit and give you time to get to the hospital.

      We have a huge driver licensing and testing program, and a huge vehicle registration and inspection program, to keep these numbers as low as they are. Plus tons of laws about safety equipment for street-legal vehicles.

      We require fall protection pretty much everywhere, plus lots of property inspection.

      And drugs are also illegal and the subject of huge enforcement (which we do terribly, but whatever).

      So it sounds to me like you'd like the same level of licensing and proactive enforcement for firearms as we have for poisons, cars, property safety, and drugs. Which I agree with. Sadly, right now we have none of that and the numbers reflect this problem.

    5. Re:San Bernadino all over again by ClickOnThis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      one can't trust the government for personal protection. Until that changes, guns is essentially the only effective protection many have.

      I'm not fond of the prospect of walking around all the time packing heat, and having to defend myself with deadly force on a split-second's notice. If you live your life in such peril, then there's much worse going on than the inability of government to protect you.

      There are plenty of civilized countries with far lower gun violence than the USA, where people don't feel the need to walk around armed.

      As for the Las Vegas shooter, he had scoped, high-powered rifles, bump-stocks, and a 32nd-floor vantage point. Could the crowd have retaliated effectively with hand-held pistols? Not likely.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    6. Re:San Bernadino all over again by Altrag · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Would you rather they were tossed from a window?

      As soon as you show me the example where someone defenestrates 25 people in a church, or 52 people at an outdoor concert, we can talk about window violence.

      Guns are singled out because a) their entire purpose for existing is to do harm and b) they're designed to do as much harm as possible, as quickly as possible.

      build their own cars

      Even if you build your own car, you're expected, if not legally obligated, to have a drivers license (and in many states insurance as well) in order to drive it on public roads. Not because anyone gives a shit what you do to yourself, but because of the potential harm you can enact on someone else.

      we expect to have a ban on making their own weapons to be effective?

      Yes, but of course you're intentionally using a very black-and-white definition of "effective" where you mean 100% reduction in guns. In the real world, most of us would be happy to see even an 70-80% reduction in guns. And by that looser definition, a well-written and well-enforced ban could well be effective. Of course few people are calling for an outright ban anyway, so your argument is already bogus right from the start.

      We can make it illegal to make a gun but people will just figure out how to do it on their own

      Sure, just like the liquor industry failed 6 millennia ago because people can just make their own wine and beer. Yes the people who really want to skirt the law can always find a way. But I'd much rather have one crazy person with the time, desire and skill to make their own gun of questionable quality than having a 100 people just go out and buy a professionally engineered, produced and QA-tested gun off the shelf at their local Walmart and a dozen of them being crazy.

    7. Re:San Bernadino all over again by vakuona · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sigh. Correlation is not causation.

      This observation is probably due to the fact that criminals (drug dealers, robbers etc) are more likely to end up shot or dead, and since they are likely to be carrying guns, wind up in the "people carrying guns" column who wind up dead by firearm.

      So it is not the act of carrying a gun that makes them more likely to be killed, but the fact that they are carrying out crimes (while carrying guns) that makes them more likely to be killed.

    8. Re: San Bernadino all over again by bugs2squash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which of the recent NSA scandals were prevented by your gun ?

      --
      Nullius in verba
    9. Re: San Bernadino all over again by green1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the army is on your side, you don't need your own guns. If the army is against you, no amount of guns will help you. So what purpose do the guns serve other than mass shootings and kids killing family members?

  2. Why not just ask all his school mates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why do we have to do the digital thing. What happened to asking all the people who knew him when is was in grade school, junior high, and god forbide, when he was in the AirForce, and they even thought he was crazy.

    You do not need his phone data.

  3. Maybe I Am Wrong by JimSadler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A court may demand that materials be handed over but I don't think a court can order anyone to hunt down materials or create processes to aid in an investigation. Apple could simply comply by inviting the feds to search every document and recording in house. In effect that would be useless as it would require thousands of people to look into things about which they had little understanding at all. Worse yet, law enforcement is not investigating the crime at this point. The crime is solved. The killer is dead. what the police now want is to study why the crime occurred and if anyone else could also be held accountable. That amounts to a huge fishing expedition rather than an act of law enforcement. Worse yet, why the killer acted out has no meaning unless it leads us to a way to stop others from going on killing sprees. Understanding does not always lead to a solution.

  4. I hope this gets tossed out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This move is pretty bold-faced dishonest and cynical in its attempt to sway public opinion to gain law enforcement more powers. There is nothing on the phone the rangers need. They know who did the shooting, they know what happened, unlocking the phone doesn't do anything for this case.

    What this situation does do is give law enforcement the chance to set precedent that Apple needs to unlock phones for the government, or find themselves on the side of terrorism in the court of public opinion.

    This is not about solving a case, this is about taking away privacy.

  5. Re:Losing Argument. by PoopJuggler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Except just saying, "Unpossible."

  6. Re:If there is a warrant by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You expect the judge to actually understand cryptography?

    I admire your faith in due process. I'd fully expect him to slam Apple for contempt because of it.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  7. Re:Losing Argument. by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They could stop selling phones to terrorists.

    The shooter was a mentally unstable Texas gun nut. So, you know, a Patriot.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  8. Re:Sure. We'll give it a try by ClickOnThis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    PIN: 0000 ... Nope.
    PIN: 0001 ... Nope.
    PIN: 0002 ... Nope.
    PIN: 0003 ... Nope.
    PIN: 0004 ... Nope.
    PIN: 0005 ... Nope. Now phone is hopelessly locked. Well, we tried.

    [... restore memory contents from backup made before brute-force attempts began....]
    PIN 0006 ... Nope.
    PIN 0007 ... Nope.
    PIN 0008 ... Nope.
    [... restore from backups as needed ...]
    PIN 1234 ... Success!

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  9. Re:Sure. We'll give it a try by Altrag · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And I use my fingerprint, not a passcode

    If you're worried about law enforcement then that's a bad idea since (at least in the US) there's no question about whether you can be compelled to open a biometric lock such as a fingerprint scanner.

    Passwords on the other hand are still hinging on the 5th amendment protections about incriminating yourself. I'm not sure how that one will play out. On one hand, what's the difference between a password and a fingerprint in terms of just unlocking your phone? They both do the same job so why wouldn't they fall under the same rules? But the other side is that there's no way for law enforcement to make you tell them your password (in the physical sense rather than the legal) which leads to the potential for forceful coercion or torture and other such tactics that the 5th was written to try and protect you from.

    We probably won't see a conclusion to that argument until such time as we have a live suspect who owns a phone that literally can't be unlocked at all, even with the full assistance of the manufacturer (which could happen regardless of what Apple does if the suspect has written their own encryption scheme, or uses a third party system from another country that isn't bound by US law even a US-based company that simply gave themselves no possibility of a back door at all, or so forth.)

    We might have already seen it if Apple hadn't left themselves the ability to force a firmware flash on a locked phone like they did, allowing for at least a potential back door even if its not a simple one.