Slashdot Mirror
Apple Is Served A Search Warrant To Unlock Texas Church Gunman's iPhone (nydailynews.com)
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."
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."
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.
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.
PIN: 0000 ... Nope.
... Nope.
... Nope.
... Nope.
... Nope.
... Nope. Now phone is hopelessly locked. Well, we tried.
PIN: 0001
PIN: 0002
PIN: 0003
PIN: 0004
PIN: 0005
Have gnu, will travel.
Ummmm.... no. Are they going to put the company âoeAppleâ in jail
It may not be possible to decrypt the files, even for Apple.
By the way, doesn't a search warrant only allow them to perform a search? Apple must not prevent the search, that doesn't mean they must help to to find or do any active assistance or concrete action.
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.
"We DEMAND that you break the laws of statistics and mathematics and decrypt these files immediately without the key!"
The judge ought to get a good laugh out of it at least. You just can't expect to use a court order to force someone to violate the laws of nature.
(you also can't use a court order to demand that a private citizen go out of their way to DO something for you - you can order them to STOP doing something, but not to assist you with your investigation - sorry officer but you can't make me do your work for you)
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
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.
They will take it to the Supreme Court to get a ruling that "Cell Phone sellers have to hand over all information after a legal search order."
Apple has no game winning move to make here.
iPhones use AES encryption for the phone, so naturally they should respond with the FIPS AES document
Luckily all it takes to encrypt an unbreakable message on Slashdot is to use a Unicode apostrophe or quotation mark.
Fingerprints can't unlock phones if they haven't been unocked for a time - I think a week or so. They could have unlocked his phone with his fingerprint at the start. But they didn't do that in time, which is what Apple would have told them they needed to do if they had asked - could it be that they wanted to fight over encryption more than they wanted to know about the massacre? - so now the phone is permanently locked.
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
Too bad this didn't happen in China. Apple would be jumping to unlock the phone. I always shake my head when Apple gets on their soap box about encryption and how they stand up for freedom / privacy, yet will bend over when it comes down to impacting profits.
** Not saying that I think Apple should un-encrypt the phone, or that they shouldn't. I think it's more nuanced than that, but just hate the "Yay Apple" while in most situations its all about what will make them the most profit.
You canâ€(TM)t have our data.
Corporatism != Free Market
What if they cannot? As SHOULD be the case.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
But without the phone evidence how will they know who the murderer is?
What, they already know who the murderer is?
Ah, so they need the phone evidence to get a conviction!
Oh, the murderer is dead?
Well then, what do they need the phone evidence for?
What, indeed!
Perhaps they want to psychoanalyze the killer based on his social media profile.
Maybe they want to discover if he was part of a mass-murder club.
Have these law enforcement people nothing better to do?
How many paychecks are going into this project?
...omphaloskepsis often...
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.
If a "key" is necessary to access something and that key does not exist within Apple's domain, can a court order Apple to produce something which does not exist?
Rationally, I would say no - but I'm neither a lawyer nor a judge.
Why bother? That guy had prior arrests, his prints are on file, create a fake fingerprint and unlock the damn thing.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It may not be possible to decrypt the files, even for Apple
True enough. The /. headline is light on the details, but the story says the demanded three things: Contents of the iPhone, contents of an iCloud account if it exists, and extracted contents from a third LG phone.
They can hand over the contents of the iCloud account if they can match it up. It might be interesting to see what they do with the phone, and it depends quite a lot on the wording of the warrant. They may reply with "the phone is encrypted, but here is the encrypted storage contents". For the LG phone, they would likely reply that it is not their device and they have no corporate knowledge or corporate tools to handle it.
By the way, doesn't a search warrant only allow them to perform a search?
There are several legal tools, but typically there are subpoenas, warrants, and court orders. Police and other government agents prefer warrants as they are more difficult to legally fight, are often given in surprise or delivered aggressively, and give government lawyers and police the biggest net. Court orders take more time, and often require back-and-forth discussions with lawyers from both sides and with the judge.
Subpoenas are easier to obtain but also easier to fight. A subpoena allows for the business to sort through the records and decide what is inside or outside the scope. A warrant tends to use terms that are more vague, tend to not specify the exact issue under investigation, and allow for the government agency to dig through it (rather than the business) to determine if the information is relevant.
Warrants are also typically delivered in surprising ways ostensibly to prevent destruction of evidence and reduce risks to the police involved. For businesses this usually means isolating people and making legal demands while they are alone and in shock, hoping they forget that they need to call a lawyer and have the right to not say anything, warrants are for searching and not for interrogation. For individuals or residences, that typically means smashing down people's doors when they know residents aren't home, or showing up at 3:00 AM with guns, tear gas, and assault gear. There are naturally good and bad ones. One has a few professionally dressed officers that politely knock at the door and say "Good evening Mr Smith, I have a warrant to search the premises, please step outside", and which one throws in a flash-bang device and shouts "This is the police! Get on the ground now! Put your hands on your head! We have a warrant!! Shut that baby up NOW or I'll arrest both you and the child for interfering with an investigation!"
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
The FBI wanted Apple to create a customized version of an OS which they didn't want to make. This warrant, however, sounds like it only asks for the iCloud files which reside on Apple servers. Serving them with a warrant to reveal information which they do have is an appropriate law enforcement action. It is quite different from what the FBI wanted -- create a product which didn't yet exist.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Every suicide bomber is dead after the fact. It doesn't mean that his actions are not worth investigating. In case of any mass-murder type crime it's always worth asking if he got help, or even encouragement, or training from others.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Apple doesn't ask how high.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Doesn't it occur to them that if there is a backdoor in a iPhones for U.S. law enforcement, then that same backdoor will need to be provided to Russia and China, and will end up in the hands of Iran, Lybia and North Korea within weeks, and organized crime gangs within months?
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
I can see getting evidence in pursuit of criminal charges but the guy is dead. Do they honestly think there will be evidence to prosecute others for helping the guy out?
Investigators want to forensically search the phones for evidence of capital murder.
If they are looking at the phone for evidence of murder then they are looking in the wrong place. Look in the church, the churchyard, the truck, and the street.
Is there any doubt on who did it? Do they suspect an accomplice? Do they expect him to strike again? I'm pretty sure that there were plenty of witnesses that can say who did it, that there were no others, and the one and only suspect is dead. They have the evidence they need. I understand the desire to do a complete investigation, and the need to understand motive. What do they expect to find on this phone that they don't already know?
I know, I know, they want some kind of legal precedent to allow greater ease in future phone searches. They can't find a better case for this than people that commit suicide by cop?
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
how Apple volunteered to help? I thought from the last time this happened that they couldn't get data off an encrypted phone. Did they write a back door in and not tell anybody?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
... because it sells Apple stuff.
Consumers want secure devices and Apple knows damn well that if they provide access, buyers will move on to the company that says they won't.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
this time trump can rip them a new one or make it an big court case and even offer the idea on an fbi only limited no auto wipe and no password time out ios build and force apple in court to say why that is an bad idea.
As I see it, the move will open the door for government access to encrypted cell phones.
If Apple refuses their warrant. they (corporately) can be charged with obstruction (or whatever else they want to throw at them).
Next step, if Apple refuses to comply: the government attacks Apples' market share by declaring the devices a "Threat to National Security".
This has a two-fold effect: First, it makes it illegal for Apple to do business in the US, and Second, it make it illegal for the common person to have such an "illegal device", as the company would obviously be banned from selling/operating/offering such a device in the US.
Now we have a real pickle. Anyone who has such a device can be charged with possession of said device, since it has been declared illegal by the government. The company will be forced to loose all sales in the US, and accept any returns of those products (and the loss of revenue).
The effect is far-reaching.
The only other option is to comply with the warrant, making digital privacy via your encrypted cell phone little more than an illusion.
At least the government has to come up with a warrant and serve it to Apple to execute...
Until they are ordered by the court to surrender the means to the government directly.
Let's face it.
If the government wants access to your personal information, they will find a way to get it, and the illusion of privacy will be shattered for good.
Anyone who thinks that their cloud storage is in any way "private" is deluding themselves from the start.
The government has always had the power to force people to surrender what it wants "for the greater good of the country".
One of the prices for living in just about any country, really...
my cousin Vinny judge!
Does the FBI somehow think that they'll discover the true identity of the killer? Or discover that he was aided in his crime by foreign powers such as ISIS or the Russians?
He _DID_ get (unwitting) assistance - from the Air Farce, which couldn't be bothered to record his domestic violence convictions and his BCD to the NICS.
Which begs the question, why didn't the FBI bother to do this within the 48 hour window? And if the phone is restarted (or the battery dies) then the passcode is required immediately.
Ummmm.... no. Are they going to put the company âoeAppleâ in jail
What the fuck is âoeAppleâ
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Apple's claim to not be able to do much is suspect because the software involved is proprietary (nonfree, user-subjugating). We don't know what proprietary software is capable of doing because we're prohibited from inspecting its source code (which we're also denied a copy of). People who tell you otherwise are either speaking beyond their knowledge or (if they work for Apple and have source code access) are untrustworthy because their claim is unverifiable. We can't replace the software on iThings with free software to make sure the user's software freedom is respected, but that's the approach all vendors of computing hardware should take.
I don't know why one would phrase any critique as "slam[ming A]pple" because that carries with it some ugly consequences: downplaying free speech (as if any critique of Apple's claims are somehow beyond analysis), fostering critical discussion (certainly more of this is needed particularly where nonfree software is concerned), and understanding the practical consequences of not respecting a user's software freedom. Distributing proprietary software is certainly not what anyone should do. The adverse effect to our civil liberties are far more important than Apple's (or any other businesses) profits or control over the user.
Digital Citizen
..they're not going to talk about how this latest in a long line of all too frequent mass shootings could be prevented by putting sensible gun laws in place, then? Yeah, just talk about unlocking a dead and clearly insane mass murderer's phone, because that'll help keep people safer in the future, right?
Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
My iphone uses an actual alphanumerical password. Apple requires a minimum of 6 digits, but doesn't restrict to that.
--
"I have also mastered pomposity, even if I do say so myself." -Kryten
> "it's very likely that Apple will give the Rangers the same answer it gave the FBI in 2016 (in effect, hell no!)..."
That is not the "in effect", the correct "in effect" is "we can't." There is a HUGE difference between "no" and "can't." One is being defiant. The other is stating a limitation.
If they have no backdoors or broken encryption or copies of the stuff, then it is not a matter of "won't give" but "can't give." It is exactly the same type of answer I would have to give if I were given a warrant to hand over the contents of a safe for which I do not have the combination/keys.
Uhh, who? You mean public employees serving the citizens?
Requiem for the American Dream
For it to be contempt of court, you'd have to appear in court. Apple execs have nothing to do with the case, so their lawyers would tell them not to show.
In the San Bernandino case, the iPhone was a 5C which didn't have a fingerprint scanner.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
It's the way slashdot renders modern (as in 20+ years old) written communication.
That's only true if you can't afford more lawyers than the Justice Department.
Well, the question is whether there was (for example) someone goading him on. I know all the commonly reported facts that the slipped through the cracks in the system. He was supposed to fail a background check based on the fact that he had a conviction for domestic violence. He was supposed to fail because his conviction was for 12 months. And he was supposed to fail because he escaped from a mental institution. But was there someone who helped him plan the attack itself? That is (as far as has been reported) not known at this time.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Ummmm.... no. Are they going to put the company âoeAppleâ in jail
Order Tim Cook, the CEO, to jail for contempt of court.
I very much doubt the judge will, but doing so would send a clear message that jail time also applies to the rich and powerful.
Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
The dead guy can no longer own anything, presumably ownership of the phone now passes to an heir (the mother maybe or a sibling). These heirs seem to be willing to co-operate with the police, so the new owner of the phone should ask for help from Apple to get into what is now their phone.
Nullius in verba
Here in the UK, the police are not armed (well, they are armed with CCTV, but not guns).
In America, the majority of police that are shot, are shot with their own guns, or by another policeman.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
You can't? I think there are numerous precedents of courts claiming national law supercedes natural law.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
Strike 1:
In the first case its something about correlation versus causation
Strike 2:
its mostly for their own benefit
Strike 3:
Its just that in this case
I think the only correlation we can see here is that people who don't know when to use "its" or "it's" are also unable to spell government.
lucm, indeed.
Violating a court order is itself contempt of court. However, there's a hearing before any sentencing would be passed, as well as appeals and injunctive court orders from higher courts that find the initial court order to be unjust, etc.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
but the guns aren't an issue. We are stupid and deserve to get slaughtered.
You say that like it's not blindingly obvious why that's a bad idea. You do know why, right?
The judge ought to get a good laugh out of it at least. You just can't expect to use a court order to force someone to violate the laws of nature.
Your appraisal of the rationality of the law is grossly optimistic.
(you also can't use a court order to demand that a private citizen go out of their way to DO something for you - you can order them to STOP doing something, but not to assist you with your investigation - sorry officer but you can't make me do your work for you)
Courts can use the All Writs Act to order assistance.
Law enforcement officers can arrest you for obstruction of justice and other things if you refuse to help.
The government has various ways to make companies and individuals obey like what happened with Quest Communications.
... The guy was a savage, not a criminal mastermind.
It's not different. Apple and other tech companies have demanded that law enforcement ***get a warrant***. Get that - a warrant that is specific and limited in what it requests - and they'll hand over data.
But openly or secretively ordering tech companies to hand over data or trying to get warrants that allow law enforcement to look through loads of other peoples' data is resisted - and rightfully so.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!