FBI Can't Reveal Exploit Used to Unlock San Bernardino Shooter's iPhone

[Jimmy James]

FBI: Apple, create a back door
APPLE: No
FBI: You must
APPLE: No

FBI cracks phone.

APPLE: Tell us how you did it
FBI: No

 

[Black Belt]

Because it's unique

It's a felony violation of the DMCA. They don't own anything. This smokescreen never happened.

 

[\-V-/]

FBI: Apple, create a back door
APPLE: No
FBI: You must
APPLE: No

FBI cracks phone.

APPLE: Tell us how you did it
FBI: No

It's almost like this is posted verbatim in every FBI thread.

 

[Makosuke]

FBI won't say anything, purely because it would cast sunshine on the grey industry of shopping around exploits in common software (windows/Mac/iOS/Android/etc.) to private companies and law enforcement/regimes around the world.

Or, a slightly more accurate way to put it, that the grey hat hacker that shopped the exploit to them made them sign something that prohibits them from telling the company how to fix it.

Because, you know, once you figured out how to pick the lock, you can't keep selling keys if the first guy you give one to tells the guy who made the lock how to fix it.

What gets me about this being a grey-hat commercial hack is that while, yes, the FBI is legally entitled to make use of it to get into this phone, the person that came up with it would (and probably already has) sell it to anyone who is willing to pay, whether that group is legally entitled to hack into a particular device or not. The FBI, repressive governments, criminals...

 

[Peace]

How does one have "Legal Ownership" of an illegal hack ?

 

[doelcm82]

How does one have "Legal Ownership" of an illegal hack ?

Good question. To find the answer would require some kind of court to give the answer. This in turn requires someone with legal standing to initiate a legal challenge.

Apple doesn't seem interested enough to try and force the FBI to reveal their method (or their secret source) in court.

 

[CarlJ]

"Can't"

or

'FBI *Chooses Not to* Reveal Exploit Used to Unlock San Bernardino Shooter's iPhone'

?

Point. But I think from a proper journalistic perspective, the headline should have been:

'FBI *Says* It Can't Reveal Exploit Used to Unlock San Bernardino Shooter's iPhone'
[doublepost=1460668236][/doublepost]

How does one have "Legal Ownership" of an illegal hack ?

Splitting hairs, a hack, a technique for gaining access, in and of itself isn't illegal, though *using* it very well may be.

 

[sudo1996]

It's sketchy that the FBI is making deals with criminals.

 

[techwhiz]

How can someone have legal ownership of an exploit?

That's like me saying I have legal ownership of 'smashing a window with a hammer to break it'.

1. It's considered work product or a "trade secret".
2. If the technique to break an otherwise unbreakable window is the only way to do it, then yes.

 

[satcomer]

I'm starting believe the FBI is inept! All they had to do is watch YouTube to get into a locked iPhone!

 

[Gutwrench]

If that's the case, how was the chain of evidence preserved.
There's way more to this story the authors are missing.