It's more like Apple wasn't stupid enough to go along with it. If it had been purely up to the regular public, the FBI would have just don't whatever they wanted and not cared about how anyone else felt about it.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
FBI: It's 'Simply Too Early' to Tell if Info on San Bernardino Shooter's iPhone is Valuable
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yea, did you hear about the 'March Against Fear' rally that got canceled in Brussels? Mission accomplished terrorists!
The thing is, most terrorists who can pull off anything major are probably also organized enough to be using independent encryption. So long as they don't pick one that's already compromised (Tor, Signal, etc.) it isn't like they'll be relying on iOS encryption anyway.
The media/gov't like to keep painting the situation as if these are just poor, stupid people doing these attacks. And, some of the 'events' the gov't is triggering are, as they find unstable people to provoke and supply. But, many of the real terrorists have been doctors, lawyer, engineers, etc. Not idiots. They are either A) committed to radical Islamic ideas (something our politicians just can't seem to face... they even recently edited out part of what the French President said for the US media) or, B) very politically ticked off at the US/West.
Terrorism is just the excuse to accomplish a higher mission. How will the government maintain the game they are currently playing if the citizens start realizing what is going on? Blackmail usually works. That's what this is about.
Depends on what the end goal was... see above.
See above, and what others have said about all the data they already had from the activities of the phone.
And, just because they waste millions (millions, try billions and trillions! Heck, the defense dept claims they can't account for several hundred BILLION because, you know, they still have Cobol systems.... nice excuse), why let them get away with wasting more?
I'm for calm and reasonable, but I don't think you quite understand what's going on. On a political level, we've been tearing bridges down for decades, with no end in sight. And, no, most of these people aren't idiots. They are, very determined and often, very ticked off. Until some of our leaders start to recognize this (or, they probably do, but it isn't the point), they aren't going to make much headway 'building bridges.'
To the political terrorists, 'building a bridge' might be to stop toppling their governments and killing their people for pipelines. To the radical Islamist, we have to end the war, and submit. Build a bridge, LOL.
Yea, that's a fair point. If the general public were more informed and paying attention, the gov't and country wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. Back to the Kardashians people... nothing to see here!
"According to Baker, the FBI has not decided whether or not it will divulge details on what was found on the iPhone and will not make a decision on whether to do so until the full analysis is complete..."
Translation: If we find something useful we will announce it to the world while we bash Apple for impeding our investigation. If we don't find anything we will let you know that as well... in a joint press conference with OJ Simpson after he finds the real killers.
Translation: If we find something useful we will announce it to the world while we bash Apple for impeding our investigation. If we don't find anything we will let you know that as well... in a joint press conference with OJ Simpson after he finds the real killers.
That is about it. I know a guy that was heavy into back-end networking on the Internet from the dot-com boom of the 90's. He was even monitoring traffic on the telecom back bones to view redundant server performance. Over ten years ago, he was convinced of government snooping of the Internet from years of packet traffic monitoring.
Many called him a conspiracy theorist, wearing a tin hat and one even recommended he go to a shrink for paranoid schizophrenia. He actually quit one contract over their opinions against his observations. Then the Snowden story broke and the Spectrum project was made public. He was totally redeemed. However, he has never forgiven those that disavowed his observations.
They didn't find anything and they're either A) Going to try to never mention the whole mess again and hope we forget about it, or B) They'll make something up to "prove" they should have been given the data. I trust the terrorists more than I do our own damn government anymore. At least they're honest with us.
To keep the people under control, A isn't really an option. They'll be back! And, yes, I've been saying something similar to your final sentence. I know the terrorists are the enemy and what they will try to do. The FBI and gov't, on the other hand, are pretending to be working for us, but they only kinda sorta are, while also working against us in other ways. It isn't that the FBI is worse than the terrorists, but in terms of trust, the FBI is simply not trustable.
Re-read my post. I made it clear that going after Apple was the wrong way to accomplish the goal of trying to gleen info from the phone. But of course getting the info period was the ultimate goal. Creating a legal precedent forcing a private entity to make the key was just a bonus.
Yea, I disagree. I think the goal was the precedent, and doubt they figured there'd be anything useful on it, but if there were, that would be the bonus.
That's right. Throw the word "terrorism" around to shut down all thought or criticism (the implication being that if you disagree, you tacitly support terrorism).
Use of the word "terrorism" as an attempted trump card is itself a form of terrorism: FUD.
I mean the unlock process, not the actual data. Some previous posts from legal folks used the term Instrument in relation to how data is obtained for use in court proceedings.
Interesting. The tool they bought works ONLY with the iPhone 5C.
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/04...l-to-access-san-bernardino-gunmans-phone.html
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/04...l-to-access-san-bernardino-gunmans-phone.html
Well, honestly, that is a nonsense conclusion then. You are basically saying the FBI wasn't interested in the evidence but was interested in creating a precedent which would allow them to more easily collect evidence in an attempt to water down Constitutional or other legal rights. Either way it is always 100% about the evidence. The method it obtains that evidence is dictates whether it can be used or not. The method is the horse that pulls the cart evidence, but it doesn't have to be a horse, it could be anything that can pull a cart.
As far as the tool part goes, it seems there are two basic possibilities. 1 - Its an approach that is software based in some way and requires some knowledge and patience or 2- Its an approach that requires more specialized hardware tools (like chip capping for example). There may be others, but these seem like the most likely.
If 1, it raises the possibility for a pool of sorts - How many days before it gets leaked by someone...
If 1, it raises the possibility for a pool of sorts - How many days before it gets leaked by someone...
I'm not so sure of that. I feel like the "we want the data" was the smoke and mirrors that was used for the trick (precedent and CALEA bypass).
The worst part in all of this? The broad brush that was used by the FBI that unfortunately paints some really great agents out there with a negative view as seen by the public.
The term FBI has become something far less than it was.[doublepost=1460046368][/doublepost]
Actually, that was the end goal of the Administration. There was a subset within the FBI that wanted the data, unfortunately that was hijacked by the Collective (FBI/DOJ/US Executive Branch) that looked to use this event as a cover. If all they wanted was the data, the warrant issued would have been worded far differently. Then look at the DOJ's follow up response.
Actions speak louder than words. JMHO.
At least the small group that wanted the data got it.
Last edited:
Yes, but if creating the precedent was the main goal the FBI wouldn't have dropped the suit and they would have continued to pretend they didn't have another way to get into the phone.
well that's what a forensics company "Cellebrite" is for. if all they did was unlock phones and say "here ya go kid... u have to do the rest of the work" then would be pretty useless.
In fact, if you watched the second half of documentary "Terms & Conditions" regarding privacy, they appeared on there as well. In fact, they even specialize in extraction of "deleted" stuff
Unless it looked they would lose the suit. Then it would behoove them to shut it down and look for the next opportunity learning from this one.
and I could be wrong too
Everything around the case suggested that there would be no useful data on the iPhone - it was a work phone, the county was known to check on private use of work phones, Farook's other electronic devices were deliberately destroyed, they even left Find My iPhone on (meaning locations of the phone were being reported to the Apple server). It's possible that Farook made a mistake, if there had been no passcode or if the county had installed MDM software so it could unlock the phone obviously they'd have wanted to take a peak. But the probably evidentiary value is near zero. And they almost certainly have other cases where it's near certain that there's useful evidentiary value.
So why did they hang their case on this phone, presenting it as essential to closing the case? Because it was a terrorism case. Terrorism tends to make a lot of people lose their minds and accept things they wouldn't on other cases. And the laws treat terrorism cases differently, the protections are weaker, the government can deny the right to face accusers if it would harm "national security". So they hoped they could get a precedent to give the power to force tech companies to give them access to encrypted data - a power they tried to get from Congress twice and were denied. With that precedent, it wouldn't matter that Congress chose twice to withhold that power from the FBI, they'll have it anyway.
[doublepost=1460054564][/doublepost]
Most legal commentators were saying that the Department of Justice's case was really weak and Apple had presented a very strong counter-argument. So the odds were high that they'd lose, if not with a reversal from the original judge but on appeal. And at all costs they do NOT want a precedent saying "There is no authority for the FBI to demand a private company to break their own security systems".
And asking the hearing be cancelled the day before it's held really sounds like the actions of someone who thinks they'll lose.
1) Agree the FBI probably didn't think the phone contained a treasure trove of info or it would have acted sooner. But it was evidence none-the-less and they can't leave a stone unturned, even if the gut "hunch" is there is nothing to see.
2) As a lawyer myself, I can say only a fool can predict what action a court will take. Legal commentators are just that... making comments. If the FBI thought it's case was that weak it would not have elevated it in the public sphere in the week heading into trial. Apple's PR battle was already well established then. The Amicus curiae for Apple were long filed even before then. I think the FBI was acting on good faith when it asked for a continuance, and recall that is all they ask for. They did not withdraw the case until the phone was unlocked.
I typed a very long reply that, when I looked at it, my response was tl;dr;. So let me try to be shorter.
Even if the FBI wasn't positive that they'd get a precedent against them - the probability was high enough to avoid rolling the dice. Plus they were losing the publicity war - All of the tech industry against them, Congress mad for doing an end-run around the legislative process, more of the public supporting Apple when the poll wasn't just "should Apple help".
I do not believe what they told the court, that on Sunday they finally had what looked like a workable alternative after all this time, and in 24 hours they managed to vet it, run it up the chain of command and decide to change course completely. Just not probable. Far more probably is someone (maybe the white house, maybe high up in the DoJ) said "This is making us look bad. Make it Go Away". I wonder if even they got a tip from the judge (through back channels) that they would lose this, the judge would have to overrule herself and look stupid in the process so make it go away. Yes, that's a bit of a conspiracy theory and completely unethical, and I don't say it with any assurance but it would explain a very fast "oops, nevermind we've got something else" without the judge making pointed statements about wasting the court's time.
Even if their story was true, and they did have something that came in that looked promising in those 24 hours - why back down? By their words they weren't certain it would have worked, if they'd won what Apple would create definitely would have worked, and been more usable on other phones beyond just the 5C. If they felt duty bound to bring this to the attention of the court (and I believe and hope they would have), they could have just explained what happened and let Apple choose to ask for a continuance. By asking for it themselves, well, since you're a lawyer how many times have you seen a case where someone asked for a continuance even though they were confident they were going to win?
Last edited:
The more I think about it wasn't the whole main stream media narrative that the FBI want "the missing 18 minutes" and now since the FBI cracked the iPhone NO one is mentioning that argument anymore! Makes me even more suspicious of main stream media stations!
It's all entertainment to them. Well, most of them. That "the missing 18 minutes" is now relegated to a show like 60 Minutes or Dateline.
That and terrorists and criminals and bad guys in general have been hiding tracks for years. This is a tool. Now questionable since the FBI has a way, or stated they do. They will go back to the old ways....which also work well.
Think some have the benefit of not being on the other side of good here. Sometimes a younger man I once knew had those weeks so bad a few drinks to chill on Friday wasn't cutting it. Call made not mentioning specifically what he wanted just that a 6 pack of beer not working out too well he thinks, be here in an hour (he knew were here was already) the reply and no mention of money ever made (that also known). transaction carried out while just having usual idle chit chat conversation the whole process.
this is how this can go down in the bad part of world. When you make the call/text you know why you are making the call/text. Receiver does as well. You wouldn't have their number and they wouldn't know the incoming number otherwise. No need to go into details.
I'm no advocate for the FBI but slowly they're making Apple look bad. In situations like this, no one wins. As it continues to drag on, Apple's position becomes weaker. Even the smoke and mirrors Apple so skillfully deploys isn't going to get them out unscathed.
Positive Apple Karma isn't anywhere to be found.
Positive Apple Karma isn't anywhere to be found.
Never forget this is beyond Apple and applies to all tech in this bucket. When, as a government branch/agency you are looking to control an item of which you can affect less than 50% of, it is a losing proposition from the get-go.