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 Reportedly Asks Apple to Help Unlock Passcode-Protected iPhones Used by Mass Shooter in Florida
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No, but if they designed things properly they reply with "we do not have the keys or ability". Because if designed properly - they don't.
Everyone needs to understand the broader view of this topic, once and forever.
Law Enforcement Agencies wants THIS iPhone to be unlocked. If Apple helps, the security of all the iPhones will be at risks. They will have to build a backdoor entry. Everyone wants and should help the law enforcement (whoever/wherever) to get the data out of the phone but not by unlocking every iPhones on the planet.
Funny little discussion. It’s all for the show.... There is tons of forensic software available that has absolutely no problems to get any information off an iPhone, jailbroken or not.
Often, it’s not even necessary because users back up their iPhone on their computer without or with only weak encryption.
Cracking a pin code on an iPhone is not even hard if it’s done correctly.... As long as the phone has a physical port like USB or Lightning, it can be hooked up and accessed. Even if the port is damaged, there are specialists with micro soldering skills that will take care of it.
So Apple keeps their image as protecting the user’s privacy and the law enforcement agencies get their data from the iPhone.
Also, everybody here believing in the fairytale of data protection should be aware that there is enough interesting information available outside of your phone. Location info can be calculated from data obtained from your cell provider, same as call logs. Emails will be provided by your email hosting company etc...
In almost every bigger crime, police gets access to the suspects computer and devices. Ever wondered why you rarely hear about law enforcement begging Apple to comply? Shouldn’t the news be full of it? Oh yeah, because they can access the devices with their own software solutions, that’s why.
Often, it’s not even necessary because users back up their iPhone on their computer without or with only weak encryption.
Cracking a pin code on an iPhone is not even hard if it’s done correctly.... As long as the phone has a physical port like USB or Lightning, it can be hooked up and accessed. Even if the port is damaged, there are specialists with micro soldering skills that will take care of it.
So Apple keeps their image as protecting the user’s privacy and the law enforcement agencies get their data from the iPhone.
Also, everybody here believing in the fairytale of data protection should be aware that there is enough interesting information available outside of your phone. Location info can be calculated from data obtained from your cell provider, same as call logs. Emails will be provided by your email hosting company etc...
In almost every bigger crime, police gets access to the suspects computer and devices. Ever wondered why you rarely hear about law enforcement begging Apple to comply? Shouldn’t the news be full of it? Oh yeah, because they can access the devices with their own software solutions, that’s why.
If I'm understanding you correctly... you say:
1. Law enforcement agencies have their own solutions to unlock phones without Apple's help.
2. You don't need to unlock the phones anyway because you can get enough data from other sources: call logs, text messages, emails, cell locations, etc.
So why does the very first line of the story say this?
"In a letter sent late Monday to Apple's general counsel Katherine Adams, the FBI has asked Apple to help unlock two iPhones..."
If the Federal Bureau of Investigation doesn't need Apple's help... then why did they ask for their help?
They want to find evidence that he is playing PUBG, Fortnite, or Apex, so that they can claim video games making people violent.
Who knows? The info comes from Apple, not the FBI, right? Could it be.... they want to spread the info how *gasp* safe their devices seem to be? Like... *gasp* marketing? Nooooo way! Right?
If the FBI really needed help with the devices, how come you don’t read about it every day on every channel? Surely, there must be enough major crime in the US with - how many people live there? 330 million or so? And the FBI only needs access to locked phones once every couple years? Yeah, sure.... in the other cases, they just use forensics software from Russia or Israel. The are not dumb, but they like that people think so.
If the FBI really needed help with the devices, how come you don’t read about it every day on every channel? Surely, there must be enough major crime in the US with - how many people live there? 330 million or so? And the FBI only needs access to locked phones once every couple years? Yeah, sure.... in the other cases, they just use forensics software from Russia or Israel. The are not dumb, but they like that people think so.
The facts that (a) the bad guys would eventually end up with the keys, and that (b) it would be the beginning of a downwards slippery slope towards the institutionalised erosion of freedom and privacy would remain, regardless.
Drawing attention to what people might do in times of inordinate stress doesn't vitiate these facts.
"I always think it's a sign of victory when they move on to the ad hominem." - Christopher Hitchens
I've read most of the comments here and the reasonings. However, nobody has addressed another piece of this topic: What will the FBI find/gain on the physical phone that is not already on the cloud somewhere that they can more easily subpoena? There may be a small amount of data/information, but it's not like criminals are using iPhones to write manuscripts and never share them. iPhones are not diaries.
Emails sent/received are on the mail provider's server.
Text messages are on the phone company's server.
iMessages are on Apple's server.
Browsing history (most) would be found on the phone company's server and/or WIFI spots this phone has been connected to.
Pictures/videos may be on email/text/iMessage servers.
Pictures/videos may be on Apple's iCloud servers.
Facebook/social media posts are on those provider's servers.
Phone calls to/from are on the phone company's servers.
Voicemails are on the phone company's servers.
Geo-location info is on the phone company's servers/towers.
I agree with Apple in that Apple provided the DATA FROM THEIR SERVERS, however, it is impossible for Apple to comply with the FBI due to the design of the iPhone...and Apple's not about to change iOS/iPhone to include back doors unless there is a law that states Apple/similar manufacturers must provide backdoors that allow a user full reign on the device.
The FBI (and other similar parties) are never going to get 100% of the story/data in ANY case nor have they over the past 500 years. The FBI needs to collect as much evidence/data/information as possible and present a case to the Court attempting to prove guilt.
Emails sent/received are on the mail provider's server.
Text messages are on the phone company's server.
iMessages are on Apple's server.
Browsing history (most) would be found on the phone company's server and/or WIFI spots this phone has been connected to.
Pictures/videos may be on email/text/iMessage servers.
Pictures/videos may be on Apple's iCloud servers.
Facebook/social media posts are on those provider's servers.
Phone calls to/from are on the phone company's servers.
Voicemails are on the phone company's servers.
Geo-location info is on the phone company's servers/towers.
I agree with Apple in that Apple provided the DATA FROM THEIR SERVERS, however, it is impossible for Apple to comply with the FBI due to the design of the iPhone...and Apple's not about to change iOS/iPhone to include back doors unless there is a law that states Apple/similar manufacturers must provide backdoors that allow a user full reign on the device.
The FBI (and other similar parties) are never going to get 100% of the story/data in ANY case nor have they over the past 500 years. The FBI needs to collect as much evidence/data/information as possible and present a case to the Court attempting to prove guilt.
While, yes, you can triangulate location from the phone company's data, they do not save exact GPS data, unless you are using services like Google Location History etc.
But there are a lot of apps that store interesting data straight on the phone, and law enforcement may not even know what they are looking for, until they find it.
For example:
Uber: Where, when, time, driver etc.
Runtastic, Nike Running etc: Lat, Long, Route, Time, Speed etc.
Food deliveries, transportation tickets, tinder history...
Yes, of course you could get all this information from they companies. But if you don't know a suspect took an uber, you don't order uber to provide data.
So while the FBI can get a vast amount of evidence without access to the phone, there is always more and maybe better evidence on the device directly.
But there are a lot of apps that store interesting data straight on the phone, and law enforcement may not even know what they are looking for, until they find it.
For example:
Uber: Where, when, time, driver etc.
Runtastic, Nike Running etc: Lat, Long, Route, Time, Speed etc.
Food deliveries, transportation tickets, tinder history...
Yes, of course you could get all this information from they companies. But if you don't know a suspect took an uber, you don't order uber to provide data.
So while the FBI can get a vast amount of evidence without access to the phone, there is always more and maybe better evidence on the device directly.
Those are not facts, only your predictions. Besides, if some kind of master key (should one ever exist) get into the public then a new lock can be made to make the key obsolete.
I am not sure how keys are stored in the secure enclave. If Apple has access to the key inside the secure enclave then I guess if there is a warrant they will have to provide the volume key inside the secure enclave. Aside from the volume key in the secure enclave, I've read that not all information stored in iCloud are encrypted end-to-end if so then Apple has to provide the plaintext data that is not end-to-end encrypted if there is a warrant.
Now if Apple has no access to the volume key inside the secure enclave and all data in the iCloud are end-to-end encrypted then the warrant will be useless since Apple don't have the means to access the data without the password/passphrase that protects the master key to decrypt the ciphertext.
What I am aware of is the Gestapo techniques used on innocent people because the police are too lazy to do some real police work. Again the chance that what's on the phone leading to anything that is NOT available elsewhere is slim to none and it is not a good excuse for law abiding citizens to lose their privacy.
TV way over emphasizes how criminals use their devices. The meta data for further investigation is available from other sources. I understand that you want to live in a Gestapo environment as long as it theoratically results in less crime. But history tells us that crime is NOT reduced by Gestapo techniques (police state), but that police corruption and human suffering ARE both increased by a police state.
. . . . .So why does the very first line of the story say this?
"In a letter sent late Monday to Apple's general counsel Katherine Adams, the FBI has asked Apple to help unlock two iPhones..."
If the Federal Bureau of Investigation doesn't need Apple's help... then why did they ask for their help?
Because the FBI (the most corrupt federal organization in history, see Wikipedia on Hoover) is playing the long game and building a story that it hopes will convince the idiots that it needs more power to make them safe or to protect the children. It's a con, but at least half the country is falling for it, so it seems successful and therefore will keep getting in the news.
if Snowden said that the FBI has the ability to unlock phones, and if this was correct when he said it, it means nothing. Todays iPhones are not the iPhones of five years ago. Loopholes get closed all the time. In the San Benardino case, Apple could have given the FBI lots of information if the FBI hadn't messed things up by some incompetent first hacking attempt; today Apple wouldn't have the same information anymore.
[automerge]1578501962[/automerge]
You unlock it, and then you update it. Wait, I see a problem there. "There's a hole in my bucket..."
If Apple can do that, then Apple will do that. Because Apple follows the laws. If the FBI has a search warrant for the phone, and Apple can extract the data, then Apple will extract the data.
However, I don't see the slightest evidence whatsoever that Apple can unlock this phone. And since Apple doesn't _want_ the ability to unlock any phones, and Apple has enough money to pay clever people to make sure phones can't be unlocked, I'm quite confident that they can't be unlocked by Apple.
With respect to coconspirators it's hardly slim. And...if there is evidence on a phone that implicates others in a crime, prosecutors would surely want to have it available to present to a jury during a conspirator's trial. It could/would also cooperate other evidence collected.
I've never heard of a prosecutor that strives to limit collected evidence that points to guilt. The more the better when prosecuting a case before a jury.
My point is this. There a lot of things about your life that you can say will/won't happen with almost absolute certainty. The others like my example, are the ones where clever quotes and memes very often go out straight out of the window.
The FBI / law enforcement always ask for devices to be unlocked
This case is special because of its high profile
And they want to use that profile to get a back door
Just like in the San Bernardino , the FBI could
A) ask other agencies (eg the NSA) to help
B) use a product like Celebrite to get into the phone
It may turn out that the FBI has done neither of these , and want to use the case to force back doors
This case is special because of its high profile
And they want to use that profile to get a back door
Just like in the San Bernardino , the FBI could
A) ask other agencies (eg the NSA) to help
B) use a product like Celebrite to get into the phone
It may turn out that the FBI has done neither of these , and want to use the case to force back doors
Just for clarity, Trump most definitely has been impeached.
He has not been tried in the senate.
Impeachment is an indictment and he has definitely been impeached.
If you read the constitution The House has the sole power to impeach.
The Senate has the sole power to hold a trial and remove from office with a 2/3 vote to convict.
Trump has unequivocally been impeached.
lol
Right, let's allow the government to force big corporations to unlock our phones for the sake of "catching criminals".
While at it, let the government to take our guns. Because, you know, making guns illegal will definitely put an end to gun violence LMAO!
Right, let's allow the government to force big corporations to unlock our phones for the sake of "catching criminals".
While at it, let the government to take our guns. Because, you know, making guns illegal will definitely put an end to gun violence LMAO!
The Secure Enclave is not secure if Apple or anyone can access it.
The Secure Enclave is designed such that keys must be calculated and generated in the enclave.
A key never enters the enclave and never leaves.
Yes, he has.
And like the old saw "you can indict a ham sandwich", he has been impeached without any reference to actual crimes - for which, if the oddly delayed delivery of Articles ever arrives, the Senate can/will/should dismiss with prejudice for not actually stating what crime he's guilty of.
(Yes I'm aware of the "45 day" point. I read the law in question. There is no transgression. House Democrats failed to follow the process which the law prescribes following such a "45 day" issue.)
(Yes I'm aware of the "subpoenas ignored" point. Supreme Court accepted Trump's appeal to executive privilege. Wasn't ignored, it was legitimately challenged.)
Insofar as there is a legal definition of "impeach", Trump has been impeached.
Insofar as the colloquial use of the term "impeached" differs from legal definition, and that the House has not sent the Articles, it's as meaningless as writing a check to pay a bill but not sending it.