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 Serves Apple Warrant to Gain US Senator's iCloud Data
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why do I interpret this as grandstanding by the Justice Dept? No one on the planet would condone privileged information trading due to a pending pandemic on the stock market. (It's the I'm against killing cute fluffy puppies argument.) So, let's shame Apple for not providing us the information we don't need. Perhaps in the future the backdoor will be useful.
There are other ways to get the data that don't jeopardise the security for all users not named Burr.
There are other ways to get the data that don't jeopardise the security for all users not named Burr.
I think they prefer the term “snowflake.” ❄️
You can always use a utility like 7-zip to encrypt sensitive data using AES-256 before storing the files on iCloud.
That won't do anything for your iMessages or backups, though - just discrete files.
I don't know. Why? Can you elaborate?
The warrant was for the data in Burr’s iCloud backup, which Apple is actually able to provide. I think that detail was just added to the story, though.
Don't worry, they will clear him even after the evidence proves his guilt.
Not surprised the first post is a ridiculous and facile “both sides” argument. First of all, I’m sure they did investigate/are investigating Sen Feinstein, so you can spare us the indignation. Second, Sen Feinstein has her assets in a blind trust, a fact which the FBI can easily verify. Third—and this is a big one—Sen Feinstein didn’t go out of her way to juice her stock sales by telling the public not to worry about the pandemic when she knew tons of people were going to get sick and die. And finally, Burr sold stock in things like hotels that were 100% guaranteed to drop in a pandemic; Sen Feinstein sold shares mostly in biotech, which anyone would assume would skyrocket in a pandemic.
Last edited:
Ahh,
The same privacy advocacy warriors that would be ready to fall on the Constitutional sword to protect a mass shooter or suspected terrorist say GET 'EM!!!!! When it suits them.
Rights are rights. You don't get to fight for them only when you like the person, or the viewpoint.
If Apple gives over everything on this guy's encrypted iCloud account, they should unlock the iPhones of suspects in other investigations when presented with a warrant.
Fair is fair, folks
The same privacy advocacy warriors that would be ready to fall on the Constitutional sword to protect a mass shooter or suspected terrorist say GET 'EM!!!!! When it suits them.
Rights are rights. You don't get to fight for them only when you like the person, or the viewpoint.
If Apple gives over everything on this guy's encrypted iCloud account, they should unlock the iPhones of suspects in other investigations when presented with a warrant.
Fair is fair, folks
Fat fascist Harry Potter will step in at the last minute and dismiss the charges made by his own FBI. 😂
Apple _can_ decrypt the iCloud data. Apple _cannot_ unlock anyone's reasonably new iPhone. Therefore, when given a warrant, Apple will provide whatever iCloud data it has (which might itself be encrypted and useless for law enforcement), but will say "sorry can't do that" when asked to unlock an iPhone.
Just the last 3? Your world is so simple.
Did the FBI serve a warrant or seize her phone? If not, then the article or the source material has no political agenda and didn't leave anything out. If they did, then you can come here screaming partisanship.
Incorrect. I am a law enforcement officer who has experience serving search warrants to Apple, specifically for iCloud data. Apple is required by 18 USC 2703 to provide user data with a proper search warrant. These warrants are not difficult to write. On warrants I have served Apple, I have been provided with user logon dates, what service they accessed, the time, IP address, logoff time, and, for photos, all photos/Live Photos/videos stored in their account. I have obtained data spanning several years in many cases.
You cannot stop a warrant from being executed. You can get it tossed out if the probable cause was weak, but you can't stop it.
EDIT: Yes, I get iMessage data too.
Last edited:
And make sure to use a long password with enough entropy. Don’t upload the file with a password of Dogs123
Lastly, if you really want to maintain confidentiality, don’t use iCloud.
Apple discloses what information they are legally required produce if served with a warrant. Their transparency reports are provided twice a year. Apple also tells you that iCloud data isn't stored as encrypted data (otherwise you couldn't get it recovered if you lose or damage your phone). The situation in this story is not related to unlocking a phone in an investigation. That issue is about on-device encryption protected passcodes. Not the same thing. It helps to know the difference before commenting.
It's also easy to investigate phone, text, and email records to see what trail of direction each party gave their staff in regards to possibly contacting the financial officers with information contained in the CV19 briefings.
Maybe senators now will be interested in some kind of Internet Privacy Bill.
Republicans don't need evidence. That's why Republicans don't believe in science and are at the forefront of religion and conspiracy theories. They call it faith.
That's a broad brush you are painting with. What does it feel like to categorize everyone who believes in a different political philosophy than you do?
The solution to this is very simple. Pass a law requiring the President, Senators and Representatives to divest themselves of market holdings while holding public office or place them in a blind trust. This way even if they are tempted, they can't take action on any information presented to them as part of their official duties.
That probably helps his case. It is hard to say that he was acting on insider information when these third parties were reacting to public information. A lot of people started selling stocks in January, because of the news that was widely available. He may have already been planning on selling the stock before he started getting daily briefings. I think it will be hard to prove he used information from those briefings. None of us know, but I’m sure that won’t stop people from claiming he is innocent or guilty based on political party alone
There were about a dozen others, a few of whom took it to egregious levels.
But I agree, public officials and authorities should be held to higher ethical standards, not lesser, proportional to their status and power.