Florida man won't be compelled to reveal iPhone passcode, yet.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by RootBeerMan, Oct 27, 2018.

  1. RootBeerMan macrumors 65816

    RootBeerMan

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    #1
    Here's an interesting case out of Florida. We have two conflicting court decisions on the matter of having to provide a passcode to get into a locked iPhone. I am very interested to see if this works its way up to the Supreme Court and we get a final decision (hopefully in favour of our rights and not in favour of more police ability to force us to possibly incriminate ourselves).

    https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/10/27/florida_iphone_passcode/

     
  2. s2mikey macrumors 68020

    s2mikey

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Location:
    Upstate, NY
    #2
    Couldn’t you say you forgot it? Just wondering.....how would they prove that?
     
  3. stylinexpat macrumors 65816

    stylinexpat

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    #3
    If it makes it to the Supreme Court we all know how the Supreme Court Judge will rule on this. After all, Trump got the Supreme Court Judge his job
     
  4. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #4
    The bigger question to ask here is, what is the relevance of what the authorities want with his iPhone in relation to what they are investigating? This was a car crash, and a fatal one, which is already traumatizing enough, but why would they need to search his phone, when the car crash is of relevance here? I mean, unless they are trying to determine if he was on his phone at the time of the crash, his phone really doesn't have relevance.

    Besides, they could easily get around that by simply looking at either the phone bill, or the data from the closest tower that his phone would be getting connectivity from, all of which could be retrieved by simply subpoenaing the cell provider.

    Asking for him to give this up is not only majorly overreaching in relevance to the incident, but definitely self-incriminating, as well as lazy on the part of the authorities in not wanting to do their own damned work.

    BL.
     
  5. dannyyankou macrumors G3

    dannyyankou

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Location:
    Scarsdale, NY
  6. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #6
    That will pass 4A muster, but not necessarily the 5A. They'd still be looking at the defendant to give up his password.

    BL.
     
  7. raqball macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2016
    #7
    How do you know that is what they are looking for since I am pretty sure they are well aware they can get carrier based sms, phone and cell records directly from his carrier..

    Not everything done on a phone is transmitted to the carrier.. Think about what I just said for a second..........
     
  8. JayMysterio macrumors 6502a

    JayMysterio

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Location:
    Rock Ridge, California
    #8
    Which brings us back to the real question @bradl asked, what is the relevance of the phone with the accident? It seems unusual that they won't reveal what they are looking for, that they couldn't find from the carrier or cell towers. If it's an instant message, why not just say they were looking to see if he was messaging at the time of the accident? For something that seems so important to the subject, it's interesting that component is missing from the discussion.
     
  9. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #9
    Again, what information on his phone is RELEVANT TO THE CAR ACCIDENT?

    If the issue at hand is the death of the passenger, that has nothing to do with the contents of his iPhone.

    And obviously you didn't read what I stated above about what data can be retrieved by simply subpoenaing the carrier. In fact, that is something I made reference to in another thread regarding your data and the Fourth Amendment; a thread I started 4 years ago that fell on deaf ears.

    About instead of me thinking about what you are saying, think about what I posted and see that I already know and posted everything you just said, and all you have basically done is repeated everything that I said.

    BL.
     
  10. raqball, Oct 27, 2018
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2018

    raqball macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2016
    #10
    1. What caused the death of the passenger?
    2. How could the phone, it's use or things that may be on it have contributed to or led to that?
    3. Are things done on a phone that are not accessible or identified in carrier data?

    Do you know what carriers have in regards to your data and what usage it identifies? How many carrier warrant requests have you received back? If you can answer --> even one, then you have the answer.......
     
  11. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #11
    Oh, I'm sorry.. I was totally mistaken in what I posted. Please forgive me.

    It was FIVE years ago, not four.

    https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/your-personal-data-versus-the-4th-amendment.1649516/

    Again, what on the phone is relevant to what caused the death of the passenger?

    You are ducking that question more than Zangief or Chun-Li ducks a Shoryuken from Ken or Ryu.

    Most of which can be subpoenaed from the carrier. Metadata can tell a lot more than actually physically going through the phone, and that metadata is held at the carrier.

    Not that is relevant to the cause of the accident that isn't metadata that the carrier already has.

    You would be quite incorrect, or blatantly outright WRONG. I'm a Sysadmin and InfoSec officer. It is my job to go through the forensics, especially during the case of any type of breach, and know what to look for, including with internet-capable devices. When it comes to InfoSec, I don't think you have a bloody clue as to what data is available without violating a defendant's rights.

    Again, what you think is wrong, because this is what I do for a living. Now, again, what on the phone is relevant to the car accident that resulted in the death of a passenger? In short, unless the driver of the car, which can only be assumed to be the defendant, was negligible in the death of the passenger, then only would the LEOs need to have access to whatever data needed to be collected. They can pursue that other ways without violating the defendant's 5A right.

    But let's not jump on the LEOs either being naive or lazy in their job, and turn this into another case of San Bernardino. :rolleyes:

    BL.
     
  12. raqball macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2016
    #12
    If you even have to ask then again it shows how little you know about investigations...
    False! How many carrier subpoenaed records have you received in your 'expert' time investigating crimes?

    How many carrier subpoenaed records have you received in your 'expert' time investigating crimes? Me? Hundreds...
    Absolutely false and again, shows your utter lack of even basic knowledge about investigations...
     
  13. GermanSuplex macrumors 6502a

    GermanSuplex

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    #13
    I'm very much for law enforcement being able to hack into phones seized with a warrant, but not for forcing suspects to provide passcodes or for companies to build "backdoors".

    When it comes to Touch ID and Face ID... I'm not sure how I feel. It's not the same.
     
  14. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #14
    You still dodge the question, so it is safe to say that you don't know. Thank you for clearing that up, let alone your knowledge as to what may be happening here.

    I don't have to. I have had to investigate breaches in my state's firewalls and intrusion detection systems let alone into our databases containing PHI data, which had to be disclosed due to HIPAA being in effect at the time of the breach.

    I had to PROVIDE THEM DUE TO SUBPOENA. Not only from a phone carrier, but from the United States Secret Service in relation to a death threat being sent to the POTUS at the time.

    How many logs showing methods of intrusion have you produced? How many solutions involving mitigation and prevention have you provided? How would those logs show who did exactly what? From where? what methods were used? How it lead to the exact person that did this, despite that the original account that the threat came from didn't belong to the person that actually sent the threat?

    Oh wait, NONE. And it shows.

    You have yet to provide an answer to my questions, so I think your responses here should just be ignored, as you haven't showed the simplest smattering of knowledge relative to this issue. Thank you for once again, clearing that up, let alone showing complete ignorance when it comes to InfoSec, your personal data, and the 4A.

    BL.
     
  15. raqball, Oct 27, 2018
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2018

    raqball macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2016
    #15
    Since I've received hundreds of cell phone records and you've received zero, I'm gonna take a stab here and conclude that you once again have no clue what you are talking about......

    Let me make it clear for you... Cell phone data records and metadata from cell phone company records DO NOT give you any detail whatsoever as to what data and info is contained on the phone.... If you think it does then I certainly hope you are in a very, very, very low level position with your company...

    Maybe as you move up they can offer you better training and real world experience?

    Again your complete ignorance shines..... Are you seriously trying to equate cell phone records, cell phone metadata and the data contained in those cell phone records to a server maintained by a company?

    A company can capture everything you do, company issued cell phones included... They can prevent you from installing apps and things like signal...

    Any example that maybe you can understand: Cell records, cell metadata, ect from a cell phone company does not capture anything from iMessage, Signal ect. It also does not capture any information whatsoever from an app that may have been used and contains information that's wanted..

    It's really not rocket science and I assume if you'd ever actually see one you'd know that... Subpoena some cell records, learn, get educated and cease the bogus info you constantly put out...

    You can ignore my responses all you want.. Every time you post nonsense and are called on it instead of saying my bad you double, triple and quadruple down on that nonsense...

    I'd suggest you give your Googling a rest and try to actually learn what you are talking about.. If you had ever in your life received information from a cell company then you'd know what it entails and does not entail. This might have prevented you from once again making foolish and uneducated statements.

    Shall we recap your debunked 'expert' legal knowledge?

    -What is the first step in any investigative procedure
    -It was Emmett Till's trial that brought in two big words to our system of law and justice: jury nullification.
    -Ex post facto has nothing to do with statute of limitations
    -42 U.S. Code § 1983 is a criminally chargeable federal crime
    -[new] Please keep going so I can add another here

    You know absolutely nothing yet you keep doubling, tripping and quadrupling down on nonsense! I'd suggest you subpoena some cell phone records then check back once you actually see one... You know, a real one and not something you read on the internet...
     
  16. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #16
    You don't know what I've received or done. But keep going. This is getting hilarious as you try to assume what I know and what I've done, when you don't know a bloody thing about what I have done in my professional career.

    I never said it did. I said that data relevant to this incident can be retrieved without the need to violate the defendant's 5A right. You keep shifting that goal post into what you think I know or what I don't know to fit your soapboxing into what you think that should be relevant to this case, when it is IRRELEVANT. But keep on going. This is so bloody hilarious.

    I never did, and you keep bringing this up again. But thankfully, you don't know what I know, what I do, and I'm glad to say with what I've done and working for the DoD, my accomplishments and accolades precede me in comparison in subject matter compared to what it is that you have provided. You know something, but you don't know what I know, which in this case would be superior to you. But keep trying. The hilarity ensues more than smegged up retakes of the same scene in TV's Bloopers and Practical Jokes.

    April 17th, 1996. University of Nebraska at Omaha. Office of Campus Computing. Unix Research and support. A student, Student A, walks into my university's computer lab, logs into our centralized Unix server via a telnet client, and checks his email. He then accidentally clicks out of that window (machines were running Windows 3.x at that time), so in thinking that he lost his window, opened up another telnet session to our Unix server and checks his email again. Seeing nothing, he logs out and leaves, not knowing that his first window is still open in the background.

    Another student, student B, sits down at that same computer, logs into his account, checks his email, logs out of his account, and then sees the session open from student A's account. Student B sends an email with four words: "I will kill you" to president at white house dot gov, from Student A's account, then logs out and leaves. 15 minutes later, the FBI arrives at my university, investigating the incident.

    Not only did I have to, by subpoena, provide logs of the entire incident, which were still live on the server, but immediately drop the server into single user mode (init 1), and initiate a level 0 (full) backup of the entire server and provide a copy of that backup to the FBI.

    Remember my post about PRESERVING THE EVIDENCE? Here you are.

    In working with them in investigating this issue, by using IP addresses contained in /var/log/syslog, authentication of users in /var/log/secure, mail logs in /var/log/maillog, and all logs being printed (we redirected *.* in /etc/syslog.conf to /dev/lpt0), we not only were able to:
    1. isolate the exact computer that was being used for this incident,
    2. the time in which the users logged in to that computer, in relation to this incident,
    3. the time in which the users logged into our Unix servers in relation to the incident
    4. the time the mail was sent in relation to this incident,
    5. the content of the email in relation to this incident, and
    6. time of transmission leaving our network and being received by the government.
    All of this leading to who exactly caused this, and his arrest...

    WITHOUT ONCE REQUIRING OR FORCING THE BYSTANDER OR SUSPECT TO REVEAL OR GIVE THE GOVERNMENT THEIR PASSWORDS.

    So, if you are who you say you are and think you know so much better, Please tell me the last time you, in district court:
    • provided the contents of /var/log/messages, /var/log/syslog, /var/log/secure, and /var/log/maillog in deposition to the incident in question,
    • explain what those contents are, how they are configured, and what they are used for,
    • identifying who they lead to the computer and systems used during this incident,
    • how they were essential in tracking down the party responsible in this incident, and
    • how they lead to finding the person who actually did this, leading to their arrest.
    All of this is, out side of the actual email sent, is metadata. But by all means, please remind us of when you have done this, let alone how.

    We'll be waiting here listening to the sounds of leaves rustling in the wind for ad infinitum.

    Your ignorance shown here, especially in relation to the above.

    Proof that you don't know what you are talking about here and how it is unrelated to the incident in question. But keep trying to generalize something to fit your narrative.

    Understand the above, then get back to me; for it is absolutely obvious that you don't.

    See the above, and get back to me when you've learned.

    Pot. Kettle. Black.

    You have yet to refute any of my claims, and with the above, it is obvious that you can't, nor ever will.

    I'll leave you with the last word in this, as like I said, arguing this with you is farcical as you truly don't know what you are talking about. Enjoy yourself and the homework you now have. Hopefully, you'll come back better educated.

    BL.
     
  17. raqball, Oct 28, 2018
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2018

    raqball macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2016
    #17
    Your posts get fumier and fumier by the moment... I can't honestly tell if you are serious or not.. You keep referencing computer logs from a company server and desperately trying to equate them to carrier data... It's sad really that you are so uninformed you think they equate.

    Your obvious lack of even basic knowledge and understanding tell me everything I need to know....

    You appear to have little to no actual knowledge of what information can be gained by subpoenaing cell phone records. Under normal circumstances this is fine as I don't expect people to know. Your issue is that you post bogus and incorrect information then double, triple and quadruple down on nonsense when called on it..

    My responses in this thread have been based on your incorrect assumption that Law Enforcement can get everything they need by subpoenaing the cell phone records and that is complete gibberish!

    Yet you don't stop there, you go even further with the nonsense by calling the police lazy. If you are going to call them lazy at least have a basic understanding over what you are talking about.. You do not!

    See here:
    I tried to give you an easy out (once again) and once again you decided to pass and continue on with bogus information..

    I said this:

    All you needed to say was sure there may be other information they need to get but why?

    My response would have been something like: no clue unless I can read the complete brief filed in support of the request -- and we could have moved on...

    So recap... You've never received cell phone subpoenaed records yet you know whats contained in them. I've received hundreds and am clueless.. Gotcha!

    Let me try and give you a few easy to follow factual examples:

    Example 1:

    a) Subpoenaed cell phone record report for suspect 1 was 140 pages in total
    b) Forensically processed the same exact phone and the phone record report for suspect 1 was almost 500 pages in total

    Why do you think that was?

    Example 2:

    a) Cell phone company may only keep the actual content of an sms message(s) for 30 days. After that you will only see that a sms was sent/received on a specific date and time. The actual text of the sms is gone..
    b) The actual text of the message that is no longer available through the carrier may very well still be on the phone or accessible through the phone
    c) iMessage, Signal et all......

    Understand?

    In a nutshell: Do yourself a favor and learn what you are talking about before posting bogus, incorrect and false info. You should also lay off the name calling (lazy police) and discredit attempts when you do not even have a rudimentary idea of what you are talking about... Do as you please and I will continue to call you out when you post complete nonsense..

    Don't run away, this is getting fun... I keep leaving you just enough rope and you keep grabbing it.... You keep making statements that I need to learn what I am talking about yet what I've posted is real, based on 25 years of actual experience and hundreds for subpoenaed cell phone records .. Keep deflecting away to server data if you'd like as it's becoming more and more entertaining and comical with every post you make......

    I get it, you have no clue what you are talking about so you need to distract and deflect away...

    Anyone who has ever gotten cell phones records via subpoena and knows what they contain and do not contain will get a nice giggle off your posts though... It's entertainment that never ends :)

    Are there other ways to get info? Sure pen traps and other means but they are dependent on many things..

    Since you are absolutely clueless let me help you... My hope is that you take the rope I've left you once again.....

    What do subpoenaed cell phone records show?

    -Subscriber information
    -Account comments
    -Billing records
    -Outbound and inbound call details
    -Call origination/termination location
    -Stored communications including voice mail and SMS (time dependent)
    -Destination IP address of any computer that the target communicated with
    -Archived account information
    -Connection logs

    What can accessing the phone show?

    -Keyboard caches
    -Last state
    -Deleted images
    -Deleted address and contact info
    -Latitude and longitude of map searches
    -Browser cache
    -Deleted email and messages
    -Encrypted message data
    -Stored app data
    -et al

    Shall we recap once again your debunked 'expert' legal knowledge?

    -What is the first step in any investigative procedure
    -It was Emmett Till's trial that brought in two big words to our system of law and justice: jury nullification.
    -Ex post facto has nothing to do with statute of limitations
    -42 U.S. Code § 1983 is a criminally chargeable federal crime
    -[new] Please keep going so I can add another here
     
  18. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #18
    I agree with you in principal. Anything related to calls, SMS or data could be gotten from the carrier.

    But here is what I do not know. If using iMessage, does the carrier know what the data is being used for or will it just show X bits of data were used at some Y time without showing what app? I have no idea but sure some here do.

    Also, he may have been taking a selfie with the passenger or playing with a downloaded playlist. There are things you can do with a phone that will distract you without using data. Not sure the police can find out what it is by unlocking the phone though.
     
  19. raqball macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2016
    #19
    Sorta, maybe.... The time frame that the actual content of the sms varies by carrier on how long it's held.. VZW for instance use to only hold this info for about a week. after that, the actual text of the SMS was gone. Can they still get date, time, and location of where the sms was sent? You bet along with other connection info but the text contained within the SMS would be gone. AT&T I believe held the sms text content for 30 days before purging them...

    As far as why they want into the phone, you'd need to read the brief filed with the court to better understand that reasoning. Calling the police lazy not once, but twice, without knowing the reason or having a clue on what's contained in subpoenaed cell records is laughable...

    I'll let the other person address your other questions as the response could be a blast....
     
  20. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #20
    But if it was sent as an iMessage, would the carriers even have the actual "text"? Or would they just know data went across their system?
     
  21. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #21
    They would know that the data went across their system, because to be transmitted to any internet-based system, an IP address would have had to have been acquired. That acquisition may not be encrypted, because it is done before the message is encrypted and sent.

    BL.
     
  22. raqball macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2016
    #22
    Subpoenaed cell records will not have anything re the content of: iMessage, Signal ect type messaging apps. All you'll see is a data bucket of info, location of where the data was used and a connecting device ID and information. The content of the messages sent from the app would be unidentifiable...

    Getting into the phone is a whole new ballgame....
     
  23. NT1440 macrumors G5

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #23
    It doesn’t even have anything to do with Trump (other than him nominating him...but that list was preapproved anyway). Kavanaugh is clearly on the side of expanding the surveillance state. Something that got essentially no coverage or discussion during his hearings. A pox on all their houses. Democrats only pay lip service to privacy when it can easily be played as a “safety” issue.
     

Share This Page

22 October 27, 2018