Well, you can be damn sure that the manufacturer of this box will not sell it to Apple (and neither are government agency very likely to give one they bought to Apple).
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.
'GrayKey' iPhone Unlocking Box Used by Law Enforcement Shown Off in Photos
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Um, I have a question:
From the article:
Two iPhones can be connected to the GrayKey at once, and need to be connected for about two minutes to install proprietary software that's designed to guess the passcode for an iPhone. Once the software is installed, it will work to crack the passcode, a process that can take as little as a few hours for a short passcode or several days for a longer six-digit passcode.
How does the software get installed to a locked iPhone?
From the article:
Two iPhones can be connected to the GrayKey at once, and need to be connected for about two minutes to install proprietary software that's designed to guess the passcode for an iPhone. Once the software is installed, it will work to crack the passcode, a process that can take as little as a few hours for a short passcode or several days for a longer six-digit passcode.
How does the software get installed to a locked iPhone?
Apple might be able to bribe a police agency into ordering a unit. Look for a small impoverished agency suffering from a downturn in property values.
Another reason for Apple to ditch the port which I’m sure they were already considering prior to this to reduce manufacturing costs and eliminate a major access point for water to enter.
Like "maryhadalittle" (...lamb, its fleece as white as snow)? Doesn't take long for a user to choose partial sentences, phrases or slogans ("cokeisit", "yourholdingitwrong").
Example, refuse to answer a subpoena. Set of rules apply. Same open your phone, set of rules apply. You do not need to answer the subpoena or open your phone. However, you may spend a good deal of time sitting in jail and money not following the rules. The phone is not unique in this aspect. Our rights are Not unlimited.
Last edited:
Care to name a mobile OS that is more secure?
They should call it Orange Box, since Black Boxes on planes are actually orange, and this box is black-ish. lol Just to mess with. Bonus, the opposite of an apple (fruit) is orange (fruit). Man! I should be a nafarious hacker.
and if not can't Apple shut them down for using an unlicensed lightning connector?
edit: obviously it isn't MFI, just saying I thought Apple held the rights to lightning connectors and could stop other manufacturers from its use.
Setting response: [Snappin']
First Amendment speech rights are universal, its criminal intent of other separate actions that you've conflated. Stuff like yelling fire in a crowded theater, isn't covered because it's not just speech, it's a deliberate action to physically harm people. Just yelling 'fire' doesn't make anyone fall down a flight a stairs. Coercing the person into direct harm, by most methods, is the part that's illegal.
Also: you're completely wrong. The Constitution is contract from the people granting the government certain specific rights, it says in there, all other rights (not enumerated) belong to the people. The right to privacy... yep, that's the people's. Eatting Tide-pods? Same. Bbq Pokemon? Ditto. Watch another Batman movie even thought you already know its going to be terrible? The same.
This is huge. People should be concerned that Apple has fallen behind law enforcement. Apple is going to start losing our trust soon.
They better be all hands on this issue.
They better be all hands on this issue.
Well if this contraption even works, it certainly costs a lot more than a crowbar and 4 large steaks.
Ugh. You are out of your depth.
I may be compelled to answer a subpoena, but I may then invoke my 5th amendment rights to refuse to answer questions which may incriminate me.
Similarly I may invoke my 5th to refuse to unlock my phone or divulge my password.
HOWEVER, this line of reason has nothing to do with the fact that this device is exploiting a vulnerability that needs to be patched. That is the important point here.
The manufacturer can require purchases to be Law Enforcement Officers. There are already processes in place to control the sale of certain items to LEO (e.g. fully automatic firearms, noise suppressors, etc...) and the same approach could be taken here that would prevent Apple from just ordering one off of Amazon and reverse engineering it. To the contrary, a criminal will have no problem paying someone to walk out of a police station with one of these, Apple will not do that for legal and ethical reasons.
Cake eaten and had.
Honestly, a cheap can of peanut butter would do the trick for much less. But don’t tell anybody
I really hate it that Apple makes a public policy of shielding criminals from law enforcement. What a shame. Why have laws? Maybe we should all do whatever we want, jump borders, rob banks, kill people, who cares? As long as the law enforcement can't catch us or convict us, who cares?
If true, and depending on what they had access to as "security engineers," there's a trade secrets action I'd hate to be on their end of.
Ok so what is the difference between the safe in your house and the phone in your house? The phone has rights of privacy and the safe does not? The safe can be cracked or you could open it. Either way it will be opened. Same with the phone. Reasonable personal rights just not unlimited.
Time to remind everyone posting about Apple protecting our privacy at any cost one word CHINA. Just look at how they followed the law there. Apple never said they weren't cooperating with law enforcement or even blocking their efforts anywhere in the world, quite the opposite. Any cloud data is fair game as an example. In USA their are some pretty severe penalties for disclosing certain portions of anti-terrorism laws that cover far more than just tech sector. All countries have similar laws, so we don't know what we don't know. Deal with that or move to Luddite status.
Or, you know, law enforcement could use traditional investigative techniques. Very few crimes are purely electronic.