iPhone Hack Answered Questions About San Bernardino Attack But Generated No New Leads

[Rocketman]

One second after FBI achieves an unconstitutional victory in this case eyes will turn toward encryption tools available in 200 other countries without restriction, and privately compiled domestic encryption which is protected by amateur or hobbies rules.

A similar fate as drones.

 

[CFreymarc]

This is typical with investigation work.

According to many law enforcement agencies, most executed search warrants do not come up with data progressing an investigation. In fact, it is a risky venture as many forced entries from search warrants can close more doors than open up based on how a group is treated.

Good ole gumshoe, voluntary conversation can reveal a lot more than throwing muscle everywhere. Any public or private detective knows this well.

 

[Keirasplace]

Actually, they haven't had this confirmation at all (no external aid), since they destroyed their actual phone.... That phone would actually have had this info on it; if indeed they had any help.

The work phone containing actionable intel was always deemed a red herring for their real goal, precedent using All Writ, by anyone with a brain.

 

[elmaco]

"The FBI has also concluded there was data on the phone it did not have access to previously"

And it was for this the FBI wanted a backdoor that could jeopardise the privacy of half a billion people.

 

[sir1963nz]

Simple. Cell phone companies keep records about every call made. Police have no problem getting such records, especially when the phone's owner is a cooperative government agency. Texting and other communications are likewise tracked.

When the iPhone first came out, people got multi hundred page phone bills documenting internet activity with annoying detail. That was ended out of convenience, not lack of data.

And when used on a Public Wi-fi hotspot with an encrypted messaging system ?
And if those messages are either NOT stored or are deleted ?

 

[bdkennedy1]

I've been alive long enough to see the pattern. Government doesn't get their way, terrorist event happens, government pushes whatever laws they wanted through.

 

[Z400Racer37]

Aw, this comes as a real shock to me... I really thought they were going to end terrorism with this one... :/

 

[teknishn]

The questions it answered were... Did they use their work phones for sensitive terrorist planning? No

 

[HEK]

I can't wait for the day when stories featuring anonymous sources are not considered newsworthy. Why should we believe what some anonymous person says. How do we know this isn't BS?

Because the BS comes out in sworn congressional testimony and public spun announcements.
Anonymous sources tend to be rather truthful.

 

[trekkie604]

Herp derp... it was a work-issued phone wasn't it?

 

[drumcat]

This is bogus. Not only did they find NOTHING, they *already had this information*. They have the cell tower info that would say that he called no one. What were they looking for? Were they confirming he didn't check in on Swarm? Or, that he didn't leave any bad Yelp reviews?

 

[IbisDoc]

Gotta love these fanboy replys. Because nothing additional was found on a terrorist's phone, it proves that law enforcement wasted everyone's time trying really hard to investigate a terrorist's phone.

 

[JosephAW]

This is just a smoke screen. They're not going to reveal that they are looking for other people in the chat history because we all know that there was other people busting their house beforehand.
Unless on high told them to ignore anyone who matches a certain religious group.

 

[jeremiah256]

And when used on a Public Wi-fi hotspot with an encrypted messaging system ?
And if those messages are either NOT stored or are deleted ?

Between the information gathered from when and where their personal and government phones connected to cellular towers, they probably have a very detailed map of their movements. So, if they were in the vicinity of a WiFi spot, they've already searched them for evidence their MAC addresses connecting and any traffic. They probably found nothing out of the ordinary with any of their connections. Those records would be maintained by the ISP.

 

[JonneyGee]

Gotta love these fanboy replys. Because nothing additional was found on a terrorist's phone, it proves that law enforcement wasted everyone's time trying really hard to investigate a terrorist's phone.

By "fanboys," you mean fans of the Constitution, right?

Even though most people here prefer Apple devices, privacy is platform-agnostic. I'm sure everyone would feel the same way if it was an Android phone in question – except that there's doubt that Google would stand their ground like Apple has.

 

[\-V-/]

By "fanboys," you mean fans of the Constitution, right?

That's what's ironic about these ridiculous responses. We're defending our rights, not Apple. Apple just happens to be on our side on this and they've received a lot of support because of it.

 

[doctor-don]

"no evidence Farook made contact with a third-party during an 18-minute timeline gap."

That does NOT mean they had no contact with a third party. It simply means the iPhone that is owned by the employer of Farook was not used to contact that third party.

 

[gaximus]

I totally called it

 

[praetorian909]

So.maybe the FBI should've focused more on the personal phone Farook smashed. You know, since he smashed it and not the iPhone.

Just saying...(the obvious)

 

[brinary001]

Hahaha so the FBI looks stupid for making a big deal over nothing (as everyone with half a brain suspected) and Apple looks good for sticking up for its customers and defending digital ethics. This is just delicious.

 

[SeaFox]

And we just go merrily along ignoring the fact that the owners of the phone (the government) did not have a master password for their own device and somehow it was up to Apple to fix.

Does there exist a version of iOS that has a "master key" feature? There is remote wipe in case of devices being lost, yes. But the point here is the government didn't want to wipe the phone, just access it without the password.

There is only one iOS -- if there is no "master password" feature you can exert over your own children's iPhone there is not going to be one for the government. That's what this whole legal battle has been about.

 

[doelcm82]

I have no problem with the FBI wanting to see what was on this particular phone. It's their job. Even if there was likely very little of interest on the phone, it's still their job. The incompetent action would have been to not even try.

Apple's job is to protect my data. That doesn't have to be their job, but they've chosen to build part of their brand on keeping my data safe. Even though they still have a ways to go, I appreciate their efforts.

Part of Apple's strategy to protect my data is to make sure only I have the key to access that data. That way, no one can access my data by hacking Apple's servers. (Again, Apple has a ways to go, but they're moving in the right direction.) This also means they can't access my data by presenting a court order to Apple. They'll have to bring the court order to me, if that's the route they're taking.

In the conflict between the government and Apple, the issue that concerns me is whether the government can force Apple to weaken its own security, which in turn weakens mine.
[doublepost=1461131197][/doublepost]

Does there exist a version of iOS that has a "master key" feature? There is remote wipe in case of devices being lost, yes. But the point here is the government didn't want to wipe the phone, just access it without the password.

There is only one iOS -- if there is no "master password" feature you can exert over your own children's iPhone there is not going to be one for the government. That's what this whole legal battle has been about.

Here's the answer:

http://www.apple.com/ipad/business/it/

There is a "master password" that businesses and other groups can use to manage their company phones. The phone would have to be managed before giving it to the employee. You can't just manage a random phone that has already been protected by a passcode, unless the person unlocks the phone for you.

This whole legal battle was about something different. It's whether the government can force a company (like Apple) to implement a "master password" feature on all the devices that company sells, and provide that password to the government (or to use it at the government's request and provide the data to the government).

At one time, that's how the iPhone operated, but Apple began making changes several years back. They didn't need the data for their own use, so keeping the access wasn't to their benefit. And as they began working on features like HealthKit, HomeKit, and ApplePay, having a back-door into our phones became a liability.

 

[BvizioN]

But... what about the dormant cyber pathogen?

That's trick it seems did not fool anyone.

 

[H2SO4]

This was to be expected. The iPhone in question belongs to the County. It is a government-issued mobile telephone; I don't think that the FBI were expecting that the shooter would use a government issued phone to store/share nefarious information.

Ignoring this San Bernadino thing. In general I don’t agree with your premise. You’d think to yourself, ‘Why would you - it’s just stupid and obvious’.
I can think of a number of times that people have been caught browsing to questionalble website choices on company equipment over company infrastructure.
It happens.

 

[Deelron]

Gotta love these fanboy replys. Because nothing additional was found on a terrorist's phone, it proves that law enforcement wasted everyone's time trying really hard to investigate a terrorist's phone.

Simply because it was patently obvious that they weren't investigating a stupid terrorist's phone (given their through destruction of their personal devices) and instead using it for attempted expansion of authority.
But hey, maybe they should search every private home they ever visited (maybe they hid something under a co-workers floorboards, we won't know if they don't look) or seize the electronic device of anyone they ever sent a message to or message board they posted to, there could be a clue and we just can't rest easy if we don't search those throughly either.