Justice Department Officially Drops Lawsuit Against Apple in Ongoing iPhone Unlocking Dispute [Updated]

[kdarling]

I wish Apple would try to be less dramatic, and more precise, in their public comments.

Despite what Apple says in their inflammatory statements, the FBI didn't ask for a backdoor built into iOS. Everyone knows that would be a bad idea.

Instead they only wanted the alarm system attempt limits disabled on that particular device, so they could try a ton of different keys on its front door.

 

[duffman9000]

Agreed. Looks like it was a 4 digit code IMO.
[doublepost=1459216609][/doublepost]

IMO, the next fight will be across the pond. Not in the US.

I hope it's not England. They'll give in at the first sign of trouble.

 

[Tycho24]

I wish Apple would try to be less dramatic, and more precise, in their public comments.

Despite what Apple says in their inflammatory statements, the FBI didn't ask for a backdoor built into iOS. Everyone knows that would be a bad idea.

Instead they only wanted the alarm system attempt limits disabled on that particular device, so they could try a ton of different keys on its front door.

Hmmmm, oh really?
Just on that one particular device??
& never ever ever on another?
Just on that one, forever & ever... amen?

 

[Rocketman]

Apple believes deeply that people in the United States and around the world deserve data protection, security, and privacy.

This.

$15k fee vs all the work DoJ put into this case? BS.

 

[Robert.Walter]

The FBI's earlier asserted that entering this phone via coercion wasn't about precedent (later retracted, then later asserted again), but about this specific phone only.

So FBI, now that you're in, which is it?

Because if it was, as claimed by you, only ever about one phone only, needing to be broken into because of the most dire of circumstances, and that you would be ok with Apple grinding up a court-ordered decryption key after opening it, then, surely, now that you've entered the phone via exploiting a s/w or h/w vulnerability, in the interest of protecting citizens against eventual use of the exploit by 3rd party bad actors, if you are consistent in your words and deeds, you must be ok with telling Apple how this exploit works.

If you don't now immediately disclose (after all, as sworn in court, you are now in), then you prove your earlier assertions, about wanting a single key for just this one phone, were lies told under penalty of perjury both in federal court, and by Director Comey in testimony before the congress.

Ball is in your court FBI, and the gallery is watching you.

 

[nicho]

If any evidence or leads they get off that device ever goes to a non-FISA or pubic court they are going to have to disclose how they did it otherwise all the lawyers have to do claim is the FBI simply fabricated any and all there evidence.

I don't like those pubic courts. Cases can get real hairy.

 

[Tycho24]

Ha, well done FBI. Apple really should've helped. Now they're probably panicking there's a backdoor they have to close. It's their own fault really.

I am sooooooooooooooo relieved that you are powerless!!!!!

You'd give up our right to freedoms & our rights to security, and our rights to privacy with no questions asked??

Wow.
Lame.

 

[Robert.Walter]

and they subsequently founds lots of selfies of the suspects and pics of their kid playing.

And all selfies had frowns no doubt.

 

[Rocketman]

In other words, they didn't want to risk precedent being set by the case.

Correct.

 

[Aspasia]

I don't believe a word the Fed utters and think there's more to this story.

 

[AdonisSMU]

The fbi has been lying the whole time. So i'll wait and see how many other phones they can unlock... then i'll decide if Apple is secure or not. What new information came from it. Will others in law enforcement get access to this hardware/software break-in of the iPhone.
[doublepost=1459219172][/doublepost]

In other words, they didn't want to risk precedent being set by the case. If the case went against them they'd face an uphill battle to force people and phone makers to unlock their phones.

This was never about accessing the data on the phone, it was about setting a legal precedent that said "you are obligated to backdoor your encryption if the FBI asks" and they realised that Apple wasn't going to take it lying down and thus the legal fight was tougher than they were expecting and they might actually lose.

Edit: typo

Sometimes the simplest answer is probably the right answer.

 

[ThunderSkunk]

Uh, the original FBI search warrant and writ met these requirements. It complied with the 4th amendment fully.

After killing 14 people, any search and seizure seems entirely reasonable to me. In this case, not even a search warrant was needed, because the actual owner of the phone agreed to it. Forcing Apple to weaken the security of all phones was not reasonable, but doing whatever can be done to get into this phone was reasonable.

Not sure what you are referring to. The FBI didn't violate the 4th Amendment here. And in fact they have the authorization from the owner themselves to access the phone.

At issue is the fact the FBI tried to forcefully compell Apple to access the case for the FBI.

Have any of you read this article? You're all talking about one phone, in the case as it existed several weeks/months ago, in the past. I'm talking about the present, and the future.

Perhaps you missed where the government no longer needs to jump through any pesky legal hoops & suffer through public discourse on the matter, because some unelected, private company in a foreign nation, (some ally, thanks Israel) will give them software (which they apparently have) that enables them to simply breach iphone security as desired, and just get right on with trashing what little remains of the 4th amendment, as desired.

 

[albusseverus]

I really thought this would go on longer. The FBI never had a case. The judge went with All Writs, when there is already a law forbidding government from requiring phone manufacturers to make modifications. There was no legal leg to stand on, yet this was all going ahead, in public, trying to force Apple to reduce security on their phones.

Clearly the law didn't matter here. The FBI thought they had an emotional issue they could use to force through measures they've been after for years. And the court/judge was supporting them.

All the tech experts in the world could have testified there were ways to crack the phones, without the FBI's security dismantlement. All the security experts in the world could have testified that National Security is best served by strong encryption and secure phones. None of that mattered. The FBI saw their chance for overreach, they were taking it and the courts were supporting them—no matter what.

This was always a political matter and the government and the FBI could have prolonged this in the face of everything.
It is a stunning political victory for Apple that the FBI has dropped this. FBI and Justice Department overreach will never be over, but cracking the phone, after saying there was no other way, really carpet bombed this path for any future attempts.

Best not to rest on any laurels here, though. This is now a political issue, and as Apple were bluntly warned, "Were's the legislation?".
No politician in the western world has written legislation for decades. High paid lobbyists write the legislation and politicians pontificate and posture over it.
If Apple truly wants congress to come up with a solution on behalf of the people, Apple had better be writing legislation for congress, or -again- as they were warned, "if you don't write something, we'll write something, and you won't like it… the FBI has already written something…"

It's not Apple's place to be writing legislation, but this is how it's done. It's downright embarrassing for a democracy to admit this, but we have to face facts. Silicon Valley was so slow to take up this issue, we can't trust them to come up with it. The only people with any standing in protecting the public's privacy -are- Apple.

I'm sorry Tim, but we're going to have to ask one more favour of you… some legislation.

 

[2010mini]

I wish Apple would try to be less dramatic, and more precise, in their public comments.

Despite what Apple says in their inflammatory statements, the FBI didn't ask for a backdoor built into iOS. Everyone knows that would be a bad idea.

Instead they only wanted the alarm system attempt limits disabled on that particular device, so they could try a ton of different keys on its front door.

There is a reason that was implemented in the first place. It was done after it came to light brute forcing could be done to an iPhone. In fact you can probably still buy hardware cheaply to do just that on iPhones running iOS 7 and below.

 

[kepler20b]

I really thought this would go on longer. The FBI never had a case. The judge went with All Writs, when there is already a law forbidding government from requiring phone manufacturers to make modifications. There was no legal leg to stand on, yet this was all going ahead, in public, trying to force Apple to reduce security on their phones.

Clearly the law didn't matter here. The FBI thought they had an emotional issue they could use to force through measures they've been after for years. And the court/judge was supporting them.

All the tech experts in the world could have testified there were ways to crack the phones, without the FBI's security dismantlement. All the security experts in the world could have testified that National Security is best served by strong encryption and secure phones. None of that mattered. The FBI saw their chance for overreach, they were taking it and the courts were supporting them—no matter what.

This was always a political matter and the government and the FBI could have prolonged this in the face of everything.
It is a stunning political victory for Apple that the FBI has dropped this. FBI and Justice Department overreach will never be over, but cracking the phone, after saying there was no other way, really carpet bombed this path for any future attempts.

Best not to rest on any laurels here, though. This is now a political issue, and as Apple were bluntly warned, "Were's the legislation?".
No politician in the western world has written legislation for decades. High paid lobbyists write the legislation and politicians pontificate and posture over it.
If Apple truly wants congress to come up with a solution on behalf of the people, Apple had better be writing legislation for congress, or -again- as they were warned, "if you don't write something, we'll write something, and you won't like it… the FBI has already written something…"

It's not Apple's place to be writing legislation, but this is how it's done. It's downright embarrassing for a democracy to admit this, but we have to face facts. Silicon Valley was so slow to take up this issue, we can't trust them to come up with it. The only people with any standing in protecting the public's privacy -are- Apple.

I'm sorry Tim, but we're going to have to ask one more favour of you… some legislation.

Do you understand that Apple has unlocked 70+ iphones for the federal government before this specific case? And because of how the evidence handlers attempted to change the icloud login in this specific iphone that Apple refused to unlock this phone?

Read this story, Apple unlocked a lot of phones for the US govt for seemingly even mundane drug cases that had very little to do with national security.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ked-iphones-for-the-feds-70-times-before.html

 

[drumcat]

Use spaces.
http://lifehacker.com/5733535/use-spaces-in-your-windows-password-for-extra-security

Really, really bad idea here.

 

[DCIFRTHS]

Apple is FAR too confident of their own abilities and that is a BIG problem.

Back in 2008 I sat down and met with their iOS security team. We showed them a product we were preparing to sell to law enforcement which rips everything from a Mac and iPhone. Passwords, emails, text messages, web browsing history, wifi history, previously connected devices, app user data and much more. We wanted to work with them. Instead, they told us that iOS is totally secure and that what we were doing had no impact on them (despite the fact it showed there were very exploitable holes in their system). So without their blessing we went ahead and sold it anyways and did so with the help of Apples government sales guys who loved how it helped sell the FBI and others on brand new Mac labs.

They're far too confident in their own security even as we've continued to sell these abilities to access iOS and OS X since 2008 to government agencies around the world.

I'm confused. It sounds like you are saying that you have the tools that the FBI needs to get at the data on the terrorist's phone. Is that what you are saying?

 

[73b]

I'm most concerned that the top government "intelligence" agencies can't crack it themselves but a private firm in Israel can.

 

[maxsix]

No surprise in this result.

Hussein doesn't believe in accountability.
Apple gets a pass from the devotees.
No one mentions that the phone isn't so secure after all.
Big Government continues unabated.
Liberal progressives celebrate as planned.

It's all a bizarre show.

 

[Mtmspa]

This hack only worked because the 5c doesn't have the secure enclave.
[doublepost=1459222577][/doublepost]

My prediction is that they didn't get in through software but that they used a micron laser to strip away the security enclave's cover and manually pulled the security data off bit by bit. AKA they manipulated the hardware.

Of course the FBI is never going to tell Apple.

No secure enclave on a 5c.

 

[pat500000]

They withdrew because FBI will lose. I don't even think they were able to crack the iphone. They withdrew to save their freak looking faces. Even toxic avenger looks more handsome.

 

[952863]

I'm glad this nonsense is over. FBI are such fools.

 

[DCIFRTHS]

...

I think Apple won this round by the measure that is important to me. They weren't forced to hack the security of their own product.

Meanwhile, Apple will continue what they have been doing for the past several years: patching vulnerabilities in iOS at the software and hardware levels (and hopefully not introducing new ones).

Agreed.
[doublepost=1459224557][/doublepost]

I wish Apple would try to be less dramatic, and more precise, in their public comments.

Despite what Apple says in their inflammatory statements, the FBI didn't ask for a backdoor built into iOS. Everyone knows that would be a bad idea.

Instead they only wanted the alarm system attempt limits disabled on that particular device, so they could try a ton of different keys on its front door.

How is that NOT a backdoor? If I disable security measures, allowing someone to break in, I have created an backdoor.

 

[rick3000]

I see three scenarios here:

-The FBI already had the phone unlocked and were using this to set a precedent, which would mean they lied.
-Or they didn't unlock it and said they did to make the massive backlash end, in which case they lied.
-Or they actually couldn't unlock it until a 3rd party helped, which means they are incompetent.

I think the FBI very clearly lost this, and weakened any similar future cases. The next time the FBI tries to say only Apple can help us, Apple can point to this and remind them that they didn't need Apple's help.

I expect Apple's lawyers are going to pursue the FBI to find out what the exploit is. Personally, if it was a physical exploit I think that does very little damage to the Apple brand (ie you need to physical possession of the phone, and have to disassemble it), if it actually a software exploit that could be problematic for Apple, but could probably be resolved with a software update.

 

[applelover4u]

#1. This was NEVER about this 1 phone this was about setting presidence. If Apple unlocked this for this reason they would have to unlock more.
#2. The FBI figured they would lose because Apple would fight all the way to the Supreme Court.
#3. Now more companies will fight the FBI is using law from 1798 the All Wrights Act which requires companies to provide reasonable assistance to law enforcement.
#4. So big deal they unlocked an iPhone 5c Unknown if they can Unlock a iPhone 6s.
#5. My guess is that Cellebrite is a CIA front company completely legit business, but all over doing side missions for the CIA or US government so if anything happens hey it was not the USA it was this independent company. http://www.cellebrite.com/Executive-Team

This is relevant from the Twitter history of one of the Cellebrite founders.

https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6053155/in-the-matter-of-the-search.0.pdf

You got it spot on, especially #5 which does happen