Once again Liam Neeson sorted the perpetrator like he always does. But never gets the credit. He knew the code. He found it. And when he did. He cracked it. Or. Am I confusing reality with fantasy again? I hate that.
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.
U.S. Drops New York Case Against Apple After Unlocking iPhone Without Assistance
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You can search the library, the drawing room, and the kitchen, but you'll only find the murder weapon in one of those places. So just don't search the other two, they're a waste of time.
If I read the quote "San Bernadino shooter Syed Farook" one more time
Like any pro criminal, FBI is "casing the joint" (of public opinion) before the job.
so basically what we've learned, is both of these cases were a total wate of the courts time, since the FBI knew they could get access or in this case not tried all options first..
It was the the FBI who "decided" to find other avenues and got into the 5c thanks to a "professional hacker" and now this..
I really wish the FBI would do its job before jumping up and screaming.
I wish that worked here as well. you guys are lucky.
It was the the FBI who "decided" to find other avenues and got into the 5c thanks to a "professional hacker" and now this..
I really wish the FBI would do its job before jumping up and screaming.
Someone connected with the case gave the FBI the passcode. They just key that in by hand like the owner and they are in.
See, water boarding suspects does work in getting the passcode.
Remember, use your fifth amendment rights, don't talk to the police, ever. Nothing you say can ever help you, even the truth. Always get a lawyer.
I wish that worked here as well. you guys are lucky.
I'm sorry, but all I hear each time a story like this hits the news is "Apple stood firm, and eventually, for one reason or another, or with one excuse or another, the federal agency backed off / gave up / lost." No WONDER Apple has the following it does, the more this stuff happens, the more I'm glad for the option to use Apple to safeguard my data, not only from the government (which, to me isn't that big of a threat but it's part of the package of people out there asking or paying for my info) but also to all the third parties who want to buy and sell my info. Giving, lending, or selling my info is almost the core business of most of these other companies, Apple is the only one with any principles whatsoever and I'm so glad they are an option.
What I'm curious to know is whether or not the "lawful court order and search warrants" make it a crime to withhold information leading to a successful search of the property. I'm believe I'm correct in saying that US law enforcement are legally entitled to use a legally-acquired fingerprint (eg. from a suspect's processing) to unlock a device via Touch ID, but they are not entitled to compel that suspect to provide a passcode. Doesn't that imply that the "lawful court order and search warrants" merely entitle law enforcement to the attempt to search property?
Say, for example, it were actually conceivable to have a residence to which law enforcement could not gain entry without the proper key: would those who possess that key be legally obliged to supply it on pain of Contempt of Court proceedings, or similar?
I suppose my point is: aren't US law enforcement over-reaching with these lawsuits that seem to rest on the supposed basis of a Right to a successful (ie. full, complete and unhindered) search of a suspect's property?
Passcode is NOT a hack.....LOL
[doublepost=1461407176][/doublepost]
Rights to privacy are almost always there to protect citizens from government. History repeats itself over and over. Only government, regardless which one, and Google want to snoop.
[doublepost=1461407368][/doublepost]
You forget the suspect and all others have fifth amendment rights to not incriminate themselves. You can not be forced to say anything, lawyer up.
[doublepost=1461407987][/doublepost]
Thing is it almost never works here either. People are stupid and like to talk. Talking to police will always cause regrets later. It's actually a crime to lie to the police, but the police can lie with impunity during their investigation/interview. Then later in court, anything good for the plaintiff is considered hearsay evidence and not permissible. But anything incriminating is allowed as testimony by the police involved.
probably his girlfriend just decided to give up his code. I don't know if withholding it would be aiding and abetting. Assuming she isn't a suspect then she would not have fifth amendment rights.
Obviously I'm just guessing it was his girlfriend. But it would make sense if it was someone like that.
Obviously I'm just guessing it was his girlfriend. But it would make sense if it was someone like that.
Maybe the police just watched a video.
Dumbest **** ever. He has Touch ID on and that's what unlocks the phone.
There are some bits that are unclear. If the police is at your door with a legal search warrant, and you refuse to open, it doesn't make any practical difference to them. And the only practical difference to you is whether you have a door that you can close after they leave, or not. Nobody gets ever prosecuted about it because the police really don't care.
Now if your door absolutely cannot be unlocked without the key, and your iPhone cannot be unlocked without that passcode, you _have_ to supply the key or the passcode. But nobody knows for sure what the consequences are if you don't. Just one thing: The only situation where you don't have to supply a password is if the police doesn't actually know for sure that _you_ have the password, and the very fact that you have the password is evidence against you. (Person was killed by being hit by a MacBook 17". No finger prints, password protected, police doesn't know who the owner is. If you know the password then you are the owner so you go down for murder -> thererfore you don't have to supply the password).
For this one, they have the actual passcode. Simple.
For SanBernardino, it was a 5c, not 5s. No TouchID, no Secure Element.
[doublepost=1461423036][/doublepost]
Not after this length of time, and/or after being powered down. You need the passcode to reestablish TouchID.
Sounds like a real good reasons not to use TouchID. Many years of precedence has allowed the taking of finger prints as part of the arrest process, and the technology to use a finger print to unlock an iPhone is probably not that difficult. Also, if your finger print unlocks the iPhone, that proves it's yours. No real hacks, no pleading to/threatening Apple required.
1- Yes, after that length of time.
2- He never showed the phone was ever turned off or TouchID was disabled.
Please, think. If the police asks you to unlook your phone with TouchID, then they have a phone, they have you, and they believe it is your phone. If that is indeed true, then they will find evidence for it anyway. What I posted was not about whether the police can find out that you own a phone, but a very rare case where giving up a passcode would be self incriminating. In that situation the police would have hundreds of ways to prove it's your phone. Asking for your passcode is _one_ of 100 possibilities that they cannot use.
In both recently discussed cases, the police absolutely knew who owned the phone.
And get your priorities right. There are risks in life, some that you should care about, some that you shouldn't. Your proposed risk: "If I use TouchID, and I commit a crime and leave evidence on my iPhone, and the police suspects me and gets a search warrant, and I'm too slow deleting the evidence, destroying the phone, _or just turning it off_, then the police might find that evidence". To be honest, not something many people worry about.
I keep hearing the analogy of a safe in a home... like: "you can't say that the contents of your safe are not subject to a warrant; so how is this different?"; well, it is different in that the us government isn't going to ACME Unbreakable Safe Co. & demanding "hey, I know your reputation as unbreakable, but I need ya to put a four digit override on all your safes, in case I want in there". Besides, any info on these phones surely must've been transferred over some medium; so if it went over email- crack their email, etc. Do they really think terrorists type detailed plans in the Notes app so they remember them & then never share these details?
The part I have a problem with is
So, as Billy Joel put it: We didn't start the fire, it was always burning...
Basically, law enforcement is allowed to personal information, regardless of its container. When someone makes a device that reads our thoughts, they will have legal access to that too.
I glossed over the other posts, so maybe this was already said, but they basically said "Dangerous precedent? Pssh. It's already in force. We didn't set it, it's already there."
Yay...
So, as Billy Joel put it: We didn't start the fire, it was always burning...
Basically, law enforcement is allowed to personal information, regardless of its container. When someone makes a device that reads our thoughts, they will have legal access to that too.
I glossed over the other posts, so maybe this was already said, but they basically said "Dangerous precedent? Pssh. It's already in force. We didn't set it, it's already there."
Yay...
Apple is trying to win battles but is losing the war. If they help law enforcement authorities, under court order, then they can do it behind closed doors (figuratively, I suppose) and everyone goes on thinking their iPhone is "safe". But instead, Apple refuses to cooperate and the authorities go ahead and crack into the phone anyway. That creates a lot of fanfare as you might expect and Apple is left with the problem of everyone thinking their phones are less secure than they previously thought. Not good for Apple in the long run.
Even non suspects have fifth amendment rights. Many times people of interest are questioned and based on what they say subsequent charges are brought. You do not have to talk to police without lawyer. Even when they say you are not under suspicion. Everyone at all times has right not to incriminate themselves. Watch the video by law professor I attached.
A search warrant compels a search it does not in any way force the party being searched to help in any way. Or to provide any information such as passwords or combinations to locks. The searching authority can get a safe cracker.
Last edited:
Wrong, you don't have to supply password. That is covered under self incrimination. They can force your finger onto the ID ring. So turn phone off when police come. You have absolute right to not say anything to police, including the password. Regardless of warrant.
They will grill you for hours, lie to you, wear you down. Remember they getting paid overtime to stay and question you. You will want to say something, anything, but don't, keep your mouth shut. Always let the lawyer do your talking. It's actually worse for innocent people and witnesses. They think they have nothing to hide, and are prone to say things. Remember the police are not your friends, they are out to convict somebody of something. Open your mouth and that somebody may become you.
Last edited:
If this is real, shouldn't Apple be looking into this "hack" and take steps to block this open goal? The entire idea of killing or bricking a stolen iPhone, the original reason behind all these safety methods, is lost if this works universally.
The law enforcement agencies in various states asked smartphone makers to include such a feature to stop iPhone thefts, and the associated assaults and or murders with those crimes. The theft of iPhones has actually dropped significantly, I think the police actually made statements thanking someone for these features.
The government is scrubbing and scrubbing, but that egg just won't come off. 
Power grab...delayed.
Power grab...delayed.