U.S. Drops New York Case Against Apple After Unlocking iPhone Without Assistance

[thefourthpope]

"the government..."

This should set some folks off.

 

[RickInHouston]

So, now people are starting trusting nothing from government.
Doom of human society? Not really, but such fight between government and tech companies may hint a little bit.

Whether China or USA, their governments are attempting to do basically the same thing on citizens I believe.

or are people no longer trusting apple?

 

[dan110]

There are two kinds of criminals - the private kind and the public kind.

 

[Tech198]

FBI: "We don't need no stinkin' assistance."

I never trusted the government

 

[maxsix]

Apple and Husseins government are two peas in a pod. Two bullies on the playground. Each said and did what they needed to do to claim they won.

Those who took sides each got their points across, watched the contest where right or wrong didn't matter, it was all about the game for them. Millions of dollars spent with nothing to show for it.

Typical contest

 

[unplugme71]

I thought the DoJ swore up and down that they weren't going to use the San Bernardino case as a precedent. As most of us recognized at the time, that was a lie.

Now they're like the kid growing up in the 60s and 70s that found out through a friend how phone phreaking worked and now they're showing all their friends how to do it too.

Did you seriously believe what the government said? Wow

 

[avanpelt]

Did you seriously believe what the government said? Wow

Nope. Some people probably did, but most of us knew it was a lie, including me.

 

[thisisnotmyname]

Seems like every article I've seen on this topic has a headline something to the effect of, "Government accesses iPhone without Apple assistance." That would seem to imply that the FBI somehow bypassed Apple security, quite misleading when they got someone to provide the access code. A headline like, "Passcode provided to FBI for iPhone at center of NY case," would be much more appropriate. I guess we're in the era of "journalism" though where the articles have so little content that the headline would tell the whole story and not generate clicks if direct and informative.

 

[TallManNY]

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.

I believe however you can be compelled to testify and bring witness against another person. Yes you would have fifth amendment to not incriminate yourself. And I believe you re right that you don't have to aid in a search. But if you are brought to the stand and you swear to tell the whole truth, I don't know if you can just clam up. I recall that there is an old exception for married couples not having to testify against each other.
[doublepost=1461540543][/doublepost]

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.

This is not real. These videos were debunked. There are ways to defeat the phone's security but as of yet no easy crack that is reported on something like youtube.

 

[HEK]

I believe however you can be compelled to testify and bring witness against another person. Yes you would have fifth amendment to not incriminate yourself. And I believe you re right that you don't have to aid in a search. But if you are brought to the stand and you swear to tell the whole truth, I don't know if you can just clam up. I recall that there is an old exception for married couples not having to testify against each other.
[doublepost=1461540543][/doublepost]

This is not real. These videos were debunked. There are ways to defeat the phone's security but as of yet no easy crack that is reported on something like youtube.

You most certainly can clam up. Taking the fifth amendment can be done at any time, during questioning, during trial testimony. Defendant doesn't have to take the stand at all. But if he/she does they can be cross examined. Can still take the fifth, just doesn't look too good to the jury. You can be forced to appear and be asked questions, subpoenaed. The judge can hold you in contempt and lock you up for being unwilling to give up informant name. So it's a bit of grey area. Lawyer up, is all I can say.

 

[dk001]

"WE ARE THE FBI AND WE REQUEST YOU TO REVEAL YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION FOR THE SAKE OF THE SECURITY OF THIS NATION!"
5 minutes later
"Never mind, we got it anyway and it turned out to be useless. Have a nice day, suckers."

More like year plus later but the point is valid.

ps: someone remembered the code and gave it over a year later? Doubtful.

 

[HEK]

More like year plus later but the point is valid.

ps: someone remembered the code and gave it over a year later? Doubtful.

Probably remove iPhone from case and found piece of tape with passcode on back of phone. Rule # 93 in FBI rules of phone search, "remove case first".

 

[TallManNY]

You most certainly can clam up. Taking the fifth amendment can be done at any time, during questioning, during trial testimony. Defendant doesn't have to take the stand at all. But if he/she does they can be cross examined. Can still take the fifth, just doesn't look too good to the jury. You can be forced to appear and be asked questions, subpoenaed. The judge can hold you in contempt and lock you up for being unwilling to give up informant name. So it's a bit of grey area. Lawyer up, is all I can say.

Yes, that is what I meant. You can take the fifth, but you can also be subpoenaed to give testimony and withholding it will put you in contempt of court. Since I looked it up to jog my memory, there is something called Spousal Privilege. And this includes Spousal Testimonial Privilege where the spouse cannot be asked/forced to testify against the other spouse.