'San Bernardino 2' one could say. The new request from the FBI on Apple to crack the phone of a ten-fold stabber Dahir Adan is the second round of Gov vs Forbes1.
At the time no tech details revealed. As in '60 Minutes' - "The story will continue in a moment…".
https://
ALL iphone could be unlocked remote. ALL. Any model.
Contact NSA backdoor on specific port.
FBI maybe needs to send a request to NSA for clearance of using the backdoor that apple add on ALL iphones in the world )
ALL iphone could be unlocked remote. ALL. Any model.
Contact NSA backdoor on specific port.FBI maybe needs to send a request to NSA for clearance of using the backdoor that apple add on ALL iphones in the world )
Or maybe ask you the details…
jaclaz
ALL iphone could be unlocked remote. ALL. Any model.
Contact NSA backdoor on specific port.
Here we go again… roll
NSA have backdoors in all major US companies.
Recently, Yahoo backdoor is leaked
http//
So, FBI, please contact NSA for the iphone backdoor )
I have a couple of questions I would like to ask.
1. If a law enforcement agency obtained a valid search warrant supported by probable cause does anyone have an issue with the government gaining access to the device?
2. I'm sure things will be changing fairly quickly, but Google currently allows law enforcement access to their phones by resetting the Gmail passcode. This is done only after they receive a valid search warrant supported by probable cause and a Court Order containing a Motion to Compel. After reviewing the documents Google sets up a time to contact LE. Then and only then is the Gmail account reset allowing LE access to the device.
I'm sure someone will say that this system has all sorts of vulnerabilities, but I have yet to hear anyone say that this system caused an unauthorized breach of a device?
If Apple were to adopt a similar policy that would allow access to the device by resetting the iCloud account along with the SW and Court Order would anyone have an issue with that?
I think there are some that believe that regardless of whether or not the government has a search warrant they do not have a right to gain access to a phone. If that be the case, I've yet to find it in the Constitution.
The problem is this; if you have passcode-locked your iPhone and you have never enabled any sort of iTunes/iCloud backup, then there is no way to access that device. Your only option is to erase the data on the phone (
While it is true that information should be available to Law Enforcement agencies who provide valid search warrants, the actual basis of the FBI request was to change the architecture of iOS to disable the "lockout" counter so they could brute force the passcode. Apple's argument was that implementing ethis would compromise the security of their devices - and it is a valid argument.
Apple's argument was that implementing ethis would compromise the security of their devices - and it is a valid argument.
The problem with this stance is that anything that provides access to a locked/encrypted phone could be prevented with the same argument.
Apples stance now seems pretty clear - we will protect your data from everyone irrespective of their right to look at it.
I like the old analogy of a search warrant being used to get access to your home - that to me seems seems pretty reasonable. So why can't a search warrant be used to access your phone?
Your only option is to erase the data on the phone (
as per this Apple Support document).
Hmmm, you seem to insist 😯 on providing links to existing documentation and actually accessible data/reports, whilst the issue can be easily solved by asking the NSA (or droopy) wink .
I like the old analogy of a search warrant being used to get access to your home - that to me seems seems pretty reasonable. So why can't a search warrant be used to access your phone?
Yep, but - to be fair - in the good ol'way there was no secret court, no secret warrant (and accompanying gag order) things were "in plain sight" for everyone.
We could say that the informations are too much asymmetrical to be able to distinguish a secret warrant issued by a secret court from an ordinary no-warrant search by (say) STASI in the old East Germany.
Additionally, there is the not-so-trifling issue of "probable cause" for actually requesting a warrant to the Court, and the extension of the warrant and the actual way a warrant is executed in these days vs. the good ol'way.
I mean, once upon the time (when the warrant was more about "physical objects" than to information, data and the storage where they do reside) the procedure for a home search warrant was simple, the cops were authorized by a judge (basing it upon some actual "probable cause") to look for - say - a handgun.
The innocent would have had the handgun seized, and since a handgun is not a primary *need* or everyday use, when the gun would be returned to him after - say - six months, having been cleared by lab analysis, the "damage" was very small or however "reasonable".
Now upon the warrant all electronic devices possibly holding data are seized, and you actually deprive the innocent of entertainment, social communication means and - often - of a work tool for several months (in the best case).
Reading/accessing the emails/messages and what not is more related to intercepting communications than to searching, and there is a practical risk of breaking the privacy of the person and/or to have him/her become the target of *whatever* public shaming for things that are far from illegal according to the Law but that are only ethically or morally reprehensible or capabple to put the suspect in one of those "special files" or "prescription lists" for which the FBI was famous for in the past.
It is "risky business", ad it is walking on a very fine line, it is IMHO very difficult to find the correct balance between investigative needs and people's liberty and rights.
jaclaz