Posted on 02/19/2016 6:21:59 PM PST by Swordmaker
Apple has now responded to a Department of Justice filing that we reported earlier today was attempting to force the company to comply with an FBI request for access to a locked iPhone belonging to a suspect in the San Bernardino attacks. In one statement to Reuters, an Apple spokesperson said the DOJ is "disregarding civil liberties in iPhone unlocking case," while in another it attempts to explain more of the back story regarding past events with the iPhone in question.Â
CNBC reports an Apple exec called the motion "a way to argue the case twice before Apple can respond," a response to the fact that the DOJ's motion filed today comes ahead of Apple's deadline to respond to a judge regarding its original refusal to unlock the device in the case. CNBC adds that in response to claims in the DOJ filing, Apple said it “has not said that unlocking an iPhone is technically possible.”
Now that the DOJ has exposed a lot of the background story in the case in its earlier filing, Apple is offering its side of the story.
Here’s a longer version of Apple’s statement relayed by unnamed executives to various medial outlets, this time via BuzzFeed:
The Apple ID passcode linked to the iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino terrorists was changed less than 24 hours after the government took possession of the device, senior Apple executives said Friday. If that hadn't happened, Apple said, a backup of the information the government was seeking may have been accessible…
The executives said the company had been in regular discussions with the government since early January, and that it proposed four different ways to recover the information the government is interested in without building a back door. One of those methods would have involved connecting the phone to a known wifi network.
So Apple is arguing that the Apple ID of the iPhone was changed after the government took possession, meaning the FBI could have had access to the data it’s seeking. Â Apple adds that otherwise it previously proposed solutions that wouldn’t include building a the “backdoor” the FBI is after.
Apple also reportedly responded to the DOJ's claims that Apple's refusal on the requests were a marketing ploy, according to BuzzFeed, "saying they were instead based on their love for the country and desire not to see civil liberties tossed aside."
And while Apple is calling up media outlets to give its response to the filing, TheHill reports Tim Cook and the head of the FBI were today invited to testify before a House committee.
JUST IN: In response to DOJ filing earlier, sr. Apple exec. says company has not said that unlocking an iPhone is technically possible - DJ—
CNBC Now (@CNBCnow) February 19, 2016
BREAKING: Department of Justice disregarding civil liberties in iPhone unlocking case: Apple—
Reuters U.S. News (@ReutersUS) February 19, 2016
Apple: Within 24 hours of govt taking possession of SB shooter's phone, Apple ID pass was changed—backup may have been accessible prior—
John Paczkowski (@JohnPaczkowski) February 19, 2016
F*K 'EM. They earned their pie in the face bigtime. No bail out.
Pinging dayglored, ThunderSleeps, and Shadow Ace for their ping lists, because this issue is not just for Apple security.
The latest Apple/Mac/iOS Pings can be found by searching Keyword "ApplePingList" on FreeRepublic's Search.
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me
Normally, to change a password, you first use that password to gain access to the system. Then you change the password from there.
So that means the government had the password from the beginning, and since a county IT worker changed it within 24 hours, the government must also have the new password.
So the FBI had the unlocked phone info immediately, and still had access to the phone through the new password.
So what, exactly, does Apple have to do with any of this?
> The Apple ID passcode linked to the iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino terrorists was changed less than 24 hours after the government took possession of the device, senior Apple executives said Friday. If that hadn’t happened, Apple said, a backup of the information the government was seeking may have been accessible
The information was passcode protected prior to the FBI and was retrievable, yet the information passcode protect after the FBI is not retrievable?
How does Apple know when the device password was changed?
Apple has a backup of the information?
I think Apple is putting out a smoke screen
I am beginning to wonder if there was no passcode on this phone at all. . . and if the authorities added it to set this all up. How else was the AppleID CHANGED while in government custody???? If they had the password to change the AppleID, they had the password to get into the iPhone.
And not much reported by the media, the terrorist was a county government employee.
So much irony,...
And that means they also have the password NOW.
Doesn’t matter. If a criminal tossed his gun in a landfill and the FBI wanted to search the landfill, would the landfill owner be required to spend money on a sifter to search through the waste? Apple doesn’t work for the feds. Nor should they diminish their security product. If they FBI wants to hack the phone hire someone to do it. Better yet, push back from your computers and try some human intelligence work (HUMINT) instead of being keyboard cops.
+1
Encrypted data has a header showing last date of access and change. Even though you can't see the encrypted information, the header has just enough information for one to enter the correct password to access the rest. Apple is not hiding anything, they caught the feds digging themselves into a hole.
This is getting more and more interesting.
A conflict between two untrustworthy entities.
Who to believe?
Why not get the new pass code from the County? Did the county refuse? Did they take the county to court? It would seem to be the path of least resistance. Was IT guy charged with obstruction? Did the magistrate even know about this?
Inquiring minds want to know. The bottom line: did the FBI lie when they told the court going after Apple was the only way they had of getting into this phone?
So what? All they’re asking for is to disable the retries limit, then they’ll crack the pw and decrypt the content like they’ve done many times in the past.
While Apple cannot see the passwords or the data, Apple can see when the passwords or data on iCloud were last modified. These devices are connected to the Internet and iCloud. That is the point. Apple KNOWS that someone changed the AppleID password after the terrorists were dead and after the authorities had seized the iPhone.
Tim Cook has made statements in the name of Apple in his position as CEO of the company. If those statement turn out to be false, the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 would kick in and he could be personally fined up to $20,000,000 and sent to Federal Prison for 20 years, if those statement adversely impact the value of the company or its stock. A statement about the security of Apple's main product, its iPhones, if found to be false, would certainly impact the value of the company and its stock. Therefore, you can pretty much take what Tim Cook has said about the security of the iPhones as absolute truth.
I suspect that the iPhone did not even have a passcode on it when the authorities got it, or alternately, they discovered the passcode in the papers they also seized. Otherwise how did they get into the iPhone to CHANGE the AppleID? If it did not have a passcode when seized, they added it after changing the AppleID because their actual goal is to get Apple to make a universal iPhone hacker tool to get into ALL iPhones. That has been the government's goal for several years now.
For example, in 2011, the NSA implied that Apple had joined PRISM by publishing a chart showing Apple would be a member as of October 2012, when they had not and would not be, in an attempt to get Apple to knuckle under, using the theory that if Apple had the reputation of already joining in the public's perception, Apple might as well do it anyway. Apple still refused. The government has been bringing all kinds of legal pressure against Apple including bogus anti-trust suits such as the e-books suit, where Apple was treated as a price-fixer, even though they brought MORE competition to the e-book market and actually brought prices of e-books DOWN overall, which Apple is still fighting all the way to the US Supreme Court.
Some legal observers are of the opinion that these legal woes Apple is experiencing is because Apple won't play ball with the NSA and allow backdoors on their devices.
While Apple cannot see the passwords or the data, Apple can see when the passwords or data on iCloud were last modified. These devices are connected to the Internet and iCloud. That is the point. Apple KNOWS that someone changed the AppleID password after the terrorists were dead and after the authorities had seized the iPhone.
Tim Cook has made statements in the name of Apple in his position as CEO of the company. If those statement turn out to be false, the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 would kick in and he could be personally fined up to $20,000,000 and sent to Federal Prison for 20 years, if those statement adversely impact the value of the company or its stock. A statement about the security of Apple's main product, its iPhones, if found to be false, would certainly impact the value of the company and its stock. Therefore, you can pretty much take what Tim Cook has said about the security of the iPhones as absolute truth.
I suspect that the iPhone did not even have a passcode on it when the authorities got it, or alternately, they discovered the passcode in the papers they also seized. Otherwise how did they get into the iPhone to CHANGE the AppleID? If it did not have a passcode when seized, they added it after changing the AppleID because their actual goal is to get Apple to make a universal iPhone hacker tool to get into ALL iPhones. That has been the government's goal for several years now.
For example, in 2011, the NSA implied that Apple had joined PRISM by publishing a chart showing Apple would be a member as of October 2012, when they had not and would not be, in an attempt to get Apple to knuckle under, using the theory that if Apple had the reputation of already joining in the public's perception, Apple might as well do it anyway. Apple still refused. The government has been bringing all kinds of legal pressure against Apple including bogus anti-trust suits such as the e-books suit, where Apple was treated as a price-fixer, even though they brought MORE competition to the e-book market and actually brought prices of e-books DOWN overall, which Apple is still fighting all the way to the US Supreme Court.
Some legal observers are of the opinion that these legal woes Apple is experiencing is because Apple won't play ball with the NSA and allow backdoors on their devices.
I’m with apple on this one.
On a side note how did fbi change the apple ID if phone was locked?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.