Posted on 02/19/2016 5:07:38 PM PST by rpierce
The Apple ID passcode for the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone was changed less than 24 hours after authorities took possession of the device, a senior Apple executive said today.
And Apple could have recovered information from the phone had the Apple ID passcode not been changed, Apple said.
If the phone was taken to a location where it recognized the Wi-Fi network, such as the San Bernardino shooters' home, it could have been backed up to the cloud, Apple suggested. ... The auto reset was executed by a county information technology employee, according to a federal official. Federal investigators only found out about the reset after it had occurred and that the county employee acted on his own, not on the orders of federal authorities, the source said.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
“As to the silly notion that it’s for just one phone and it’s for the children... Just look at history.”
I am looking at history. It’s called the Constitution. thanks for repeating the same mistake everyone else has that is against this. The REAL dangerous precedent here would be to ignore it. And you don’t ignore it without going through the process, which is complying or showing cause why you can’t. The “I don’t trust you” defense is not one of those.
We wont agree on this topic clearly. However the difference is this can impact a billion people. Weakening security for the sake of a handful of individuals puts the rest of us at risk of breach, potentially worse. That is not something I am willing to trade, for the mislead belief that it will keep us safe at night.
The government needs to do their job, namely compromise the devices, keep their mouth shut, and invest in good ole fashioned humint, and sigint collection improvements.
“Weakening security for the sake of a handful of individuals puts the rest of us at risk of breach, potentially worse.”
The 4th amendment protects innumerable people every day in courtrooms. The process for changing the Constitution is in place. You are arguing against the Constitution, not me. If you wish to make a legal reform that Justice Scalia considered the cornerstone of our entire system of law, a mechanism to obtain the truth, then knock yourself out. Free people have the right to obtain information from people during discovery, and the police have a right to look at any pertinent information through the legal process and others they believe have wronged victims whether they have an iPhone or not.
I don’t believe how many people misunderstand the importance of the 4th amendment. But, the Constitution is a remarkable document. If you wish to suspend your right to obtain valuable information, try and get it changed. You will be very, very sorry. The number of crimes that will be committed large and small will rise dramatically and there will be no control device for discovery in the pursuit of liars, thieves and yes...mass murderers. If that is your idea of freedom, you can get it. Or, just move to some third world shit hole that doesn’t live by the rule of law and bribery rules the court.
You and I agree on the importance of the 4th amendment. And the whole constitution is an amazing document.
My point is this. The government does NOT have a right to compel a citizen to perform an action if it’s involuntary. Period end. The exception is if it’s for a crime or punishment for that citizen, not a 3rd party.
It’s black and white in the constitution, namely the 13th amendment.
The government can have at it, they can bring their employees to the party, and conduct government work to brak that phone and derive intelligence. However, asking a third party and going so far as to compel them at the end of a barrel to work or serve the government is not a right the government possesses.
Apple does NOT work for, and is not a government run entity. They can not legally be made to hack a personally owned device of the scumbag. That would be involuntary servitude.
“My point is this. The government does NOT have a right to compel a citizen to perform an action if it’s involuntary.”
Few criminals has ever turned over anything voluntarily. They are found as result of investigation through use of subpoenas or warrants. If they refused to comply, the next step was taken. The court gave Apple 5 days to comply. We don’t know what that next step is.
I am baffled by your statement. People are compelled to turn over evidence and/or property all the time, third party or not. Someone who is helping to conceal ANYTHING in an investigation is naturally covered by the law.
“Indentured servitude (which is laughabee for a 50 billion dollar a year corporation) does not apply. The contention they do not have a key but can build one (which they say can be done) is not only understood, it is covered in the court’s filings, which provide for compensation, if required. However, Apple has already admitted it exists so it isn’t an issue.
You haven’t fully read and understood the case. You certainly haven’t read this thread.
Apple is not a criminal in this case and can not be compelled to create something which they do not have.
Apple does not have what they want... The government is trying to compel them to create it... That would be servitude, and involuntary at that.
Apple made the phone they do not own the phone. That would be the county, and they screwed up the forensic analysis. It’s their fault but also ties in the FBI who compelled them to change the password.
So piss poor execution on the Feds part does not mean an emergency on Apples.
My understanding is there is not a master key in Apple’s vault, yes they have a means to digitally sign a package so it appears to be a valid update, however there is no magic key to unlock it. Thus the Feds want t brute force it so use a technicality to attack the phone with Apples help.
You can laugh all you want about a company with money somehow being exempt but it’s not.
Again I don’t disagree with the people who have evidence to turn it over, but something they don’t have which would have to be created?
Attorneys for Applicant
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
IN THE MATTER OF THE SEARCH OF
AN APPLE IPHONE SEIZED DURING
THE EXECUTION OF A SEARCH
WARRANT ON A BLACK LEXUS IS300,
CALIFORNIA LICENSE PLATE
35KGD203
ORDER COMPELLING APPLE,
INC. TO ASSIST AGENTS IN SEARCH
This matter is before the Court pursuant to an application
pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651, by Assistant United
States Attorneys Tracy Wilkison and Allen Chiu, requesting an order
directing Apple Inc. (”Apple”) to assist law enforcement agents in
enabling the search of a digital device seized in the course of a
previously issued search warrant in this matter.
For good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Apple shall assist in enabling the search of a cellular telephone,
Apple make: iPhone 5C, Model: A1532, P/N:MGFG2LL/A, S/N:FFMNQ3MTG2DJ,
IMEI:358820052301412, on the Verizon Network, (the “SUBJECT DEVICE”)
pursuant to a warrant of this Court by providing
reasonable technical assistance to assist law enforcement agents in
obtaining access to the data on the SUBJECT DEVICE.
2. Apple’s reasonable technical assistance shall accomplish
the following three important functions: (1) it will bypass or
disable the auto-erase function whether or not it has been enabled;
(2) it will enable the FBI to submit passcodes to the SUBJECT DEVICE
for testing electronically via the physical device port, Bluetooth,
Wi-Fi, or other protocol available on the SUBJECT and (3) it
will ensure that when the FBI submits passcodes to the SUBJECT
DEVICE, software running on the device will not purposefully
introduce any additional delay between passcode attempts beyond what
is incurred by Apple hardware.
3. Apple’s reasonable technical assistance may include, but is.
not limited to: providing the FBI with a signed iPhone Software
file, recovery bundle, or other Software Image File (”SIF”) that can
be loaded onto the SUBJECT DEVICE. The SIF will load and run from
Random Access Memory (”RAM”) and will not modify the iOS on the
actual phone, the user data partition or system partition on the
device’s flash memory. The SIF will be coded by Apple with a unique
identifier of the phone so that the SIF would only load and execute
on the SUBJECT DEVICE. The SIF will be loaded via Device Firmware
Upgrade (”DFU”) mode, recovery mode, or other applicable mode
available to the FBI. Once active on the SUBJECT DEVICE, the SIF
will accomplish the three functions specified in paragraph 2. The
SIF will be loaded on the SUBJECT DEVICE at either a government
facility, or alternatively, at an Apple facility; if the latter,
Apple shall provide the government with remote access to the SUBJECT
DEVICE through a computer allowing the government to conduct passcode
recovery analysis.
4. If Apple determines that it can achieve the three functions
stated above in paragraph 2, as well as the functionality set forth
in paragraph 3, using an alternate technological means from that
recommended by the government, and the government concurs, Apple may
comply with this Order in that way.
5. Apple shall advise the government of the reasonable cost of
providing this service.
6. Although Apple shall make reasonable efforts to maintain
the integrity of data on the SUBJECT DEVICE, Apple shall not be
required to maintain copies of any user data as a result of the
assistance ordered herein. All evidence preservation shall remain
the responsibility of law enforcement agents.
7. To the extent that Apple believes that compliance with this
Order would be unreasonably burdensome, it may make an application to
this Court for relief within five business days of receipt of the
Order.
Signed: SHERI PYM
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated: FEB 16, 2016
What the FBI asked for, and what the court ordered, isn’t that Apple unlock the phone for the FBI, but that Apple make it possible for the FBI to keep trying to figure out the passcode without the phone reaching the self-destruct point.
It’s also interesting to note that what the FBI asked for, and what the court ordered, isn’t that Apple unlock the phone for the FBI, but that Apple make it possible for the FBI to keep trying to figure out the passcode without the phone reaching the self-destruct point.
Yes I know that, that’s why my comment about the Feds wanting Apple to circumvent the screen lock so they can brute force it with codes.
What’s your point? Should us mere humans not have the ability for our phones to self destruct after 10 tries? Or should Apple be forced to disable that based on a court order? If we can command a company to make their private property and inventions a certain way why not take that further? Mane the next election cycle we can push further?
This is why Apple needs to continue to make it impossible for them to help. It’s not their job to make their software Fed friendly. Build a nearly inaccessible device period.
“What’s your point? Should us mere humans not have the ability for our phones to self destruct after 10 tries?”
No.
“This is why Apple needs to continue to make it impossible for them to help. It’s not their job to make their software Fed friendly. Build a nearly inaccessible device period.”
I don’t need Apple to protect mr from my government.
I’ve read it. And then I’ve read dependent review and commentary. But it’s typical DC spark with massive subjectivity so any decent attorney could drive a truck through the requests.
1.) Apple shall assist? Based on what? It’s not their property. They are not a criminal, nor a defendant.
2.) Reasonable? Upon who’s testimony is this derived? What happens if an engineer makes a mistake and the data is deleted? Does Apple become liable legally? Oh no I’m sure the Gov wouldn’t do anything like that...
3.) yea this is typical garbage legalize. The first sentence tells me it’s unlimited, and is not limited to anything... Just meet their demands or else.
4.) So glad that the government must approve of their methods. Too bad they didn’t ask Apple before THEY changed the pass codes!
5.) Reasonable cost? How about 100B. Since this will impact their business in every country in the WORLD!
6.) How does this pass the chain of custody smell test? I have no idea.
7.) irreparable harm to their corporate brand, and potential,to make them liable and accountable to break their products at the whim of every country in the world?
Long term this is a horrible endeavor!
Well, since you have said nothing that even remotely has an impact on our legal process, I guess you are right. We disagree.
I hope you never have a child kidnapped and the information is stored in an encrypted device that, before capture, the kidnapper has entered false passwords, leaving the information unobtainable, leaving the child in a room with eight hours of air.
Or your last chance at an inheritance, contained in a device that has this magic encryption, is not lost and you are left penniless.
Or your new will is changed you looked closely and see your asshole brother in law is going to inherit everything in the evnt you die and your children left penniless. Unfortunately, soon after changing it, you die.
Or any number of other possibilities that arise in the real world all day every day. This is why the law contains a provision to compel evidence. Some times we need a little help. It’s not always a nefarious deed and I trust the legal system.
I have been in business of many years and I am 4-o in legal suits, 3 of which were settled out of court. The biggest one was won by a damning bit of evidence between an ex-partner and a company that was stealing a patent of mine. We turned up the emails in discovery. Had they been unavailable, I would have lost everything. Thank god they weren’t on one of these devices.
It it the same judge that ordered all of Hillary's emails be released?
You keep invoking the 4th A. You do realize that the phone in question is not Apple’s property, don’t you? What cause do the Feds have to compel a third party to do work for them under the 4th A? What warrant do you believe is being issued to Apple, and what “persons, houses, papers, and effects” belonging to Apple do the Govt. have probable cause to seize and examine? Are you suggesting Apple is a conspirator?
“What warrant do you believe is being issued to Apple, and what “persons, houses, papers, and effects†belonging to Apple do the Govt. have probable cause to seize and examine? Are you suggesting Apple is a conspirator?”
No one is suggesting APPL is a conspirator. They are impeding the investigation and are doing it provocatively. Because it is their proprietary software blocking the investigation into the ISIS killers, they are, in effect, protecting them. They could have opened this thing.
I mention the 4th amendment because this will be used by an activist court at some point to contend that people do not have to comply with the part of the 4th amendment that the APPL bots ALWAYS leave out in this discussion, as you did above: “...and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The court has done just that. They have isolated the part of the program that has yet to be challenged, which could lead to a dangerous precedent, “the dog ate my homework.”
Don’t take a high tone with me. I know what I am talking about. As do you, I suspect. So far APPL has disseminated so much crap about all of this it’s pathetic. They could have done this easily, but didn’t. Do you wonder why? Could there POSSIBLY be a better time to try to establish a precedent that could leave a hole in the 4th amendment, when it is NOT a case of national security, but, say, the eviction of widow and orphans? Corporate espionage? Any of the thousand os reasons daily that people who have either committed or been on the recieving end of some sort of foul play?
Let’s not pretend this is just nothing. And without Justice Scalia, I couldn’t think of a better time to try to get that old Camels nose under the tent. Could you? If it goes to the Supremes, and they split (which is somewhat more likely now) it will bounce back to the ninth in CA. Which way do you think they will go?
So please, as Tom Cotton (R., Ark.), a member of the Senate intelligence Committee who shares Mr. Trump’s opinion and thinks it’s going to take action from Congress to deal with the impasse. Said Mr. Cotton:
Apple chose to protect a dead ISIS terrorist’s p‎rivacy over the security of the American people. The Executive and Legislative Branches have been working with the private sector with the hope of resolving the ‘Going Dark’ problem, the position Tim Cook and Apple have taken shows that they are unwilling to compromise and that legislation is likely the only way to resolve this issue. The problem of end-to-end encryption isn’t just a terrorism issue. It is also a drug-trafficking, kidnapping, and child pornography issue that impacts every state of the Union.
All the “good people of the left” and APPL investors are on this like a dog on a bone. This will ultimately be an attempt to make the big dogs like APPL and GOOG our “protectors” from the government and not the other way around, as it should be.
Does that answer your question as to why the 4th amendment is important?
The ownership of the device (as they refer to it here) is immaterial to the order. The order is to compel them to remove the block, through various (and surprisingly generous list of methods) so we can just get this over. Here is the Court Order issued to APPL in hopes of heading off the need for legislation and appeals ad nauseum while the hoped-for trail to the jihadists in killing 14 of our citizen in cold blood grows colder:
Attorneys for Applicant
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
IN THE MATTER OF THE SEARCH OF
AN APPLE IPHONE SEIZED DURING
THE EXECUTION OF A SEARCH
WARRANT ON A BLACK LEXUS IS300,
CALIFORNIA LICENSE PLATE
35KGD203
ORDER COMPELLING APPLE,
INC. TO ASSIST AGENTS IN SEARCH
This matter is before the Court pursuant to an application
pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651, by Assistant United
States Attorneys Tracy Wilkison and Allen Chiu, requesting an order
directing Apple Inc. (â€Appleâ€) to assist law enforcement agents in
enabling the search of a digital device seized in the course of a
previously issued search warrant in this matter.
For good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Apple shall assist in enabling the search of a cellular telephone,
Apple make: iPhone 5C, Model: A1532, P/N:MGFG2LL/A, S/N:FFMNQ3MTG2DJ,
IMEI:358820052301412, on the Verizon Network, (the “SUBJECT DEVICEâ€)
pursuant to a warrant of this Court by providing
reasonable technical assistance to assist law enforcement agents in
obtaining access to the data on the SUBJECT DEVICE.
2. Apple’s reasonable technical assistance shall accomplish
the following three important functions: (1) it will bypass or
disable the auto-erase function whether or not it has been enabled;
(2) it will enable the FBI to submit passcodes to the SUBJECT DEVICE
for testing electronically via the physical device port, Bluetooth,
Wi-Fi, or other protocol available on the SUBJECT and (3) it
will ensure that when the FBI submits passcodes to the SUBJECT
DEVICE, software running on the device will not purposefully
introduce any additional delay between passcode attempts beyond what
is incurred by Apple hardware.
3. Apple’s reasonable technical assistance may include, but is.
not limited to: providing the FBI with a signed iPhone Software
file, recovery bundle, or other Software Image File (â€SIFâ€) that can
be loaded onto the SUBJECT DEVICE. The SIF will load and run from
Random Access Memory (â€RAMâ€) and will not modify the iOS on the
actual phone, the user data partition or system partition on the
device’s flash memory. The SIF will be coded by Apple with a unique
identifier of the phone so that the SIF would only load and execute
on the SUBJECT DEVICE. The SIF will be loaded via Device Firmware
Upgrade (â€DFUâ€) mode, recovery mode, or other applicable mode
available to the FBI. Once active on the SUBJECT DEVICE, the SIF
will accomplish the three functions specified in paragraph 2. The
SIF will be loaded on the SUBJECT DEVICE at either a government
facility, or alternatively, at an Apple facility; if the latter,
Apple shall provide the government with remote access to the SUBJECT
DEVICE through a computer allowing the government to conduct passcode
recovery analysis.
4. If Apple determines that it can achieve the three functions
stated above in paragraph 2, as well as the functionality set forth
in paragraph 3, using an alternate technological means from that
recommended by the government, and the government concurs, Apple may
comply with this Order in that way.
5. Apple shall advise the government of the reasonable cost of
providing this service.
6. Although Apple shall make reasonable efforts to maintain
the integrity of data on the SUBJECT DEVICE, Apple shall not be
required to maintain copies of any user data as a result of the
assistance ordered herein. All evidence preservation shall remain
the responsibility of law enforcement agents.
7. To the extent that Apple believes that compliance with this
Order would be unreasonably burdensome, it may make an application to
this Court for relief within five business days of receipt of the
Order.
Signed: SHERI PYM
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated: FEB 16, 2016
As you probably know an order to compel testimony says you shall, but means you will or else...like myself, Donald Trump and most conservatives, we believe this to be a cheap stunt for APPL to bring the legislation to wdge this into a court proceeding. They picked the wrong test case, in my opinion, but blocking a Federal investigation is pretty serious, or so think most of us “law and order” types. You’ll notice that every one of Cook’s complaints are unfounded and accomodated in one way or another by the court....so let’s get them into court and let them show cause as to why they can ignore a court order! I have no patience for the cute little game APPL is playing, but I do understand they do NOT want to let a crisis go unexploited. And if I was a stockholder, I’d be sweating bullets, because WHEN this gambit fails, Timmy will be driving off a cliff that will make Q4 look like the good old days.
The All Writs Act, by the way, has been used to compel DNA samples. It’s been used to compel handwriting exemplars. It’s been used in the pen register context well before there was any statute that spoke on the issue of pen registers. And so, in that way, it is, by and large, a catchall statute.
Only the Progressives and the Tech Gods have tried to discredit the Act because it has an origin that is so old. But, like Justice Scalia, I am an originalist and think it is perfectly good today. While this provision has a long history, the present language of the Act dates from 1948 and 1949 amendments. Essentially it is a blanket provision allowing court orders to enforce judicial actions and it has been used many, many times. But in typical lib fashion, they have tried to ridicule our system since they believe socialism should be much, much better.
I strongly disagree. Apple chose EXACTLY to protect the security of the American people (including mine), and all other owners of these devices, from an intrusive govt. here, even more intrusive and brutal govts. abroad, and every other 3rd world hacker whom should get access to a specially made hacker tool. You cannot unring a bell, nor uninvent such a tool and technique.
The maker of a safe is not beholden for the actions of the safe owner, nor to the govt. to do their job for them beyond reasonable expectation. Apple has already provided all currently available assistance to the FBI. That is reasonable; creating new OS’s that compromise their security for them is not.
This vague and open-ended writ goes beyond that. They are not asking Apple to open the phone; they are demanding that the locks be changed so they can break in easier. But, if the locks on your safe can be changed at will to an inferior one, that renders your safe useless for any further security beyond casual visitors. Any thief could break in at will.
The purpose of the 4th Amendment is to protect against govt. intrusion. It is not a magic key for the govt. to compel people and business to do their will. It’s supposed to be hard for them to get warrants, and the burden of proof for probable cause and compelling interest is on them. A writ like this is a carte-blanche for fishing expeditions against anyone whose encrypted phone the FBI wants to open, because you can’t make a custom key for this. You can only make a general purpose crowbar. One cannot be secure in ones papers, property, person or effects when such tools are in use.
To top it all off, criminals and terrorists already have encryption tools that render this tool useless on any iPhone they install it on. Anybody that the contact list on that phone might have led to 4 months ago are long gone or too stupid to get away from the usual police work (such as sweating the co-conspirator and parents). But, having that tool out there sure will leave casual users vulnerable. Hope you don’t have any bachelor party pics on there....
Imagine the uproar on FR if this was the govt. demanding that, since the terrorists drove a SUV in a car chase, that Ford must provide the FBI with the means to remotely disable all cars it makes. Or demanding Remington to engineer a remote method to disable guns because, after the fact, some terrorist was found to have used a Remington product.
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.