San Bernardino Police: Reasonably Good Chance Nothing Of Value On Shooter's iPhone (businessinsider.com) 110
San Bernardino police chief, Jarrod Burguan, who was part of the investigation into the two shooters who killed 14 during a mass shooting event last December, says there probably isn't any useful information on Syed Farook's government-issued phone. "I'll be honest with you, I think there is a reasonably good chance that there is nothing of any value on the phone," Burguan said. Burguan is siding with the FBI, though, which is seeking to compel Apple to build custom software to allow law enforcement to extract data from Farook's phone. "This is an effort to leave no stone unturned in the investigation," Burguan told NPR. "To allow this phone to sit there, and not make an effort to get the information or the data that may be inside of that phone is simply not fair to the victims or the families."
More than likely (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
They already know there is nothing on it but funny cat videos [...]
FTFY
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Every serious villain has a cat.
Re: (Score:2)
They already know there is nothing on it but selfies but they want to get people used to the idea of 'Feds' extracting data from people's iPhones, or else just give would-be terr'ists the idea that their data is secure, when Apple has in fact implemented a backdoor years ago
Over at the Security section of Stack Exchange, the idea of anything of value being on the device is almost taboo, and deemed a political issue, not a security issue:
http://security.stackexchange.... [stackexchange.com]
Re: More than likely (Score:1)
You mean that terrorists don't actually keep their jihad plans on company issued iPhones? That is a shocker.
Re: More than likely (Score:5, Funny)
I keep my terrorist plans on Google+. That way no one will find them.
Re: More than likely (Score:3)
Of course all on the one piece of technology they didnt smash and destroy.
Re: (Score:1)
20 years ago, I'd have called you an idiot.
I'm not sure how to feel about that.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
One of the world's largest companies should have to inconvenience itself a little because there is a serious crime that needs investigation? Sounds like the judge in the Kesha case.
Don't get me wrong, I think Apple is in the right here, but that's a silly argument.
When someone thinks about this issue with any clarity, all of the claptrap about us having to give up our freedoms for security is only the issue on the face of it.
We have a faction of government that wants to turn America and the world into a 1984 esque police state and influence the technology to where government and corporations have all the power and the individuals have none. (basically they want the world to go back to 1965, socially and business wise.)
No matter what terrorist attack happens, it is no
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Really do think for yourself and quit believing all the propaganda
This from a guy who thinks that the government is some sort of monstrous hydra, with every single part of it secretly conspiring together against him because reasons. Sounds like you've swallowed more than a little anti-government propaganda yourself.
Re:Fairness (Score:4, Interesting)
As I mentioned above. For some unknown reason, this is all backwards. I've been listening to Fox News Radio during this - I've been listening off-and-on for a little over two weeks now. At least it feels like that long... And no, it's well known where my politics are - I'm a pretty staunch Sanders supporter.
The folks who call in, talk to the DJ, and the DJs themselves are, by a wide margin, in favor of Apple...
I did not type that wrong. The vast, vast majority of folks on Fox News Radio are against the FBI and their court order and are in favor of Apple fighting the government on this. No, I do not know why. Yes, the rest of what they're saying is largely crazy. However, for whatever reason, they are in favor of Apple and by a pretty large percentage. I've not written it down or anything but I have been keeping mental track. I'm as baffled as you are.
NPR, on the other hand, is the exact opposite. The people they have commenting in interviews, the people they have commenting, the hosts, and the callers are largely in favor of the FBI. It's starting to equal out as of yesterday and I didn't listen earlier today. So, NPR may have changed their tune since Friday morning but they were getting more people in Apple's favor come the morning show that comes on after BBC goes off and they start playing more local content.
It's like Opposite Day or something. I really have no idea what prompted the Fox News folks to make a rational choice or, at the very least, to clearly articulate a choice that I agree with.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it wouldn't be the first time the conservatives have stood on the side of a corporation to be free of government regulation and control.
Re: (Score:2)
There is that. I've not looked at it like that. Now that I think of it, a small number did say something akin to, "They shouldn't force the company to ..." However, the majority seemed inclined to postulate that it was a security and privacy overreach that could be used in more than one case. Of course, I think some of these people were also the ones who supported the TSA, DHS, and NSA's snorting up data like McAfee and an eight-ball of coke.
Re: (Score:2)
NPR usually strikes a more balanced view. While you and I have (the same) well thought out opinion, not everyone has made up their mind and it's only fair to give both sides of the issue. It gives people experience in sniffing out the crap and hearing what is not said.
Fox just wants to feed you stuff, it's the political equivalent of watching QVC.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, absolutely. It's propaganda and control. It's like the politics scene in general. I'll use Hillary as an example...
Hillary doesn't have to appeal to the typical Democrat. They're going to vote for her regardless. She has to sway those who might otherwise vote differently. This means, sometimes, appealing to some of the lunatic fringe in rhetoric if not also in deed. So, you get what we have here. This is much the same.
The interesting thing is, as near as I can tell, the callers aren't (well) vetted. One
Re: (Score:2)
Opposite day? More like every day....it's not referred to as National Pentagon Radio for nothing, or Nice Polite Republicans, if you prefer.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple is 100% right to tell the FBI or any other 3 letter agency wanting them to install back doors...
Note that Michael Hayden, former chief of NSA and CIA, is absolutely _for_ secure encryption. Secure encryption protects terrorists, but it also protects average citizens, and it protects government agencies. In Michael Hayden's calculation, the overall effect of secure encryption gives it a 70:30 advantage to the alternative, no encryption. The FBI obviously has a different view; they want to solve crimes, not prevent crimes.
Re: (Score:3)
In this case, the criminals are dead. This is not about solving crimes.
Re: (Score:2)
Due to some prompting here on this very site, I've been forcing myself to listen to some Fox News Radio. I still listen to NPR and I still listen to NRP more than I listen to anything else. Make sure to keep up with that.
I'm pretty damned left. I'm like left of Sanders. Yeah... I am *LEFT* of Sanders. I'm left of him quite a bit. He'd be as left as I am but he's gotta get elected. Also, I'm on the left for very different reasons than most.
I tell you that so that you can understand that I'm being objective,
Re: (Score:2)
One of the world's largest companies should have to inconvenience itself a little because there is a serious crime that needs investigation? Sounds like the judge in the Kesha case.
Don't get me wrong, I think Apple is in the right here, but that's a silly argument.
I used to agree with Apple until the bit of information about this being a government issued phone, not the personal phone of the shooter. As such, there is no privacy issue as anything on it is public information. If the shooter misused his government issued phone for personal business, well, that was his mistake and doesn't change the fact that the contents are subject to open records laws.
Re: (Score:2)
I used to agree with Apple until the bit of information about this being a government issued phone, not the personal phone of the shooter. As such, there is no privacy issue as anything on it is public information. If the shooter misused his government issued phone for personal business, well, that was his mistake and doesn't change the fact that the contents are subject to open records laws.
There never was a privacy issue. The FBI does have a search warrant. They have the _right_ to gather any evidence they can gather. They don't need permission of the owner of the phone. Apple has handed all information that they had in their possession and did their best to help the FBI getting more information (which didn't work because someone at the FBI messed up).
The one issue is that the same hack that opens up this criminal's phone to the FBI can open _your_ phone to hackers and criminals, can open
Re: (Score:2)
Slight point of order... The FBI doesn't have a warrant. They don't *need* a warrant. The lawful owner of the device has given them the rights to do anything they want with the phone.
However... That still doesn't obligate Apple to do a damned thing. Apple has not been hit with a warrant. They've been hit with a writ, court order, and are challenging that order. The laws, specifically the Fourth Amendment, still carry weight but probably not as much weight - they are not Apple's papers, possessions, etc... T
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, yes they'd be taking that pill but they'd be hiding it in chambers. So, it's there as an option. If anything - if it went that way, I'd expect the government to use that as an excuse to stand down and not lose face.
As for the second, that *is* my point. What authority does the judge have to issue these orders? If there's nobody charged then how, exactly, does a judge get to make these orders? Under what authority does the judge issue this writ? There's no case - so how do they get the authority to issu
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you think that Syed Farook used his work-issued phone when coordinating this terrorist attack - when Farook went to special pains to destroy his PERSONAL iPhone, but didn't bother with his work iPhone?
I'm very much on Apple's side on this. There's no evidence at all that Farook used his work-issued phone for criminal purposes. If the San Bernardino Department of Health (the owners of the phone) had bothered to configure the mobile device management features, they would be able to take control o
Re: (Score:2)
I am not saying that he used his government issued phone for planning any of this. However, it is his government issued phone that is locked and Apple is claiming it violates personal privacy if they unlock it.
My point was that on a government issued phone to a government employee, there is not personal privacy, whether phone, messages, email, etc. That has been decided by the courts long ago. If Apple doesn't want to unlock it fine, defy the court order. But don't claim it is for personal liberties of it
Re: (Score:1)
...now the FBI wants to get a do-over at Apple's expense.
Point of clarification: at the expense of Apple, every technology company who might have a security defect of some kind, and every citizen henceforth who believes that being "secure in their personal effects" includes "not having secret letters commanding a technology company to subvert one of those personal effects without being able to tell anyone about it." This case is not about the 4th Amendment, but you can bet your ass that the next case will be.
Re: (Score:2)
because there is a serious crime that needs investigation?
What crime? The crime is over. The perpetrator is dead. This is nothing but a fishing expedition - which is absolutely contrary to law. You are supposed to know what you're looking for before you ask a judge for a warrant. That's how police work is supposed to be. We're slipping back a few hundred years and saying "oh he's supposed to a bad person, let's keep going through his stuff until we find something that will incriminate him". If we slip any more backwards than that, then accusation should be enough
Re: (Score:3)
The criminals are already dead, killed in a shootout with police. This is a power grab, and has nothing to do with justice for anyone, least of all the victims' families.
Re: (Score:1)
I think the mods might have mis-read the post I'm replying to. By my reading, it's factiousness and intentional - and certainly as a parody.
Err... Unless the mods think that Apple should comply? If that's the case then, never mind... And if that's the case... Well, if that's the case I think that's tantamount to -1 Disagree.
Nothing of any value? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if there's no worthwhile information, the phone is still of immense value to those who want to take what's left of our privacy. You know, the same people who have us taking off our shoes in airports, in a security theatre exercise that would be farcical if it wasn't doing such a good job of making compliance with authoritarian demands a knee-jerk reflex among the citizenry.
Re:Nothing of any value? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep. Orwell's vision is becoming reality. Most electronic gadgets, if the FBI wins, will become telescreens!
It appears that Orwell, much like Murphy, was an unrequited optimist.
Re:Nothing of any value? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, this has nothing to do with the particular phone in question other than it's from an honest-to-Allah terrorist. It is a 100% lie-through-the-teeth publicity stunt by the FBI.
Nothing to see here, move along.
Re: (Score:1)
Well that and the ISIS sympathetic comments on the girls social media before she got a visa to enter the US and several sources after that which confirm it. But go ahead and focus on the not white aspects. It says more about you than any one else.
Re:Nothing of any value? (Score:4, Funny)
This is why I don't remove my shoes or jacket until they explicitly ask me to. I also always refuse the nudie cancer machine. They want to waste my time and take my dignity, so I waste their time and take their dignity as well
And the time of everybody else behind you in line. Thanks.
Re: (Score:1)
Sometimes that's just the deal you sign up with when you decide to travel by air.
You're welcome.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if there's no worthwhile information, the phone is still of immense value to those who want to take what's left of our privacy. You know, the same people who have us taking off our shoes in airports, in a security theatre exercise that would be farcical if it wasn't doing such a good job of making compliance with authoritarian demands a knee-jerk reflex among the citizenry.
According to the article, this is a government issued phone, issued by his employer. As such, there is no "privacy" issue as anything on the phone belongs to the government. If this was his personal phone, that might be a different situation. But, now, after hearing this, it sounds like the government is asking Apple to allow them into their own phone that may have data related to a crime that one of their employees committed. That is not a personal privacy issue.
Re: (Score:3)
So, let the FBI open the phone. They have every right to do that. What they DON'T have the right to do is to conscript Apple to write custom software specifically for this task. The software to do this DOES NOT EXIST. It would have to be written, tested (although the literal order of the court would prohibit any testing, because the software that Apple is ordered to create may ONLY work on the subject device and NO OTHER, precluding any testing on any other iPhone 5C), and the Feds expect Apple to do thi
Re: (Score:2)
So, let the FBI open the phone. They have every right to do that. What they DON'T have the right to do is to conscript Apple to write custom software specifically for this task. The software to do this DOES NOT EXIST. It would have to be written, tested (although the literal order of the court would prohibit any testing, because the software that Apple is ordered to create may ONLY work on the subject device and NO OTHER, precluding any testing on any other iPhone 5C), and the Feds expect Apple to do this work for free.
If I were Tim Cook, I'd say "We'd be happy to decrypt that phone for you. The Professional Services cost for this will be TEN BILLION DOLLARS, payable in advance. My programmers will begin work as soon as your check clears."
Those are two separate issues -- the unlocking of THIS phone versus EVERY phone. Apple won't even unlock this phone. Actually, they were not asked to, they were asked to remove the feature that automatically slows down retry attempts and then wipes the phone if still unsuccessful. According to the court records, Apple refused to do that so the FBI went to the courts for a remedy. That's how the system is supposed to work.
If Apple tried to charge an enormous fee like you suggest, it would probably result i
Re: (Score:3)
This IS a personal privacy issue. Not so muc
Why "not fair"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it "not fair"?
You know who did it.
You know why they did it.
You know that they are now dead.
Why would it be more "fair" to the families of the victims to destroy the security of everyone using an iPhone?
And yes, the tech would leak out. And be abused. Today "terrorists" and tomorrow everyone.
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe all phones will lead to other connections. Maybe we should have the government tap/access them too. It's nothing more than a fishing expedition.
Re: (Score:2)
And that helps the current victims' families how exactly?
Re: (Score:1)
No one claimed that it would help the families, but the families probably hope that by analyzing their particular tragedy we can prevent more such tragedies, and it would be unfair to them if the police didn't make that effort and their loved ones died completely in vain.
In St. Louis you get what a couple deaths every day or so from a shooting. Maybe spending some of the resources spent tracking down "terrorists" to find and eliminate the root causes of these deaths would be a more cost effective use of resources.
Re: (Score:2)
We can easily prevent more such tragedies by better vetting jihadi war brides from Pakistan. Which the government REFUSES to even consider.
Re: (Score:2)
Like how they linked Kevin Bacon to Al Qaeda?
Re: Why "not fair"? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me of the headline from The Onion: "Kevin Bacon linked to Al Qaeda".
Re: (Score:3)
Because maybe the phone will lead to other connections, people willing to do the same violent act...?
I don't know about you, but the only contacts I have on my phone are people I call. I'm highly confident that the carrier has already given the FBI the phone logs, so the address book on the phone would yield no new info.
Re: (Score:2)
Because maybe the phone will lead to other connections, people willing to do the same violent act...?
You mean his co-workers, who are also as unhappy about their co-workerst that they want to kill them?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As for your view that your phone is currently secure, well that is just naivety, the problem is that the cost involved in cracking it open safely is very high. It is not a question of if it is possible. The FBI just
Fox: Reasonably good chance of grapes being sour (Score:2)
Question. (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not an iPhone user so I thought I'd ask. Wouldn't Apple have to push out an update to this phone to implement what the FBI wants - unlimited password attempts w/o bricking the phone? If so, can this absolutely be done w/o the owner's consent? It seems that I can disable auto-updates on my Android phone and/or restrict updates to be over WiFi only - both of which would require manual intervention to initiate.
Re:Question. (Score:5, Interesting)
This could be done without the owner's consent, and shipped to everyone. Apple does not want to do that at all costs. And you could disable auto-updates, knowing that a device without updates is not secure. So you would be pwned either way, likely.
The FBI is willing to allow Apple to send an update to this specific phone, in an Apple lab, while Apple retains custody of the phone, as long as the data on the phone can be copied and given to the FBI.
In this case, the owner cannot consent and the phone is prosecutorial evidence, so the owner need not consent. And if a warrant were issued to compel Apple to send out an *existing* backdoor to gather evidence, Apple might have no choice but comply, with a probable gag order so the user is not notified.
Ergo, Apple wants to avoid creating this backdoor in the first place, so they can legit claim it doesn't exist for future requests.
The fun part of this is that the prosecution is willing to burn this bridge, and encourage Apple to redesign the security so this can't happen in the future. Capturing an Apple master signing key wouldn't be enough to make a backdoor this way, if Apple succeeds. Knowing in advance that the evidence would probably not help makes it head-scratching that they would go so far to basically declare in public what their capability is for reclaiming encrypted data.
Now everyone knows:
1) Disabling cloud sync means the data is on the device only
2) Apple currently won't make a backdoor
3) Feds don't have a backdoor
4) Future phones will likely not even be able to be backdoored
This is very much Snowden level releasing of national security secrets to enemies, only it's being done in public for no gain. Which makes it really fishy, unless some prosecutor really believed that this request would result in no change in technology nor blowback from the tech world. Which is the opposite claimed by everything about the Snowden files, so he can't claim ignorance. Given that the tech world moved to encryption because of Snowden's revelations as well as intrusions and data dumps, that's exceedingly bizarre.
Re:Question. (Score:5, Interesting)
The owner has consented. It's the property of a county in California, not the terrorist. The county has already given permission to search the phone.
The problem is some lazy ass person within the county IT department never bothered to load the MDM software, which they had paid for, on the phone. This software would have allowed the county to say, "You want to see what's on the phone? Give us ten seconds."
I used to manage iPhones for a government agency I worked for. On a few occasions I had to use MDM software to unlock someone's phone or even reset their password. This could have been over a long time ago had someone done their job.
Re: (Score:3)
A new version of iOS can be be uploaded to a phone when it's put into DFU mode without a passcode and without wiping out the data.
Have a read here for more info. [daringfireball.net]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not an iPhone user so I thought I'd ask. Wouldn't Apple have to push out an update to this phone to implement what the FBI wants - unlimited password attempts w/o bricking the phone? If so, can this absolutely be done w/o the owner's consent? It seems that I can disable auto-updates on my Android phone and/or restrict updates to be over WiFi only - both of which would require manual intervention to initiate.
The have the owners consent. San Bernardino County is the owner. The killer was an employee of San Bernardino County, and the phone is his works phone.
The question is: Can Apple, on Apple's premises, with the phone in their hands, with more knowledge of how an iPhone works than anyone else, possibly with tools that nobody outside Apple has, update the firmware of a phone that is locked with an unknown passcode? The answer is: Nobody really knows, and Apple tries very hard not to be forced to find out.
Re: (Score:3)
The Court's order is quite specific; the hack must only run on the target device and no others. That means that Apple is prohibited from testing the hack to see if it works. That also means that the court is, as usual, shooting off their mouths knowing virtually nothing about technology.
Stupid argument. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait a Fucking Minute (Score:1)
It was government issued and the government didn't know the password?
WTF
There is at least a text message (Score:2)
"Be sure to drink your Ovaltine"
So in other words, cracking this phone could be... (Score:3)
...as exciting as watching Geraldo Rivera opening Al Capone's vault!
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly! And since Farook took special pains to destroy his own PERSONAL iPhone, but did nothing to his WORK iPhone, I am confident that if the FBI ever does get into the phone, they'll find nothing in it except the San Bernardino Department of Health roster of phone numbers (some of which will be out of date) and records of calls that he had made to his clients and co-workers.
And perhaps some text messages like "Mrs. Jones wants to reschedule your 3 o'clock appointment for next week".
Re: (Score:2)
It was an iPhone 5C, running iOS9. Different license agreement.
Re: (Score:3)
Stop watching crime shows, it is bad for you...and they are not real.