Apple Is Served A Search Warrant To Unlock Texas Church Gunman's iPhone (nydailynews.com) 450
An anonymous reader quotes the New York Daily News:
Authorities in Texas served Apple with a search warrant in order to gain access to the Sutherland Springs church shooter's cellphone files. Texas Ranger Kevin Wright obtained the warrant last week, according to San Antonio Express-News.
Investigators are hoping to gain access to gunman Devin Patrick Kelley's digital photos, messages, calls, videos, social media passwords, address book and data since January 2016. Authorities also want to know what files Kelley stored in his iCloud account.
Fast Company writes that "it's very likely that Apple will give the Rangers the same answer it gave the FBI in 2016 (in effect, hell no!)... That may be why, in the Texas case, the FBI and the Rangers didn't even bother calling Apple, but rather went straight to court."
Investigators are hoping to gain access to gunman Devin Patrick Kelley's digital photos, messages, calls, videos, social media passwords, address book and data since January 2016. Authorities also want to know what files Kelley stored in his iCloud account.
Fast Company writes that "it's very likely that Apple will give the Rangers the same answer it gave the FBI in 2016 (in effect, hell no!)... That may be why, in the Texas case, the FBI and the Rangers didn't even bother calling Apple, but rather went straight to court."
San Bernadino all over again (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:San Bernadino all over again (Score:4, Insightful)
They refused Apple's voluntary help just so they could have a nice court order to set future precedent.
Exactly, precisely, THIS. It's a war of attrition versus the tech industry; all it'll take is ONCE for Apple to give in, or be forced legally, for any reason, and it'll be Game Over for encryption (except for The Rich and The Powerful, and the cops, of course; they can have all the non-compromised encryption they like, but use peasants/plebs/proles/poor pond scum only get shitty, useless 'backdoored' ersatz encryption, and FUCK US if we don't like it. Well I say FUCK THEM, it's all or nothing: either proper encryption for ALL, or NO encryption for ANYONE.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect the military has all the information we need and perhaps is hiding it, the same way they hid his conviction. I don't think the phone is going to lead to anything more, at least not anything the feds will think is actionable.
Can someone explain (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If Apple can update the firmware to prevent bricking the phone then they can update the phone to match any pin.
That's not how it works. The iPhone doesn't check that you entered the correct pin. What it does is calculating a decryption key for one key stored in the CPU (which cannot be extracted by any means), one key stored in the flash drive (freely readable), and the pin. Someone needs to enter the correct pin. Without that, the iPhone is totally incapable of reading most data on the phone.
(There is some data that is encrypted _without_ the pin code. That makes it possible for example to use the calculator, ta
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
is that.... is that a joke about cracked screens?
I can't tell trolling from sarcasm anymore.
Re:San Bernadino all over again (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Proprietary SW prohibits believing proprietors. (Score:2)
Apple's claim to not be able to do much is suspect because the software involved is proprietary (nonfree, user-subjugating). We don't know what proprietary software is capable of doing becaus
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
From my layman's understanding, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in two separate decisions that law enforcement has NO obligation to protect the general public. Change that, and maybe repeal would be sensible. As of now, in many areas, guns is the only effective protection many have.
On an aside, it's odd how the Las Vegas shooting, which involved far more death and injury, has been totally buried. Was it a black flag operation gone wrong? Or was the motive gambling debt? It would make sense they'd want to p
Re:San Bernadino all over again (Score:5, Insightful)
one can't trust the government for personal protection. Until that changes, guns is essentially the only effective protection many have.
I'm not fond of the prospect of walking around all the time packing heat, and having to defend myself with deadly force on a split-second's notice. If you live your life in such peril, then there's much worse going on than the inability of government to protect you.
There are plenty of civilized countries with far lower gun violence than the USA, where people don't feel the need to walk around armed.
As for the Las Vegas shooter, he had scoped, high-powered rifles, bump-stocks, and a 32nd-floor vantage point. Could the crowd have retaliated effectively with hand-held pistols? Not likely.
Re: (Score:2)
As for the Las Vegas shooter, he had scoped, high-powered rifles, bump-stocks, and a 32nd-floor vantage point. Could the crowd have retaliated effectively with hand-held pistols? Not likely.
Of course, the dumb ones would have tried.
To paraphrase, "The bullets go up, who cares where they come down?"
Re: San Bernadino all over again (Score:3, Informative)
Well, it wasn't the cops who stopped the Texas church shooter, it was a neighbor with an assault weapon.
Re: San Bernadino all over again (Score:3)
Yeah. You know, for when you need to kill 15 geese per minute.
Re: San Bernadino all over again (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah. You know, for when you need to kill 15 geese per minute.
Or one motherfucker wearing body armor that wants to kill a church full of children and unarmed worshipers.
It's a good thing that the guy across the street had one of those "goose shooters" or things could have been worse. This baby killer reportedly had more guns and ammo in his truck, this was likely just his first stop that day if someone had not stopped him.
No doubt the gun banners will be adding the death of this piece of garbage in human skin to the tally of "gun deaths" to justify their bans. They'll probably also call his death a suicide*, because good people can't ever use a gun to good ends. Especially one of those "assault weapons".
*(There is doubt as to who made the kill shot, the pursuing citizens or if it was a suicide. Regardless the armed law abiding citizen stopped this garbage from doing further harm and by calling this a suicide the gun grabbers can count against the justifiable homicide tally and add to the suicide tally. If it's a suicide they can at least try to claim it's just poor soul that had a bad day. I guess he did have a bad day, it just wasn't some poor soul.)
Re: (Score:3)
ANY gun could have been used in that tragedy
No, a single-shot gun could not have been used.
Having to break open a rifle to remove the old and insert a new cartridge would still make a weapon useful for skilful hunting, sports, and as a deterrent. But it would do a lot to reduce mass shootings to mere shootings.
Re: (Score:3)
The US has far more freedom than Europe,
That's highly debatable. The US has no concept of privacy in public, very little consumer and employee protection giving freedom from corporate exploitation, no rights of way, no inalienable right to vote, and lots of other freedoms that Europeans take for granted.
and if you remove a 15% violent, lawless minority that commits 50% of all murders in the US, we have the same or better murder rate than Europe.
And if you remove the murderers from the statistic, there are almost no murders! Fancy that. Manipulating statistics is not a service.
Fallacy 1: The only harm that a person can experience is murder. This is clearly false.
Don't move the goal posts. The claim was "save your life or the life of a loved one". That implies death. I
Re: (Score:3)
Guess what, sweetheart? I like living in a country where the police are there to help me, and where the chance of "shit going down" is really low compared to your life.
Also, have you any idea just how stupid you sound when you respond to my post by saying I'm not worth a response? Of course you don't! Because you are really really stupid. But we already knew that, didn't we? (The rest of us, I mean. Obviously, you have no chance of having insight into your own mental faculties)
Re: San Bernadino all over again (Score:3)
Re:San Bernadino all over again (Score:4, Insightful)
Sigh. Correlation is not causation.
This observation is probably due to the fact that criminals (drug dealers, robbers etc) are more likely to end up shot or dead, and since they are likely to be carrying guns, wind up in the "people carrying guns" column who wind up dead by firearm.
So it is not the act of carrying a gun that makes them more likely to be killed, but the fact that they are carrying out crimes (while carrying guns) that makes them more likely to be killed.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
2013 CDC National Vital Statistics shows 33,636 firearm related deaths. Looking up the US population for 2013 on Google shows 316.2M people. That's about 1 in every 9,400 Americans killed by firearms that year for ALL reasons (suicide, accident, gang violence, mass shooter, etc.)
63% of those firearm deaths were suicides. Let's face it, there's lots of ways for someone to commit suicide if they're so inclined. And many of those methods are far more accessible than using a firearm (e.g., overdose on meds)
Re:San Bernadino all over again (Score:5, Insightful)
63% of those firearm deaths were suicides. Let's face it, there's lots of ways for someone to commit suicide if they're so inclined.
There are many ways, though most of them are prone to failure. Suicide attempts seem to be fairly similar between the US and other first world countries; successful suicide attempts are rather higher in the US.
For the same year, the stats for death by other causes are:
1 in 6,513 persons died by poisoning
1 in 9,354 persons died by motor vehicle fatality
1 in 10,122 persons died by a fall
1 in 6,804 persons died by drug-induced cause
Your odds of death by firearm in the USA are slim to none (0.0039%) when you exclude suicide as a cause. Your odds are a lot higher of death by poisoning, car accident, a fall, or drugs.
Most effective poisons are illegal and restricted. The remaining ones (like the crap beneath your sink) are more likely to make you vomit and give you time to get to the hospital.
We have a huge driver licensing and testing program, and a huge vehicle registration and inspection program, to keep these numbers as low as they are. Plus tons of laws about safety equipment for street-legal vehicles.
We require fall protection pretty much everywhere, plus lots of property inspection.
And drugs are also illegal and the subject of huge enforcement (which we do terribly, but whatever).
So it sounds to me like you'd like the same level of licensing and proactive enforcement for firearms as we have for poisons, cars, property safety, and drugs. Which I agree with. Sadly, right now we have none of that and the numbers reflect this problem.
Re: (Score:2)
So it sounds to me like you'd like the same level of licensing and proactive enforcement for firearms as we have for poisons, cars, property safety, and drugs.
I agree, we should have the same proactive enforcement on all those things as on guns, which is none at all. Or rather none done by the government.
I'd personally stop short of having guns sold in vending machines, like cigarettes were at one time. Let's not do background checks. Check that the buyer of the gun is an adult, like we do with cigarettes now or going to an R-rated movie, if there is doubt then ask to see an ID. If there is an adult that we cannot trust with a gun then that person needs confi
Re:San Bernadino all over again (Score:5, Insightful)
Would you rather they were tossed from a window?
As soon as you show me the example where someone defenestrates 25 people in a church, or 52 people at an outdoor concert, we can talk about window violence.
Guns are singled out because a) their entire purpose for existing is to do harm and b) they're designed to do as much harm as possible, as quickly as possible.
build their own cars
Even if you build your own car, you're expected, if not legally obligated, to have a drivers license (and in many states insurance as well) in order to drive it on public roads. Not because anyone gives a shit what you do to yourself, but because of the potential harm you can enact on someone else.
we expect to have a ban on making their own weapons to be effective?
Yes, but of course you're intentionally using a very black-and-white definition of "effective" where you mean 100% reduction in guns. In the real world, most of us would be happy to see even an 70-80% reduction in guns. And by that looser definition, a well-written and well-enforced ban could well be effective. Of course few people are calling for an outright ban anyway, so your argument is already bogus right from the start.
We can make it illegal to make a gun but people will just figure out how to do it on their own
Sure, just like the liquor industry failed 6 millennia ago because people can just make their own wine and beer. Yes the people who really want to skirt the law can always find a way. But I'd much rather have one crazy person with the time, desire and skill to make their own gun of questionable quality than having a 100 people just go out and buy a professionally engineered, produced and QA-tested gun off the shelf at their local Walmart and a dozen of them being crazy.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
We will know we have a gun problem when weapons start walking around all by themselves and firing at people. Until then, we have a crazy shooter problem.
Re: (Score:3)
You would do if they were not allowed to walk around in public with gun.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You need to turn off your TV. Gun violence is trending down, as the media continues to hype up and emphasize the few cases that are left. If you think that shooting is getting worse, you've fallen for the media's lies.
Example:
We've had a massive decline in gun violance
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Example 2:
FBI: US Homicide Rate at 51-Year Low
https://mises.org/blog/fbi-us-... [mises.org]
To further blow your mind - if you look at the stats, there's a strong correlation between increased numbers of guns and decreased
Re:San Bernadino all over again (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, you have to admit, nobody really bothered defending the important ones that protect your freedom and privacy, but the one that can actually backfire gets defended like it's the only important one.
That is kinda odd, don't you think?
Re: (Score:3)
Well, you have to admit, nobody really bothered defending the important ones that protect your freedom and privacy, but the one that can actually backfire gets defended like it's the only important one.
That is kinda odd, don't you think?
It would be odd if it were true, but it isn't, . . . at least for the United States. In fact it is a load of utter rubbish. Or are you really going to try to claim that you've never heard of civil liberties organizations like the ACLU, EFF, Alliance Defending Freedom, The FIRE, .... Or are you referring to something else?
Europe and Canada certainly seems to believe free speech can backfire, hence there are many restrictions. Was that what you were referring to?
Or was there some other set of "rights" or
Re:San Bernadino all over again (Score:4, Informative)
Or was there some other set of "rights" or policies you think are backfiring? Take for instance: Yes, Violent Crime Has Spiked In Sweden Since Open Immigration [thefederalist.com] Germany: Migrant Crime Spiked in 2016 [gatestoneinstitute.org]
Well, whatever you are babbling about seems popular. Its a load of bull, but popular bull, apparently.
It's always a bit sad if people believe their own propaganda. There are many reasons why the rate of reported rapes in Sweden is high. But as far as we can tell, an unusually high incident of rape as defined in other countries is not among them. Sweden has a much more expansive definition of rape, a different definition of what count as a single incident of rape, a very comprehensive collection and reporting system, and a very low cultural bar to reporting rape.
I'd also be very sceptical of everything the Gatestone Institute reports - quite apart from their political bias, it should be a warning that they run advertisments that promise beautiful Russian women who just want to take your out, and presumable sell you thousand's of iPhone 8s for only US$1 per piece....
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'd also be very sceptical of everything the Gatestone Institute reports - quite apart from their political bias, it should be a warning that they run advertisments that promise beautiful Russian women who just want to take your out, and presumable sell you thousand's of iPhone 8s for only US$1 per piece....
If you're seeing "advertisments that promise beautiful Russian women ..." at the Gatestone Institute, which I doubt, it is probably due to the profile the advertising services have for you, not what the Gatestone Institute selects and presents. You fancy Russian women much?
And really, it isn't a question of you disliking "bias", but their viewpoint. They are discussing questions of fact and what they mean.
It's always a bit sad if people believe their own propaganda.
I often enjoy the ironic.
There are many reasons why the rate of reported rapes in Sweden is high. But as far as we can tell, an unusually high incident of rape as defined in other countries is not among them. Sweden has a much more expansive definition of rape, a different definition of what count as a single incident of rape, a very comprehensive collection and reporting system, and a very low cultural bar to reporting rape.
The problem with your claim that there are significant increases purely in a
Re: (Score:3)
Or was there some other set of "rights" or policies you think are backfiring? Take for instance: Yes, Violent Crime Has Spiked In Sweden Since Open Immigration [thefederalist.com] Germany: Migrant Crime Spiked in 2016 [gatestoneinstitute.org]
Well, whatever you are babbling about seems popular. Its a load of bull, but popular bull, apparently.
It's always a bit sad if people believe their own propaganda. There are many reasons why the rate of reported rapes in Sweden is high. But as far as we can tell, an unusually high incident of rape as defined in other countries is not among them. Sweden has a much more expansive definition of rape, a different definition of what count as a single incident of rape, a very comprehensive collection and reporting system, and a very low cultural bar to reporting rape.
I'd also be very sceptical of everything the Gatestone Institute reports - quite apart from their political bias, it should be a warning that they run advertisments that promise beautiful Russian women who just want to take your out, and presumable sell you thousand's of iPhone 8s for only US$1 per piece....
This.
Some people go to any length to prove their bigotry has a basis in reality.
Crime has seen an uptick in Europe of late, but is this due to immigrants or the more rational explanation that economic conditions have worsened over the last year. You'll notice that the a worse uptick in crime is occurring in the UK whilst the immigrants are leaving (which might have something to do with the UK's economic conditions worsening faster than Europes).
Nah, must be the immagrunts, right? Not like crime and
Re: (Score:3)
You think your army won't shoot at you? You do remember that your government not only has the biggest army but also a propaganda apparatus that would make Goebbels go green with envy. You think that you wouldn't be branded terrorists first to convince them that it's absolutely right and perfectly fine to round you up?
Do you think the Russians that mowed down the liberation attempts in the East Bloc during the time of the iron curtain were told that the nations tried to break free from Russian oppression? Th
Re: San Bernadino all over again (Score:4, Insightful)
If the army is on your side, you don't need your own guns. If the army is against you, no amount of guns will help you. So what purpose do the guns serve other than mass shootings and kids killing family members?
Re: San Bernadino all over again (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know about that, but he sure has no idea how to end a post.
Re: (Score:2)
The NSA, FBI and CIA have made the news more than enough times for me to already be thinking that. Your bullshit has cost one of your web hosting company a few dozen accounts already.
Re:the judge can lock you up with contempt of cour (Score:4, Informative)
For it to be contempt of court, you'd have to appear in court. Apple execs have nothing to do with the case, so their lawyers would tell them not to show.
Why not just ask all his school mates (Score:2, Insightful)
Why do we have to do the digital thing. What happened to asking all the people who knew him when is was in grade school, junior high, and god forbide, when he was in the AirForce, and they even thought he was crazy.
You do not need his phone data.
Sure. We'll give it a try (Score:2)
PIN: 0000 ... Nope.
... Nope.
... Nope.
... Nope.
... Nope.
... Nope. Now phone is hopelessly locked. Well, we tried.
PIN: 0001
PIN: 0002
PIN: 0003
PIN: 0004
PIN: 0005
Re:Sure. We'll give it a try (Score:5, Insightful)
PIN: 0000 ... Nope. ... Nope. ... Nope. ... Nope. ... Nope. ... Nope. Now phone is hopelessly locked. Well, we tried.
PIN: 0001
PIN: 0002
PIN: 0003
PIN: 0004
PIN: 0005
[... restore memory contents from backup made before brute-force attempts began....] ... Nope. ... Nope. ... Nope. ...] ... Success!
PIN 0006
PIN 0007
PIN 0008
[... restore from backups as needed
PIN 1234
Re: (Score:3)
iOS passcodes can be six digits now, not only four. It will take you longer than you think.
Re: (Score:2)
iOS passcodes can be six digits now, not only four. It will take you longer than you think.
Not if you clone and parallelize the process. But you have a point. My Android phone allows even longer backup passwords. And I use my fingerprint, not a passcode.
Nevertheless, a phone used by human is likely to be crackable using the resources available to police. Humans don't type RSA keys into their phones to unlock them. At best they use moderately short passwords that could be determined in a reasonable time with brute force.
Re:Sure. We'll give it a try (Score:5, Insightful)
And I use my fingerprint, not a passcode
If you're worried about law enforcement then that's a bad idea since (at least in the US) there's no question about whether you can be compelled to open a biometric lock such as a fingerprint scanner.
Passwords on the other hand are still hinging on the 5th amendment protections about incriminating yourself. I'm not sure how that one will play out. On one hand, what's the difference between a password and a fingerprint in terms of just unlocking your phone? They both do the same job so why wouldn't they fall under the same rules? But the other side is that there's no way for law enforcement to make you tell them your password (in the physical sense rather than the legal) which leads to the potential for forceful coercion or torture and other such tactics that the 5th was written to try and protect you from.
We probably won't see a conclusion to that argument until such time as we have a live suspect who owns a phone that literally can't be unlocked at all, even with the full assistance of the manufacturer (which could happen regardless of what Apple does if the suspect has written their own encryption scheme, or uses a third party system from another country that isn't bound by US law even a US-based company that simply gave themselves no possibility of a back door at all, or so forth.)
We might have already seen it if Apple hadn't left themselves the ability to force a firmware flash on a locked phone like they did, allowing for at least a potential back door even if its not a simple one.
2017 called... (Score:2)
My iphone uses an actual alphanumerical password. Apple requires a minimum of 6 digits, but doesn't restrict to that.
Re: (Score:3)
This only works on really old iPhones. The count is kept in the Secure Enclave since the iPhone 6 I believe.
Maybe I Am Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
He'd probably fail to see the threat.
my cousin vinny judge! (Score:2)
my cousin Vinny judge!
I hope this gets tossed out (Score:5, Insightful)
This move is pretty bold-faced dishonest and cynical in its attempt to sway public opinion to gain law enforcement more powers. There is nothing on the phone the rangers need. They know who did the shooting, they know what happened, unlocking the phone doesn't do anything for this case.
What this situation does do is give law enforcement the chance to set precedent that Apple needs to unlock phones for the government, or find themselves on the side of terrorism in the court of public opinion.
This is not about solving a case, this is about taking away privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Then he was careful enough to not be seen by any of the witnesses, was careful enough to use only the guns that the killer had, left no fingerprint on said guns, but he was stupid enough to leave a digital fingerprint?
Yeah. Right. If you want to eliminate our rights, at least come up with something that can't be debunked by some random idiot on the net within 5 minutes.
Losing Argument. (Score:2)
They will take it to the Supreme Court to get a ruling that "Cell Phone sellers have to hand over all information after a legal search order."
Apple has no game winning move to make here.
Re:Losing Argument. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's all the information. I'm pretty sure some of your three letter agency buddies can crack the encryption within a millennium or two.
Re: (Score:3)
They already have all the information -- its on that phone they're trying to unlock. There are two questions here:
1) Can Apple be legally obligated to unlock phones at the behest of the FBI? If so, what sort of precedent does that set? Will we start seeing mass fishing expeditions and having your phone unlocked any time you're caught jaywalking? How much burden are they going to be allowed to place on Apple just in terms of the amount of time it takes to process and respond to all these unlock requests?
Re:Losing Argument. (Score:4, Insightful)
They could stop selling phones to terrorists.
The shooter was a mentally unstable Texas gun nut. So, you know, a Patriot.
responding to search warrant (Score:3)
F the government. (Score:2)
What's the point? (Score:5, Funny)
But without the phone evidence how will they know who the murderer is?
What, they already know who the murderer is?
Ah, so they need the phone evidence to get a conviction!
Oh, the murderer is dead?
Well then, what do they need the phone evidence for?
What, indeed!
Perhaps they want to psychoanalyze the killer based on his social media profile.
Maybe they want to discover if he was part of a mass-murder club.
Have these law enforcement people nothing better to do?
How many paychecks are going into this project?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"How many paychecks are going into this project?"
All of them, of course.
Re:What's the point? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Because they went through the trouble of getting a search warrant, duh.
(For the sarcasm impaired, I understand this can all be a legal construct to add another high profile case to the "evidence" against encryption.)
Re: (Score:2)
doesn't sound like it (Score:4, Interesting)
When China says "Jump!" (Score:2)
Apple doesn't ask how high.
You're doing it wrong (Score:2)
Investigators want to forensically search the phones for evidence of capital murder.
If they are looking at the phone for evidence of murder then they are looking in the wrong place. Look in the church, the churchyard, the truck, and the street.
Is there any doubt on who did it? Do they suspect an accomplice? Do they expect him to strike again? I'm pretty sure that there were plenty of witnesses that can say who did it, that there were no others, and the one and only suspect is dead. They have the evidence they need. I understand the desire to do a complete investigation, and the need
Apple likes this ... (Score:3)
... because it sells Apple stuff.
Consumers want secure devices and Apple knows damn well that if they provide access, buyers will move on to the company that says they won't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Signal, of course.
this time trump can rip them a new one or make it (Score:2)
this time trump can rip them a new one or make it an big court case and even offer the idea on an fbi only limited no auto wipe and no password time out ios build and force apple in court to say why that is an bad idea.
Clever move for the Government (Score:2)
As I see it, the move will open the door for government access to encrypted cell phones.
If Apple refuses their warrant. they (corporately) can be charged with obstruction (or whatever else they want to throw at them).
Next step, if Apple refuses to comply: the government attacks Apples' market share by declaring the devices a "Threat to National Security".
This has a two-fold effect: First, it makes it illegal for Apple to do business in the US, and Second, it make it illegal for the common person to have suc
Why? (Score:2)
Does the FBI somehow think that they'll discover the true identity of the killer? Or discover that he was aided in his crime by foreign powers such as ISIS or the Russians?
Re: (Score:2)
They think the phone might hold the true meaning of covfefe.
So... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They could start by enforcing the laws that already exist, and by sharing relevant information of public record that would have been relevant.
It isn't "hell no" (Score:2)
> "it's very likely that Apple will give the Rangers the same answer it gave the FBI in 2016 (in effect, hell no!)..."
That is not the "in effect", the correct "in effect" is "we can't." There is a HUGE difference between "no" and "can't." One is being defiant. The other is stating a limitation.
If they have no backdoors or broken encryption or copies of the stuff, then it is not a matter of "won't give" but "can't give." It is exactly the same type of answer I would have to give if I were given a warr
ownership (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What if they cannot? As SHOULD be the case.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"We DEMAND that you break the laws of statistics and mathematics and decrypt these files immediately without the key!"
The judge ought to get a good laugh out of it at least. You just can't expect to use a court order to force someone to violate the laws of nature.
(you also can't use a court order to demand that a private citizen go out of their way to DO something for you - you can order them to STOP doing something, but not to assist you with your investigation - sorry officer but you can't make me do yo
Re:If there is a warrant (Score:5, Insightful)
You expect the judge to actually understand cryptography?
I admire your faith in due process. I'd fully expect him to slam Apple for contempt because of it.
Re:If there is a warrant (Score:5, Informative)
It may not be possible to decrypt the files, even for Apple
True enough. The /. headline is light on the details, but the story says the demanded three things: Contents of the iPhone, contents of an iCloud account if it exists, and extracted contents from a third LG phone.
They can hand over the contents of the iCloud account if they can match it up. It might be interesting to see what they do with the phone, and it depends quite a lot on the wording of the warrant. They may reply with "the phone is encrypted, but here is the encrypted storage contents". For the LG phone, they would likely reply that it is not their device and they have no corporate knowledge or corporate tools to handle it.
By the way, doesn't a search warrant only allow them to perform a search?
There are several legal tools, but typically there are subpoenas, warrants, and court orders. Police and other government agents prefer warrants as they are more difficult to legally fight, are often given in surprise or delivered aggressively, and give government lawyers and police the biggest net. Court orders take more time, and often require back-and-forth discussions with lawyers from both sides and with the judge.
Subpoenas are easier to obtain but also easier to fight. A subpoena allows for the business to sort through the records and decide what is inside or outside the scope. A warrant tends to use terms that are more vague, tend to not specify the exact issue under investigation, and allow for the government agency to dig through it (rather than the business) to determine if the information is relevant.
Warrants are also typically delivered in surprising ways ostensibly to prevent destruction of evidence and reduce risks to the police involved. For businesses this usually means isolating people and making legal demands while they are alone and in shock, hoping they forget that they need to call a lawyer and have the right to not say anything, warrants are for searching and not for interrogation. For individuals or residences, that typically means smashing down people's doors when they know residents aren't home, or showing up at 3:00 AM with guns, tear gas, and assault gear. There are naturally good and bad ones. One has a few professionally dressed officers that politely knock at the door and say "Good evening Mr Smith, I have a warrant to search the premises, please step outside", and which one throws in a flash-bang device and shouts "This is the police! Get on the ground now! Put your hands on your head! We have a warrant!! Shut that baby up NOW or I'll arrest both you and the child for interfering with an investigation!"
Re: (Score:2)
Ummmm.... no. Are they going to put the company âoeAppleâ in jail
What the fuck is âoeAppleâ
Re: Probably wonâ(TM)t help (Score:5, Funny)
Luckily all it takes to encrypt an unbreakable message on Slashdot is to use a Unicode apostrophe or quotation mark.
Because they were too slow. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they can, then who else? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps they don't care.
Perhaps the real mission is subjugating the population, not anything related to strengthening the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Why bother? That guy had prior arrests, his prints are on file, create a fake fingerprint and unlock the damn thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Which begs the question, why didn't the FBI bother to do this within the 48 hour window? And if the phone is restarted (or the battery dies) then the passcode is required immediately.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He _DID_ get (unwitting) assistance - from the Air Farce, which couldn't be bothered to record his domestic violence convictions and his BCD to the NICS.