FBI may have found way to unlock San Bernardino attacker's iPhone

[Bitter Clinger]

A federal judge canceled a hearing Tuesday in the legal battle to force Apple to break into an encrypted iPhone used by one of the San Bernadino attackers, after federal officials said in a court filing they may have found another way to access the device.

In a filing late Monday, federal prosecutors said "an outside party" has come forward and shown the FBI a possible method for unlocking the phone used by one of the shooters in the Dec. 2 terror attack...

The government has countered that Apple could create the software for one phone, retain it during the process to protect itself, then destroy it. Apple has said that creating software is a form of speech and being forced to do so violates its First Amendment rights.

FBI Director James Comey rejected talk of seeking a "master key" and said his agency just wanted Apple to remove its "vicious guard dog" so it can pick the lock.

Law enforcement organizations have weighed in on the side of the Justice Department and called on Apple to help in the investigation.

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/03/21/ ... tcmp=hpbt3

There is ALWAYS a solution!

[WildBill]

Just saw that "an outside party" will unlock the phone, so Apple is off the hook.

I guess it must not have been encrypted as well as some people thought.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/22/techn ... phone.html

[Turban cowboy]

I don't understand why the director couldn't pick up the phone and call the NSA?

Ok Maybe they can't access what is in the phone, but Isn't there metadata or other "traces" that can show what was sent to and from this particular phone?

[Turban cowboy]

Just saw that "an outside party" will unlock the phone, so Apple is off the hook.

I guess it must not have been encrypted as well as some people thought.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/22/techn ... phone.html

Curious to see if that "third party" was John McAfee

[suthdj]

Or maybe this is all theater.

[SA_Steve]

As usual, it will be a few weeks before the truth comes out. If ever.

[GeekwithaGun]

Or maybe this is all theater.

^^^This

[DocV]

Just saw that "an outside party" will unlock the phone, so Apple is off the hook.

I guess it must not have been encrypted as well as some people thought.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/22/techn ... phone.html

Curious to see if that "third party" was John McAfee

uhm... no ... I will avoid posting a link to the articles as I do not want to expose readers to profanities; however, John has admitted he was lying about being able to unlock the iPhone. My guess is the data was recoverable via the cloud.

[Bitter Clinger]

In WSJ today it is now being reported that Apple does indeed possess the solution, I guess that they simply refuse to implement. Maybe Cook and Hillary can double bunk in the Federal pen.

[Keith B]

The issue was not that the Government wanted the one phone unlocked, they wanted the solution to unlock ANY iPhone at their whim. Apple didn't want to provide that for them. On a case by case basis then I agree that they should do it with a warrant. For the anytime they wanted whole enchilada, then I agree with Apple on no bueno.

[Bitter Clinger]

The issue was not that the Government wanted the one phone unlocked, they wanted the solution to unlock ANY iPhone at their whim. Apple didn't want to provide that for them. On a case by case basis then I agree that they should do it with a warrant. For the anytime they wanted whole enchilada, then I agree with Apple on no bueno.

Not true Keith. Read the article. You are simply repeating Apple propaganda.

[Keith B]

The issue was not that the Government wanted the one phone unlocked, they wanted the solution to unlock ANY iPhone at their whim. Apple didn't want to provide that for them. On a case by case basis then I agree that they should do it with a warrant. For the anytime they wanted whole enchilada, then I agree with Apple on no bueno.

Not true Keith. Read the article. You are simply repeating Apple propaganda.

The Government wanted to be present and know the method for breaking the encryption on the phone, which would essentially allow other phones to be potentially broken. Apple balked at that. I believe if they had allowed Apple to break into the one phone without having to release the method or be 'overseen', then it would have been more acceptable to Apple up front. Since they didn't, then Apple has refused completely to do it.

[Bitter Clinger]

The issue was not that the Government wanted the one phone unlocked, they wanted the solution to unlock ANY iPhone at their whim. Apple didn't want to provide that for them. On a case by case basis then I agree that they should do it with a warrant. For the anytime they wanted whole enchilada, then I agree with Apple on no bueno.

Not true Keith. Read the article. You are simply repeating Apple propaganda.

The Government wanted to be present and know the method for breaking the encryption on the phone, which would essentially allow other phones to be potentially broken. Apple balked at that. I believe if they had allowed Apple to break into the one phone without having to release the method or be 'overseen', then it would have been more acceptable to Apple up front. Since they didn't, then Apple has refused completely to do it.

Mere speculation I'm afraid.

[Keith B]

The issue was not that the Government wanted the one phone unlocked, they wanted the solution to unlock ANY iPhone at their whim. Apple didn't want to provide that for them. On a case by case basis then I agree that they should do it with a warrant. For the anytime they wanted whole enchilada, then I agree with Apple on no bueno.

Not true Keith. Read the article. You are simply repeating Apple propaganda.

The Government wanted to be present and know the method for breaking the encryption on the phone, which would essentially allow other phones to be potentially broken. Apple balked at that. I believe if they had allowed Apple to break into the one phone without having to release the method or be 'overseen', then it would have been more acceptable to Apple up front. Since they didn't, then Apple has refused completely to do it.

Mere speculation I'm afraid.

As is yours and the article. However, I do have come inside info on encryption and Apple's views on the iPhone as I am retired from the company that used to have exclusivity and our team was the global Tier III support and R&D side.

[Bitter Clinger]

The issue was not that the Government wanted the one phone unlocked, they wanted the solution to unlock ANY iPhone at their whim. Apple didn't want to provide that for them. On a case by case basis then I agree that they should do it with a warrant. For the anytime they wanted whole enchilada, then I agree with Apple on no bueno.

Not true Keith. Read the article. You are simply repeating Apple propaganda.

The Government wanted to be present and know the method for breaking the encryption on the phone, which would essentially allow other phones to be potentially broken. Apple balked at that. I believe if they had allowed Apple to break into the one phone without having to release the method or be 'overseen', then it would have been more acceptable to Apple up front. Since they didn't, then Apple has refused completely to do it.

Mere speculation I'm afraid.

As is yours and the article. However, I do have come inside info on encryption and Apple's views on the iPhone as I am retired from the company that used to have exclusivity and our team was the global Tier III support and R&D side.

Then you should know that we can't discuss what forms our opinions. But sounds like your info is dated, and as you are aware, I believe you are on the wrong side of this debate. We will have to agree to disagree. Apple looks no different to me than a typical liberal European group such as the ones who bear responsibility for the successful attack yesterday in Belgium.