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

[jailbird]

Either they're lying or they contracted a tech company to run a brute-force algorithm to open up the phone. I'm not sure if the iphone has brute-force protection but I'm sure its something they'll have to look into. One thing that is scary is how much people do not understand encryption. Anyone here that has made an amazon purchase, checked their bank account, or signed into a social media account from their computer or phone can thank encryption for protecting them against having their data stolen.

The brute force protection is exactly what the FBI wanted Apple to disable. Once that was done, they were going to attempt to brute force it.

[Bitter Clinger]

Apple still doesn't know how FBI hacked San Bernardino terrorist's iPhone without their help...duh

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/03/30/ ... cmp=hplnws

[mojo84]

Now the FBI is putting it's new found skill to work on other cases. The cat is out of the bag and it's not good for Apple.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... story.html

The FBI has agreed to help prosecutors gain access to an iPhone 6 and an iPod that might hold evidence in an Arkansas murder trial, just days after the agency managed to hack an iPhone linked to the San Bernardino terror attacks, a local prosecutor said Wednesday.

Cody Hiland, prosecuting attorney for Arkansas' 20th Judicial District, said that the FBI's Little Rock field office had agreed to help his office gain access to a pair of locked devices owned by two of the suspects in the slayings of Robert and Patricia Cogdell.

[Bitter Clinger]

Now the FBI is putting it's new found skill to work on other cases. The cat is out of the bag and it's not good for Apple.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... story.html

The FBI has agreed to help prosecutors gain access to an iPhone 6 and an iPod that might hold evidence in an Arkansas murder trial, just days after the agency managed to hack an iPhone linked to the San Bernardino terror attacks, a local prosecutor said Wednesday.

Cody Hiland, prosecuting attorney for Arkansas' 20th Judicial District, said that the FBI's Little Rock field office had agreed to help his office gain access to a pair of locked devices owned by two of the suspects in the slayings of Robert and Patricia Cogdell.

[Solaris]

Now the FBI is putting it's new found skill to work on other cases. The cat is out of the bag and it's not good for Apple.

I'd say it is very good for Apple, and the consumer.

They have thought their stuff was secure, and now they know it is not. Time to go back to work. Without this case, who knows how long it would have been till they realized it was not as secure as they thought.

[cb1000rider]

It may be good for Apple in that existing phones are known to be crackable. Some people with buy the uncrackable higher-encryption version that Apple is working on as we speak.. :-)

[mojo84]

Now the FBI is putting it's new found skill to work on other cases. The cat is out of the bag and it's not good for Apple.

I'd say it is very good for Apple, and the consumer.

They have thought their stuff was secure, and now they know it is not. Time to go back to work. Without this case, who knows how long it would have been till they realized it was not as secure as they thought.

I don't see it as such a big positive for them, especially since they are now begging the FBI to clue them in to how they got it done. They've spent a lot of capital marketing how secure their phones are and now they find out they aren't and don't know where the vulnerability is. Not a positive turn of events from my perspective.

[Solaris]

Now the FBI is putting it's new found skill to work on other cases. The cat is out of the bag and it's not good for Apple.

I'd say it is very good for Apple, and the consumer.

They have thought their stuff was secure, and now they know it is not. Time to go back to work. Without this case, who knows how long it would have been till they realized it was not as secure as they thought.

I don't see it as such a big positive for them, especially since they are now begging the FBI to clue them in to how they got it done. They've spent a lot of capital marketing how secure their phones are and now they find out they aren't and don't know where the vulnerability is. Not a positive turn of events from my perspective.

They never claimed The older (pre iphone6) phones were all that secure. In fact it was common knowledge how easy it was to get into them.

This wake up call is good to help them see they do not yet have it figured out.

[mojo84]

Now the FBI is putting it's new found skill to work on other cases. The cat is out of the bag and it's not good for Apple.

I'd say it is very good for Apple, and the consumer.

They have thought their stuff was secure, and now they know it is not. Time to go back to work. Without this case, who knows how long it would have been till they realized it was not as secure as they thought.

I don't see it as such a big positive for them, especially since they are now begging the FBI to clue them in to how they got it done. They've spent a lot of capital marketing how secure their phones are and now they find out they aren't and don't know where the vulnerability is. Not a positive turn of events from my perspective.

They never claimed The older (pre iphone6) phones were all that secure. In fact it was common knowledge how easy it was to get into them.

This wake up call is good to help them see they do not yet have it figured out.

On what are you basing this? They have always advertised they have the safest ecosystem. It says on their website they've been protecting people's data for over a decade.

http://www.apple.com/privacy/approach-to-privacy/

Whether or not it's true, that is what they've been saying for a long time. Why the spin?

Here is how many non-Apple fans view it.
http://fortune.com/2016/03/28/apple-iph ... -security/

[Solaris]

They never claimed The older (pre iphone6) phones were all that secure. In fact it was common knowledge how easy it was to get into them.

This wake up call is good to help them see they do not yet have it figured out.

On what are you basing this? They have always advertised they have the safest ecosystem. It says on their website they've been protecting people's data for over a decade.

http://www.apple.com/privacy/approach-to-privacy/

Whether or not it's true, that is what they've been saying for a long time. Why the spin?

Go read docs on earlier iPhones and you will see they never made this claim. Heck it took several versions of iOS before they even added a lock screen

[Soccerdad1995]

Do those of you that think Apple was in the right believe judges should not be able to issue search warrants in cases where there is justifiable reason to perform a search?

As far as making the argument this is the same as government overreaching and encroaching upon privacy and personal liberty, I believe that is not a valid argument. The government went through the court system and requested he order Apple to assist based upon probable justifiable cause to perform the search of the phone. I also understand Apple not wanting to be a part of breaching it's own security system as they believe it would open pandora's box. I also agree they should fight it up to the point of the judge ordering them to help.

There has to be some point when an individual loses some rights to privacy and protection from search and seizure. It has been established over time it's when there is justifiable probable cause (probably not the exact proper legal wording) and a judge issues a warrant or order. If not, then we need to do away with the search warrant process altogether.

I believe that Apple was in the right so I will answer.

I believe that judges should be able to issue search warrants as long as such searches do not run afoul of the 4th amendment. I believe that warrants should be specific and limited in nature. I also believe that this process should be transparent and open and not result from "secret" courts.

I do not believe that police should have the ability to search phones without having obtained a warrant. I also believe that no person (or company) should be compelled to work for the government against their will. Specifically, no person / company should be forced to hack into a phone or other device.

In other words, I believe that Apple was in the right.

[mojo84]

They never claimed The older (pre iphone6) phones were all that secure. In fact it was common knowledge how easy it was to get into them.

This wake up call is good to help them see they do not yet have it figured out.

On what are you basing this? They have always advertised they have the safest ecosystem. It says on their website they've been protecting people's data for over a decade.

http://www.apple.com/privacy/approach-to-privacy/

Whether or not it's true, that is what they've been saying for a long time. Why the spin?

Go read docs on earlier iPhones and you will see they never made this claim. Heck it took several versions of iOS before they even added a lock screen

I don't need to. I showed you what they say on their website.

[mojo84]

Do those of you that think Apple was in the right believe judges should not be able to issue search warrants in cases where there is justifiable reason to perform a search?

As far as making the argument this is the same as government overreaching and encroaching upon privacy and personal liberty, I believe that is not a valid argument. The government went through the court system and requested he order Apple to assist based upon probable justifiable cause to perform the search of the phone. I also understand Apple not wanting to be a part of breaching it's own security system as they believe it would open pandora's box. I also agree they should fight it up to the point of the judge ordering them to help.

There has to be some point when an individual loses some rights to privacy and protection from search and seizure. It has been established over time it's when there is justifiable probable cause (probably not the exact proper legal wording) and a judge issues a warrant or order. If not, then we need to do away with the search warrant process altogether.

I believe that Apple was in the right so I will answer.

I believe that judges should be able to issue search warrants as long as such searches do not run afoul of the 4th amendment. I believe that warrants should be specific and limited in nature. I also believe that this process should be transparent and open and not result from "secret" courts.

I do not believe that police should have the ability to search phones without having obtained a warrant. I also believe that no person (or company) should be compelled to work for the government against their will. Specifically, no person / company should be forced to hack into a phone or other device.

In other words, I believe that Apple was in the right.

Was it a secret court in this case? How does this run afoul of the 4th? Isn't this similar to having a property manager open the door of a suspects apartment so the cops can execute the search warrant? It's my understanding the order was for this one phone. If Apple would have done it, they could have controlled the process. Now it's out of their hands and the show is on than other foot. People know how to breach their security and they don't.

I agree police shouldn't be able to search a phone without a warant. That is not the case here.

I also believe Apple was right up to the point they refused to obey the judge's order. Now they have put themselves at a strategic disadvantage. Their encryption has been broken, they don't know how and everyone knows their phones aren't as secure as promised. Whether one likes Apple products or not, they did not come out a winner in this ordeal.

By the way, phone companies are required to keep metadata on file for the government, I am reqiired by the government to keep certain client records for period time. Am I having to unjustly work for the government?

[Solaris]

They never claimed The older (pre iphone6) phones were all that secure. In fact it was common knowledge how easy it was to get into them.

This wake up call is good to help them see they do not yet have it figured out.

On what are you basing this? They have always advertised they have the safest ecosystem. It says on their website they've been protecting people's data for over a decade.

http://www.apple.com/privacy/approach-to-privacy/

Whether or not it's true, that is what they've been saying for a long time. Why the spin?

Go read docs on earlier iPhones and you will see they never made this claim. Heck it took several versions of iOS before they even added a lock screen

I don't need to. I showed you what they say on their website.

Yes That is current policy. I was referring to prior policy before CE, SE, or pass codes. Those older phones were easily hacked.

[Soccerdad1995]

Do those of you that think Apple was in the right believe judges should not be able to issue search warrants in cases where there is justifiable reason to perform a search?

As far as making the argument this is the same as government overreaching and encroaching upon privacy and personal liberty, I believe that is not a valid argument. The government went through the court system and requested he order Apple to assist based upon probable justifiable cause to perform the search of the phone. I also understand Apple not wanting to be a part of breaching it's own security system as they believe it would open pandora's box. I also agree they should fight it up to the point of the judge ordering them to help.

There has to be some point when an individual loses some rights to privacy and protection from search and seizure. It has been established over time it's when there is justifiable probable cause (probably not the exact proper legal wording) and a judge issues a warrant or order. If not, then we need to do away with the search warrant process altogether.

I believe that Apple was in the right so I will answer.

I believe that judges should be able to issue search warrants as long as such searches do not run afoul of the 4th amendment. I believe that warrants should be specific and limited in nature. I also believe that this process should be transparent and open and not result from "secret" courts.

I do not believe that police should have the ability to search phones without having obtained a warrant. I also believe that no person (or company) should be compelled to work for the government against their will. Specifically, no person / company should be forced to hack into a phone or other device.

In other words, I believe that Apple was in the right.

Was it a secret court in this case? How does this run afoul of the 4th? Isn't this similar to having a property manager open the door of a suspects apartment so the cops can execute the search warrant? It's my understanding the order was for this one phone. If Apple would have done it, they could have controlled the process. Now it's out of their hands and the show is on than other foot. People know how to breach their security and they don't.

I agree police shouldn't be able to search a phone without a warant. That is not the case here.

I also believe Apple was right up to the point they refused to obey the judge's order. Now they have put themselves at a strategic disadvantage. Their encryption has been broken, they don't know how and everyone knows their phones aren't as secure as promised. Whether one likes Apple products or not, they did not come out a winner in this ordeal.

By the way, phone companies are required to keep metadata on file for the government, I am reqiired by the government to keep certain client records for period time. Am I having to unjustly work for the government?

Regarding the parts I bolded, I was answering the question you asked about the general ability of judges to issue warrants. I agree that your question was not completely relevant to this case.

I disagree with you that Apple was wrong to legally challenge the judge's order instead of just complying at that point. I take it one step further and say that no person or company should be forced to work for the government against their will. In other words, I do not believe that the judge should be able to issue that specific order.

As far as the "just this one phone" argument goes, I don't buy it. Even if the government would have been content with never knowing the process, they would know that Apple had the ability to crack phones and the precedent would have been set. I have zero faith that the government would have stopped at this one phone. That's a bit of a moot point now, of course.