New Met police video

[Chief Bakes 6,479]

FBI breaks into dead gunman's iPhone

• 28 March 2016
• From the section US & Canada

FBI breaks into dead San Bernardino gunman's iPhone without Apple's help, ending court case

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly. Please refresh the page for the fullest version.

If you want to receive Breaking News alerts via email, or on a smartphone or tablet via the BBC News App then details on how to do so are available on this help page. You can also follow @BBCBreaking on Twitter to get the latest alerts.

View the full article

[Chief Cheetah 6,915]

FBI-Apple case: Investigators break into dead San Bernardino gunman's iPhone

• 4 minutes ago
•  
• From the sectionUS & Canada

Image copyrightAP

Image captionSyed Rizwan Farook and his wife killed 14 people in December

The FBI has managed to unlock the iPhone of the San Bernardino gunman without Apple's help, ending a court case, the US justice department says.

Apple had been resisting a court order issued last month requiring the firm to write new software to allow officials to access Rizwan Farook's phone.

But officials on Monday said that it had been accessed independently and asked for the order to be withdrawn.

Rizwan Farook and his wife killed 14 people in San Bernardino in December.

They were later shot dead by police.

UN human rights chief backs Apple

Apple boss hits back at FBI conduct

McAfee offers to unlock iPhone for FBI

Last week, prosecutors said "an outside party" had demonstrated a possible way of unlocking the iPhone without the need to seek Apple's help.

A court hearing with Apple was postponed at the request of the justice department, while it investigated new ways of accessing the phone.

At the time, Apple said it did not know how to gain access, and said it hoped that the government would share with them any vulnerabilities of the iPhone that might come to light.

 

On Monday a statement by Eileen Decker, the top federal prosecutor in California, said investigators had received the help of "a third party", but did not specify who that was.

Investigators had "a solemn commitment to the victims of the San Bernardino shooting", she said.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35914195

[Radman + 2,165]

I tried explaining this case to someone who was arguing that FBI were over-stepping civil liberties - the debate isn't about whether the FBI have a right to access the information, they do, the argument was down to whether Apple had an obligation to help them...

At the end of the day what ultimately is the difference between this apple phone and a secure lock box?

Nothing at all - the difference being if you don't have the key to a lock box you can take it to a locksmith and get that box open gaining access to the information inside.

 

[ParochialYokal 1,119]

So, I saw a YouTube video a couple of weeks ago about how you follow a series of steps to hack into IOS 9.2. utilising SIRI as the gateway.

It took me less 30 seconds to 'hack' my own iPhone. Obviously, I imagine that has now been patched in IOS 9.3.

As Radman implicitly suggests, law enforcement should be able to extract whatever data they want that is proportionate to their concern.

Why should Apple be made to provide the key? The onus is on the cops to crack the box. I totally support Apples position that it is not their role to support extraction.

When there were widespread raids of safety deposit boxes in 2009 the MET rocked up with angle grinders. They didn't demand keys:

http://gu.com/p/29ybq?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

In my mind the same principle applies. The onus is on law enforcement to facilitate extraction.

Sent from my iPhone usring Police Community

[Radman + 2,165]

2 minutes ago, ParochialYokal said:

 

So, I saw a YouTube video a couple of weeks ago about how you follow a series of steps to hack into IOS 9.2. utilising SIRI as the gateway.

 

It took me less 30 seconds to 'hack' my own iPhone. Obviously, I imagine that has now been patched in IOS 9.3.

 

As Radman implicitly suggests, law enforcement should be able to extract whatever data they want that is proportionate to their concern.

 

Why should Apple be made to provide the key? The onus is on the cops to crack the box. I totally support Apples position that it is not their role to support extraction.

 

When there were widespread raids of safety deposit boxes in 2009 the MET rocked up with angle grinders. They didn't demand keys:

 

http://gu.com/p/29ybq?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

 

In my mind the same principle applies. The onus is on law enforcement to facilitate extraction.

 

Sent from my iPhone usring Police Community

Exactly,

Why should a corporation develop what effectively are security flaws within their software that will place all of their customers at risk just to facilitate law enforcement?

No technology company in their right mind is going to openly disclose they've built in a back door way into an encrypted device.

[AA101 626]

14 minutes ago, ParochialYokal said:

Why should Apple be made to provide the key? The onus is on the cops to crack the box. I totally support Apples position that it is not their role to support extraction.

 

When there were widespread raids of safety deposit boxes in 2009 the MET rocked up with angle grinders. They didn't demand keys:

 

http://gu.com/p/29ybq?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

 

In my mind the same principle applies. The onus is on law enforcement to facilitate extraction.

What about banks then? Should we be hacking into their computers to get the records we want for our investigations or going to court and getting an order for the production of the documents.

[ParochialYokal 1,119]

On 30 March 2016 at 21:59, AA101 said:

What about banks then? Should we be hacking into their computers to get the records we want for our investigations or going to court and getting an order for the production of the documents.

Banks 'own' the data or, at least, they control it. 

What is on someone's phone is their own personal data and, as such, the companies that manufacture them should not be forced to provide a back door for law enforcement to be able to access the data.

However, if someone then uses a cloud based system to back their phone up (like iCloud) then the company should be made to disclose the data under the provisions of the DPA.

[AA101 626]

1 hour ago, ParochialYokal said:

Banks 'own' the data or, at least, they control it. 

What is on someone's phone is their own personal data and, as such, the companies that manufacture them should not be forced to provide a back door for law enforcement to be able to access the data.

However, if someone then uses a cloud based system to back their phone up (like iCloud) then the company should be made to disclose the data under the provisions of the DPA.

I think you've missed my point which was about the tactics used to get the information, not the validity of getting it. What had Apple in uproar was that the FBI essentially wanted their data in order to break into a device (albeit the FBI specifically framed their request so as to not ever get their hands on that data in order to increase the liklihood of Apple's compliance and proportionality).

A production order compels the banks' to hand over data (theirs and their customer's - the two are inextricably linked) and at cost to themselves - pretty much the same as what was being requested here - assistance not back door access. It is only because Apple had decided that it didn't like complying with these requests and so tried to lock themselves out of their own tech that this new route to obtaining assistance was necessary.

What would you say should happen if iCloud (for example) auto-encrypted the material with a self-destruct function. Should they just be required to disclose the encrypted data or should they have to provide it in unencrypted form?

Also, as an aside, the DPA does not provide a right of access to data (save by the subject of that data) - it simply permits disclosure to law enforcement, creating a defence to offences that might otherwise appear to have been committed. It is PACE (and other statutes) that provides the right of access to such data.

[ParochialYokal 1,119]

I would say that there is a difference between what is stored on iCloud and a back up on a privately owned computer. Yes- the police should be able to access iCloud if they have reasonable grounds. But, No- Apple shouldn't be made to assist authorities into hacking into an encrypted back up stored on a computer.

I totally support Apple's stance. They shouldn't be made to provide a break-in mechanism to their own tech.

Sent from my iPhone usring Police Community

[Webley + 236]

Ignoring the fact that the FBI did eventually find a way around this, you simply can't have a lock that only good guys can open and bad guys cannot. Mathematics doesn't work that way. Forcing Apple to put in a backdoor is a dangerous presence which opens every iPhone to this software coming into the wrong hands.

Because Leaks don't ever happen.... just ask Edward

Edited April 17, 2016 by Webley