# U.S. tries to force Apple to unlock San Bernardino shooter's iPhone



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Is there no discussion on this on ehMac?
U.S. tries to force Apple to unlock San Bernardino shooter's iPhone - Feb. 19, 2016


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

I'm with Tim Cook on this one. Once you open that Pandora's box, there's no telling where it goes. Plus, I don't see how it's legal to force a company to invent something that doesn't exist yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

fjnmusic said:


> I'm with Tim Cook on this one. Once you open that Pandora's box, there's no telling where it goes. Plus, I don't see how it's legal to force a company to invent something that doesn't exist yet.


+100,000!! Go Tim!! :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## Dr_AL (Apr 29, 2007)

There was the rid but of information I read somewhere that the FBI has the iCloud password. So the iPhone was backing itself up and they have access to that. Then the FBI changed the password which I turn stopped the iPhone from being able to back up to iCloud. 

So now they are looking at other ways to get the info they want which is only on the iPhone. Had the password remained the same and the iPhone was connected to a known network while being plugged it, it would have backed up and possibly given the FBI what they wanted. 

I'm with Apple on this one. Sucks that it is a terrorism case. 


Sent from my iPhone using Crapatalk


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Dr_AL said:


> There was the rid but of information I read somewhere that the FBI has the iCloud password. So the iPhone was backing itself up and they have access to that. Then the FBI changed the password which I turn stopped the iPhone from being able to back up to iCloud.
> 
> So now they are looking at other ways to get the info they want which is only on the iPhone. Had the password remained the same and the iPhone was connected to a known network while being plugged it, it would have backed up and possibly given the FBI what they wanted.
> 
> ...


 Have happily avoided owning an iPhone, but wouldn't changing the iCloud password back to the original allow the phone to complete its back-up?

I am with Tim as well. Do this and anyone doing banking on their iPhone would be vulnerable to having their banking information hacked! Wanna bet no-one is checking to see who shorted Apple Stock just before the ruling? 

I am sure if there was any chance of the iPhone leading the FBI to those three tall athletic white men that several eyewitnesses told reporters did the shooting, the FBI would instantly lose interest. <Insert Sarcasm Emoticon> Had they wanted to catch the real shooters and honestly believed the iPhone's user could identify same, why not make a greater effort to take them alive?

Still if the goal is to establish a police state that will shame anything Stalin or Hitler accomplished, the FBI is certainly on the right track here.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

I don't know why Apple just tells the FBI that it can't be done.
Who is going to challenge Apple on that????


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

I agree with Apple. I understand the risk that creating a backdoor that would allow anyone to hack phones. 

But at the same time, I'm also uncomfortable with potential bad people having a means of communicating bad plans to each other under a veil that no authorities can even monitor. 

Has anyone seen the movie, the Imitation Game? (Minor spoiler alert!) There is a scene where they (England) have cracked the Enigma. Shortly after there is a moment they realise one of their ships in the Atlantic is about to be attacked by Germany, and they can’t act on this information without revealing the code had been broken. One of the team is particularly distraught because he has a brother on that ship, yet Turing has to be the heartless one and insist they cannot act. 

I think this is kind of the same thing in that a tough decision is being made in order to protect the lives of millions more. (Those lives being us civilians, in preventing a technology that could allow terrorists, governments, corporations from having free access to our extremely private information, microphones, cameras on our iPhones). 

However, the irony doesn't escape me with the fact that in the movie The Imitation Game, it's the technology to intercept the enemies communications that is decoded that greatly helps us win World War II. 

Do we as society, want potential bad people to have a means of communicating with each other with no capability of law enforcement to intercept the communications of bad people with bad intent?


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

ehMax said:


> Do we as society, want potential bad people to have a means of communicating with each other with no capability of law enforcement to intercept the communications of bad people with bad intent?


Yes, absolutely.
Especially if the US government is involved.

In any case, there are many other ways for "bad people" to communicate securely.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

krs said:


> Yes, absolutely.
> Especially if the US government is involved.
> 
> In any case, there are many other ways for "bad people" to communicate securely.


So Alan Turing's machine should never been made? (Playing devil's advocate here a little). 

The Enigma was a machine made by the Nazi's purely with the intent of war, for their ideals that resulted in communicating plans to do bad things to other people. 

It's different with the iPhone, it's created for doing productive things for members of society, but bad people can kind of use it as an Enigma machine. 

It's a little complicated issue that I don't have the answers for. I agree, the need to protect citizens privacy is so great, that what Apple is doing is right. But I think there is a dilemma. One that I don't know the answer to.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

ehMax said:


> I agree with Apple. I understand the risk that creating a backdoor that would allow anyone to hack phones.
> 
> But at the same time, I'm also uncomfortable with potential bad people having a means of communicating bad plans to each other under a veil that no authorities can even monitor.
> 
> ...


I have absolutely no fear of being attacked by terrorists. Stats show I have far more to fear from any one of; lightning bolts, bath tubs or trigger happy cops.

I do have a huge fear of having my banking information made available to every Tom, Dick and Harry on the planet, or even just the FBI.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

You're comparing apples and oranges.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

ehMax said:


> The Enigma was a machine made by the Nazi's purely with the intent of war, for their ideals that resulted in communicating plans to do bad things to other people.


The Enigma machine was conceptually no different than encryption that everyone of us uses today if we want the communication to remain private.
I don't see how you connect that to bad things and bad people.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Very good points. 

Pretty good *article on Tech Crunch* about it.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

krs said:


> The Enigma machine was conceptually no different than encryption that everyone of us uses today if we want the communication to remain private.
> I don't see how you connect that to bad things and bad people.


Incidentally the US accomplished the same thing and for the same reasons by employing the Navajo Code Talkers. Only difference is that the Brits hacked Enigma, the Japs did not find a way to "hack" the Code Talkers.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

krs said:


> I don't know why Apple just tells the FBI that it can't be done.
> 
> Who is going to challenge Apple on that????



Apple did tell them that. They also told the whole world in the letter that Tim Cook wrote. This isn't about doing something that have access to; it's about creating a whole new software package. One thing I'll say: it's a great endorsement for the security of Apple phones. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

ehMax said:


> I agree with Apple. I understand the risk that creating a backdoor that would allow anyone to hack phones.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Here's the catch: "bad people with bad intent." Your use of the term "bad" just depends which side you're on. To the Iraqis and Afghanistanians who found their country invaded and occupied for ten years, with hundreds of thousands of casualties, it was the British and the Americans who were the bad guys. To the families of children killed by drones in Pakistan, it is Obama who is the bad guy. To the Americans who saw Canadians come and burn down the White House (an historical fact they don't mention much), it is we Canadians who were the bad guys. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

_I don't know why Apple doesn't just tells the FBI that it can't be done._


fjnmusic said:


> Apple did tell them that. They also told the whole world in the letter that Tim Cook wrote. This isn't about doing something that have access to; it's about creating a whole new software package.


Apple never said "It can't be done"
You yourself just stated in effect that it can be done if Apple creates some new software, same as I believe Apple has said.


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

krs said:


> _I don't know why Apple doesn't just tells the FBI that it can't be done._
> 
> 
> Apple never said "It can't be done"
> You yourself just stated in effect that it can be done if Apple creates some new software, same as I believe Apple has said.


As I understand it, they aren't asking for a backdoor to the encryption; they need the PIN restrictions lifted on the device. As in preventing the device from incrementally increasing the time delay between attempts and preventing the device from wiping after 10 attempts (and allowing the entry to be done without the touchscreen.) 

Further I understand they are asking Apple to do it in such a way that it can only be run from that one device.

It absolutely can be done. 

I don't believe it should. Those measures are the only reason 4 digit PINs are somewhat secure. It sets a bad precedent. And it puts undue burden on Apple.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

fjnmusic said:


> Here's the catch: "bad people with bad intent." Your use of the term "bad" just depends which side you're on. To the Iraqis and Afghanistanians who found their country invaded and occupied for ten years, with hundreds of thousands of casualties, it was the British and the Americans who were the bad guys. To the families of children killed by drones in Pakistan, it is Obama who is the bad guy. To the Americans who saw Canadians come and burn down the White House (an historical fact they don't mention much), it is we Canadians who were the bad guys.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yes, get's the brain thinking.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

fjnmusic said:


> One thing I'll say: it's a great endorsement for the security of Apple phones.


In one sense, people who value their privacy will think it's great. I do. 

In another sense, people who want to hide their bad intent (People who want to kill me for whatever reason) will be drawn to them as well. 

I think logic tells me that Apple is doing the right thing based on current statistics. 

If due to the security of their Apple's iPhones, suddenly terrorist attacks dramatically increased and it was deduced that it was because they can communicate with securely without fear of their data being discovered by the FBI, then what? (Just like discussing this, I am forming my opinions based on discussion).


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

polywog said:


> As I understand it, they aren't asking for a backdoor to the encryption; they need the PIN restrictions lifted on the device. As in preventing the device from incrementally increasing the time delay between attempts and preventing the device from wiping after 10 attempts (and allowing the entry to be done without the touchscreen.)
> 
> Further I understand they are asking Apple to do it in such a way that it can only be run from that one device.
> 
> ...


If it that easy to do why doesn't the FBI just do it?

I'm sure they have software experts who are at least as capable as the Apple ones.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

krs said:


> _I don't know why Apple doesn't just tells the FBI that it can't be done._
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, if Apple has to create software in order to accomplish something because that software doesn't exist yet, that seems to go above and beyond the concept of simply unlocking one device. Why this particular terrorist couple, anyway? And if they can't hack the phone, even though McCafee says he can, it's really like admitting to the world that the FBI has no idea what it's doing. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

This explains a bit of the technology behind even the simple 4-digit passcode that the FBI is after
Why the FBI can't hack an iPhone without help from Apple - National | Globalnews.ca


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

krs said:


> If it that easy to do why doesn't the FBI just do it?
> 
> I'm sure they have software experts who are at least as capable as the Apple ones.


Because if Apple doesn't digitally sign the changes to the OS (or sign the changes the FBI makes) the phone will reject them.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

polywog said:


> Because if Apple doesn't digitally sign the changes to the OS (or sign the changes the FBI makes) the phone will reject them.



Kudos to Apple then for creating an "unbreakable" encryption system. Take that, Blackberry!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

polywog said:


> Because if Apple doesn't digitally sign the changes to the OS (or sign the changes the FBI makes) the phone will reject them.


So McAfee is talking through his hat?
MCAFEE: I'll decrypt San Bernardino phone free - Business Insider


----------



## hexdiy (Dec 18, 2011)

The iPhone code has already been broken last November. Question is: who bought that hack from Zerodium? Presumably not the FBI.
Somebody Just Claimed a $1 Million Bounty for Hacking the iPhone | Motherboard

Then again, no one can tell if Apple has not already remedied that hack in a security update.

Maybe even ( best case scenario), Apple will be unable to decript the keys of its customers from the iPhone 6 onwards: *Secure Enclave coprocessor*:
https://www.mikeash.com/pyblog/friday-qa-2016-02-19-what-is-the-secure-enclave.html

But if you've ever read about iOs error 53, you'll understand the Secure Enclave can probably (partially) be bypassed by hardware hacking.
BTW: Secure Enclave is not yet applicable to the iPhone 5 they wanna break...

Oh well, who will ever know?


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

Interesting…

"*San Bernardino County Calls the FBI Liars Over Terrorist's iCloud Account [Updated*]"
San Bernardino County Calls the FBI Liars Over Terrorist's iCloud Account [Updated]


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

This is heating up.

Contrary to FBI's claim that this is a unique, one-time only request, Apple has now revealed in a 17. Feb 2016 letter to the court that the US Justice Department has requested Apple's assistance to hack into iphones in 15 cases in the last 4 months.


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

krs said:


> So McAfee is talking through his hat?
> MCAFEE: I'll decrypt San Bernardino phone free - Business Insider


From the article:

"_So here is my offer to the FBI. I will, free of charge, decrypt the information on the San Bernardino phone, with my team. *We will primarily use social engineering,* and it will take us three weeks. If you accept my offer, then you will not need to ask Apple to place a back door in its product, which will be the beginning of the end of America._"

Emphasis mine. He's not talking about doing what the FBI is requesting. He's not talking about defeating the encryption on the device. He's talking social engineering. Which means, in my mind (and I'm no elite hacker) either obtaining the PIN from a party that knows it, or somehow convincing someone at Apple to write/sign the software to defeat the PIN locks.

How he will use social engineering to get a PIN from dead people is beyond me. Anyone who might have known the PIN has already likely been canvased by the FBI, so that's possibly a dead end.

So, yes, I do think he's talking through his hat, much like the quote below from an interview regarding a new venture (Future Tense) he started three years ago.

"_My new technology is going to provide a new type of Internet, a decentralized, floating and moving Internet that is impossible to hack, impossible to penetrate and vastly superior in terms of its facility and neutrality. It solves all of our security concerns._"


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

pm-r said:


> Interesting…
> 
> "*San Bernardino County Calls the FBI Liars Over Terrorist's iCloud Account [Updated*]"
> San Bernardino County Calls the FBI Liars Over Terrorist's iCloud Account [Updated]


Hardly surprising. J Edgar set the FBI bar for integrity so low that you would have to dig a very deep trench to find it. What would be amazing is if they were telling the truth.

Clearly the FBI motive has nothing to do with this iPhone and everything to do with the FBI wanting to add cracking iPhones to its bag of tricks. The three well trained athletic white shooters and the numerous preceding live shooter drills, belie the very assertion that this was a Muslim terrorist attack. 

FWIW I invite everyone who believes they have nothing to hide to provide their complete personal banking details below.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

krs said:


> So McAfee is talking through his hat?
> MCAFEE: I'll decrypt San Bernardino phone free - Business Insider


McAfee says a lot of things these days, not all of them fully lucid.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

heavyall said:


> McAfee says a lot of things these days, not all of them fully lucid.



Doesn't he also believe Macs need antivirus software, since that is the business he runs? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> Doesn't he also believe Macs need antivirus software, since that is the business he runs?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


He hasn't been McAfee since the mid 90s.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

polywog said:


> He hasn't been McAfee since the mid 90s.



Then what is he shooting his mouth off about? I'm sure there MANY interested parties that would live to have a chance to hack that iPhone. 

Seems to me that this all works out to some pretty high level advertising for the effectiveness of Apple's encryption technology. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Captstn (May 22, 2003)

This may backfire on the FBI
Silicon Valley United[/URL


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Here is the correct URL for the story mentioned in the post above:

The FBI Has Succeeded In Uniting Silicon Valley...Against The FBI | Popular Science


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

SINC said:


> Here is the correct URL for the story mentioned in the post above:
> 
> The FBI Has Succeeded In Uniting Silicon Valley...Against The FBI | Popular Science


Good to see, even if it is 5 or 10 years too late.


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

krs said:


> So McAfee is talking through his hat?
> MCAFEE: I'll decrypt San Bernardino phone free - Business Insider


Now, it's no longer opinion:

John McAfee lied about San Bernardino shooter's iPhone hack to 'get a s**tload of public attention'


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

polywog said:


> Now, it's no longer opinion:
> 
> 
> 
> John McAfee lied about San Bernardino shooter's iPhone hack to 'get a s**tload of public attention'



Well, it does speak well for Apple's encryption methods, kind of like the way Macs don't get viruses. Talk about bragging rights. The market seems to be responding positively as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

All of this leads me to the conclusion that Apple could in fact decrypt the information on the iphone if they wanted to.

If that in fact is correct, it doesn't give me a nice fuzzy comfort level that my encrypted information on the iphone is actually secure.
Maybe in a few years time the Apple culture/CEO changes and they now decide it's OK to hack into phones under certain conditions.

I would have felt much better if Apple had states that it simply could not be done without deleting the stored information.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

krs said:


> All of this leads me to the conclusion that Apple could in fact decrypt the information on the iphone if they wanted to.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It cannot be done without them having to write s whole new software operating system that didn't exist. Somehow I trust Apple more than I trust Google or Facebook st this point, who unabashedly sell your info to advertisers, and I definitely trust Apple more than the FBI. If the encryption is that unbreakable, good. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

It is getting dirty now.

Apple: government 'intended to smear' us in digital privacy fight with FBI | Technology | The Guardian

Senate bill will impose fines on tech companies that refuse to unlock smartphones | ZDNet


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Oh Good, now Obama is wading in, where as usual he knows nothing about.

Aiming to sidestep Apple dispute, Obama makes case for access to device data | Reuters


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Anyone who believes the FBI and by extension every other three letter acronym in the US should be given access to iPhone, really has not thought it through. For many that access also would give those same agencies access to their bank accounts.

Do you really want to accept the risk of the ATF or CIA raiding your bank accounts? Remember the former doubles as a gun runner when funding is tight and the latter funds its black ops via drug dealing.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

And now this . . .

Florida sheriff threatens to arrest ‘rascal’ Apple CEO Tim Cook over phone privacy


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

SINC said:


> And now this . . .
> 
> Florida sheriff threatens to arrest ‘rascal’ Apple CEO Tim Cook over phone privacy




Is he also on Donald Trump's election committee…????

I also wonder what those like him are going to do when they actually discover some criminals are using their own code and maybe some encryption among themselves???


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

I am not a betting man but I would happily wager hard cash that there is nothing on that phone that would benefit any investigation.

Far too much time has elapsed. Any true terrorist accomplice would use a throwaway. They would never use a phone that could be traced back. Any compromised burners would long since have been replaced. 

This is entirely about bullying Apple into compromising the security and privacy of all iPhone users.


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

Has anyone released any info if any of the investigating authorities actually had any calls traced that were made or received with that iPhone.

It seems to me that would give them most of the info they're possibly after… but I'll add I think you'd have a hard time finding a better to take you on, at least a normal thinking one…


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Apple fires back: “Government is adept at devising new surveillance techniques” | Ars Technica


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Well, it looks like Apple's battle is over.

DOJ may have found a way to hack into terrorist's iPhone - Mar. 21, 2016


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

SINC said:


> Well, it looks like Apple's battle is over.
> 
> 
> 
> DOJ may have found a way to hack into terrorist's iPhone - Mar. 21, 2016



I think the operative word here is "may."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

fjnmusic said:


> I think the operative word here is "may."


Not only that - if in fact this mysterious other person/group actually manages to break into the iphone, what does that say for Apple's encryption and security of info one has on their phone......

Not as secure after all as Apple has claimed

PS: Best outcome in my mind would be that the other party tries, things get screwed up and all the iphone data gets deleted.
That way Apple is off the hook


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

krs said:


> Not only that - if in fact this mysterious other person/group actually manages to break into the iphone, what does that say for Apple's encryption and security of info one has on their phone......
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think the other party's chances are about as good as Macaffee's were.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

fjnmusic said:


> I think the other party's chances are about as good as Macaffee's were.


When the FBI cancels the hearing against Apple, they must have a great deal of faith in whoever they found. ;_


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

My feeling is that this is just a ploy to get out of a really awkward situation.


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

SINC said:


> When the FBI cancels the hearing against Apple, they must have a great deal of faith in whoever they found. ;_



+1!!! And for all we know at this point, they could have even setup and got their own _*MacHackFest*_ together, complete with a good money prize for the winner at the end, and all pizza, Coke/Pepsi and beer supplied free!!!

And then maybe find almost nothing at most they couldn't have found using other means they have at their "disposal"…


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

SINC said:


> When the FBI cancels the hearing against Apple, they must have a great deal of faith in whoever they found. ;_



Or they're bluffing. They would love to knock Apple off its high horse at this point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

fjnmusic said:


> Or they're bluffing. They would love to knock Apple off its high horse at this point.


I see, so your theory is that you bluff by worsening your position, right?


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

SINC said:


> I see, so your theory is that you bluff by worsening your position, right?



Nope. My position is that if someone can hack into it, they would have done it already. This new entity is no more convincing than McAffee was. All bluster. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Wonder if the FBI will be back tomorrow, claiming if they only had access to that one iPhone they probably could have prevented Brussels???


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> Wonder if the FBI will be back tomorrow, claiming if they only had access to that one iPhone they probably could have prevented Brussels???



Either way, Apple's market value has been steadily increasing since this court controversy began. Strong encryption is not bad for business. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

eMacMan said:


> Wonder if the FBI will be back tomorrow, claiming if they only had access to that one iPhone they probably could have prevented Brussels???



Hard to say and almost separate things, but I dare say that Brussels' security has a bit of explaining to do and some improvement needed…


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

As if that could have been prevented, and since it wasn't someone should answer for it? Sure, okay. Who answered for September 11th?



pm-r said:


> Hard to say and almost separate things, but I dare say that Brussels' security has a bit of explaining to do and some improvement needed…


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

HowEver said:


> As if that could have been prevented, and since it wasn't someone should answer for it? Sure, okay. Who answered for September 11th?



Well, Osama Bin Laden claimed responsibility, but I always suspected Dick Cheney had a little more involvement than he let on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Wait, so the FBI is saying "never mind, we found an exploit for getting in to an iPhone of a certain vintage."

Nice of them to announce the existence of such an exploit, wonder if they're sharing the details with Apple as any good white-hat would do.


----------



## SM_102 (Mar 5, 2016)

FBI is saying they may not need apple's help after all.

FBI says it may not need Apple's help to decrypt San Bernardino shooter's phone - Technology & Science - CBC News


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

iMatt said:


> Wait, so the FBI is saying "never mind, we found an exploit for getting in to an iPhone of a certain vintage."
> 
> Nice of them to announce the existence of such an exploit, wonder if they're sharing the details with Apple as any good white-hat would do.


They're saying a 3rd party *might* be able to help them.

Personally, I think they're trying to avoid court. Apple has a strong case, and strong support. If Apple were to win, it would be the exact opposite of the precedent the government is trying to set.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

And help they did.

FBI Unlocks Shooter's iPhone Without Apple's Help


----------



## SM_102 (Mar 5, 2016)

SINC said:


> And help they did.
> 
> FBI Unlocks Shooter's iPhone Without Apple's Help


until Apple updates iOS to 9.3.1 to fix the exploit:lmao:


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

So, by law, the FBI has to disclose to Apple how they managed the exploit.

Apple then gets to block such access.

Not that the FBI is compelled to do this any time soon.

I wonder how much they paid the 'security' firm for this access? And why they didn't try it sooner?

I also wonder how soon Apple is going to just buy the security firm out. A few days, perhaps?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Best guess seems to be that they just removed the memory chip and copied it as many times as necessary to hack the code. Not terribly time consuming with a 4-digit PIN.

Firmware locks for the memory chips in the not too distant future?


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

I wonder if they'll release any details as to what was so GD important on this phone. It would be interesting if this turned out to be much ado about nothing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

fjnmusic said:


> I wonder if they'll release any details as to what was so GD important on this phone. It would be interesting if this turned out to be much ado about nothing.



I wouldn't be at all surprised, especially considering it was apparently a work related issued iPhone in the fist place. Not the best or smartest place to be putting or keeping any very personal information.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

LOL!

Unlocked iPhone Worthless After F.B.I. Spills Glass of Water on It - The New Yorker

And now this:

Apple wants the FBI to reveal how it hacked the San Bernardino killer&apos;s iPhone - LA Times


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

SINC said:


> LOL!
> 
> Unlocked iPhone Worthless After F.B.I. Spills Glass of Water on It - The New Yorker


Just so we're all clear... you know this one is satire, right?


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

fjnmusic said:


> I wonder if they'll release any details as to what was so GD important on this phone. It would be interesting if this turned out to be much ado about nothing.


IMO the contents are and always have been irrelevant. They wanted the legal precedent, didn't expect Apple to fight back so hard, didn't expect not to have public opinion strongly on their side, and so dropped the whole thing for plan B. And I wouldn't be surprised if this mysterious "consultant" is the NSA.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

iMatt said:


> Just so we're all clear... you know this one is satire, right?


Yep, thus the LOL!

Second link is real though.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

SINC said:


> Yep, thus the LOL!


Ah, but if it had been real it would have been all the funnier!  

I was pretty sure you knew, but there are a shocking number of people who don't get that Borowitz is fake. The Facebook comments on his articles are the usual cesspit of idiocy, but I'm not sure what's more disturbing: someone who doesn't see the satire, or someone who believes that because it isn't in the Onion, it can't possibly be satire. Both exist in large numbers, thank you for not being one of them.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

I can help being skeptical that the FBI really unlocked the phone.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

heavyall said:


> I can help being skeptical that the FBI really unlocked the phone.




Yup. And I'm skeptical that they found Bin Laden and buried him at sea. Pics, or it didn't happen.


----------

