Apple Deluged By Police Demands To Decrypt iPhones

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
There are so many law enforcement requests for iPhone unlocks that Apple has a seven week waiting list? Damn, makes you wonder just how many iPhones are being unlocked for the authorities each day?

An agent at the ATF, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, "contacted Apple to obtain assistance in unlocking the device," U.S. District Judge Karen Caldwell wrote in a recent opinion. But, she wrote, the ATF was "placed on a waiting list by the company."
Click to expand...
 
Yeah, I went to a 10 digit code. Annoying yes, but this is the kind of stuff that it forcing me into it.
 
^^^ I don't get your point. Apple can't unlock it with 10 digits?

Here's a new idea...don't use your phone to talk to your criminal cohorts and then you don't have to worry about it. I've NEVER made an attempt to get info from the phone of a law abiding citizen.
 
Ha, time to find a rom that needs a 15+ digit alphanumeric code to decrypt my 256 bit aes encrypted phone just to wake up from sleep, and then to boot needs two 15+ alphanumeric codes the second of which if failed over 10 times auto wipes and bricks the phone. Take that feds.
 
kirbyrj said:
^^^ I don't get your point. Apple can't unlock it with 10 digits?

Here's a new idea...don't use your phone to talk to your criminal cohorts and then you don't have to worry about it. I've NEVER made an attempt to get info from the phone of a law abiding citizen.
Click to expand...

That's ridiculous! That's almost the same as the, "If you have nothing to hide" argument. Police should have to get a warrant for these types of requests. Everyone has something to hide and it's not always criminally related.

The problem is we don't have any checks or balances on digital communications. This can be abused extremely easily and that's the problem. You sound like you could be an officer and maybe you're an honest one...but not everyone is a good honest person. Ya know?
 
the_jackel said:
That's ridiculous! That's almost the same as the, "If you have nothing to hide" argument. Police should have to get a warrant for these types of requests. Everyone has something to hide and it's not always criminally related.

The problem is we don't have any checks or balances on digital communications. This can be abused extremely easily and that's the problem. You sound like you could be an officer and maybe you're an honest one...but not everyone is a good honest person. Ya know?
Click to expand...

Yup, the nazi's were honest people following orders for the most part. In their minds they were being honest law abiding citizens, does that make their actions right? The law is something in place to keep governments afloat, not to protect the average citizen. While sometimes they align you can't confuse government self preservation for them protecting the average citizen.
 
the_jackel said:
That's ridiculous! That's almost the same as the, "If you have nothing to hide" argument. Police should have to get a warrant for these types of requests. Everyone has something to hide and it's not always criminally related.

The problem is we don't have any checks or balances on digital communications. This can be abused extremely easily and that's the problem. You sound like you could be an officer and maybe you're an honest one...but not everyone is a good honest person. Ya know?
Click to expand...

We do get warrants for this kind of stuff. It sounds like the 6 weeks wait is after they've seized the phone with a warrant and are trying to get into it to get information. Quite honestly, the reason why I'd want to look at a phone has everything to do with communication for drug deals. I don't care about naked pictures of your girlfriend or your extra-marital affairs. People have this idea like the police are nosy and want to see your business. The police don't care about your phone unless you're doing something illegal. We just don't have time to care about whether or not you're banging your friend's sister behind his back or skipping work to go do something else.

In my experience, 99.9% of the time, the people trying to hide things on their phone are criminally related in some way/shape/form.
 
kirbyrj said:
We do get warrants for this kind of stuff. It sounds like the 6 weeks wait is after they've seized the phone with a warrant and are trying to get into it to get information. Quite honestly, the reason why I'd want to look at a phone has everything to do with communication for drug deals. I don't care about naked pictures of your girlfriend or your extra-marital affairs. People have this idea like the police are nosy and want to see your business. The police don't care about your phone unless you're doing something illegal. We just don't have time to care about whether or not you're banging your friend's sister behind his back or skipping work to go do something else.

In my experience, 99.9% of the time, the people trying to hide things on their phone are criminally related in some way/shape/form.
Click to expand...

"You have the right to remain silent anything you say or do can be used against you in a court of law"
 
kirbyrj said:
^^^ I don't get your point. Apple can't unlock it with 10 digits?

Here's a new idea...don't use your phone to talk to your criminal cohorts and then you don't have to worry about it. I've NEVER made an attempt to get info from the phone of a law abiding citizen.
Click to expand...

I only have one response to this: Richard Jewel. That man's life was opened to the public by the entertainment-news industry. The man did nothing wrong, and in fact saved many lives, yet all anyone could talk about was that they found porn on his computer, so he must be guilty.
 
kirbyrj said:
Here's a new idea...don't use your phone to talk to your criminal cohorts and then you don't have to worry about it. I've NEVER made an attempt to get info from the phone of a law abiding citizen.
Click to expand...


This is the reason there has to be strict rules for warrants, probable cause etc etc etc. These newer laws that are vague like Patriot Act just allow abuse.

While I know 99% of law enforcement is honestly doing the best they can to protect the law and to keep US citizens safe... Honestly bias', hunches etc effect even the best LFO and can cause someone innocent to be wrongly charged... causing tons of undue harm to them. Avoiding these situations in my opinion is worth letting some smart criminals slip through the cracks on technicalities.

I know you don't deem anyone innocent that you look into, but as a law enforcement officer or attorney... you do not get to make that determination...AT ALL, in no way shape or form. The fact you write with such sureness, 100% language etc would leave me to believe that you may have an attitude that the ends justify the means... which in my opinion do not.
 
But what do they need to access the phone for? I thought we had just been told the FBI was recording absolutely everything we say or do on our phones in an enormous database complete with voice-to-text translations. Why pester Apple if you have that kind of resource available?
 
dandirk said:
I know you don't deem anyone innocent that you look into, but as a law enforcement officer or attorney... you do not get to make that determination...AT ALL, in no way shape or form. The fact you write with such sureness, 100% language etc would leave me to believe that you may have an attitude that the ends justify the means... which in my opinion do not.
Click to expand...

Yep, he's exactly the type of guy that causes some people to distrust the police and law enforcement in general. Checks and balances are present for a reason, and it's not so an individual cop can have a power trip.
 
kirbyrj said:
^^^ I don't get your point. Apple can't unlock it with 10 digits?

Here's a new idea...don't use your phone to talk to your criminal cohorts and then you don't have to worry about it. I've NEVER made an attempt to get info from the phone of a law abiding citizen.
Click to expand...

Good luck to them trying to unlock a 10 digit encrypted pincode. Furthermore, here is a new idea for you, it's none of your business who I talk to and when. Whether you've never made any attempt or not isn't my concern, the fact that you have that ability is and I'm a law abiding citizen with no criminal record of any kind.
 
kirbyrj said:
We do get warrants for this kind of stuff. It sounds like the 6 weeks wait is after they've seized the phone with a warrant and are trying to get into it to get information. Quite honestly, the reason why I'd want to look at a phone has everything to do with communication for drug deals. I don't care about naked pictures of your girlfriend or your extra-marital affairs. People have this idea like the police are nosy and want to see your business. The police don't care about your phone unless you're doing something illegal. We just don't have time to care about whether or not you're banging your friend's sister behind his back or skipping work to go do something else.

In my experience, 99.9% of the time, the people trying to hide things on their phone are criminally related in some way/shape/form.
Click to expand...

People have this idea that police are in their business is because THEY ARE and most of the time without any regard to probable cause. Even if the thread bare thinnest of reasons to apply probable cause are used, then why should I go out of my way to make their lives easier? Whether or not I did anything wrong. I'm not sure who you are trying to fool here.
 
Woo, Kirbyrj is getting ripped up!

And I don't mind, if that's the attitude he's got.
 
The easy answer is to stop letting people encrypt things. If they're trying to hide something, it's probably illegal anyhow.
 
If Apple can decrypt these phones so relatively easily, it makes you wonder how good their encryption is. I thought the purpose of encrypting a device was that it waoul dtake an enormous amount of time for ANYONE to do it. If that is the case shouldn't Microsoft or any disk encryption software author be able to decrypt a PC? If this is true, it asks the question, why bother to encrypt if it can be broken so easily?
 
Serpent said:
Woo, Kirbyrj is getting ripped up!

And I don't mind, if that's the attitude he's got.
Click to expand...

So...I'm the one with an attitude because I told you that law enforcement isn't out there to get the innocent person? I have NEVER abused authority by asking an innocent person to let me see their cell phone. :rolleyes:
 
Methadras said:
People have this idea that police are in their business is because THEY ARE and most of the time without any regard to probable cause. Even if the thread bare thinnest of reasons to apply probable cause are used, then why should I go out of my way to make their lives easier? Whether or not I did anything wrong. I'm not sure who you are trying to fool here.
Click to expand...

Calm down and take off your tin foil hat. I don't know how many times I have to tell you that you VERY LIKELY WILL NEVER be asked to see your cell phone unless there is a SIGNIFICANTLY good chance you've committed a crime. If you want to blow me off like I'm some douche bag, so be it. At the end of the day, if you've committed a crime, I'm going to get into your phone (legally), and if you're being charged with a crime anyway, your cell phone isn't going to be the only evidence against you.
 
dandirk said:
I know you don't deem anyone innocent that you look into, but as a law enforcement officer or attorney... you do not get to make that determination...AT ALL, in no way shape or form. The fact you write with such sureness, 100% language etc would leave me to believe that you may have an attitude that the ends justify the means... which in my opinion do not.
Click to expand...

You clearly have no idea how law enforcement works, but the fact that you associate me with your idea of a dirty TV cop shows your ignorance. The reality is, we have a job to do. The reality is, we use the tools at our disposal WITHIN THE LAW to get our job done. When your house gets broken into and the only lead is some drug addict with a 10 digit phone code, do you want me to tell you, "Well, it's none of my business who or what he talks to, and unfortunately this clever criminal has encrypted his phone and some guys on an internet forum didn't like the fact that I wanted to get a legal warrant to search his phone, so I'm just going to close out this investigation." If you do, you're the dumbass, not me.

I have a very good relationship with several defense attorneys, and I ask them questions about how the way I go about my business will be interpreted in court. I've never had a problem, and I've never seen an innocent person at a suppression hearing.
 
it's interesting that you're relying on the fact that nearly all cases would involve illegal drugs

let's just say that many people feel that you shouldn't be prying into their private lives when it comes to drug use so your reliance upon that as the reasoning for why you should be allowed to poke into private communications isn't particularly compelling

coupled with the fact that we have the war on drugs to blame for our jails and prisons swelling from a few hundred thousand prisoners to two million prisoners just in the past couple decades leaving us with the unenviable crown of passing all other nations when it comes to incarceration rates, along with mandatory minimum/determinant sentencing sucking up all our resources from non-CJ institutions and hamstringing our ability to prosecute and incarcerate violent criminals...well thank you very much
 
mope54 said:
it's interesting that you're relying on the fact that nearly all cases would involve illegal drugs

let's just say that many people feel that you shouldn't be prying into their private lives when it comes to drug use so your reliance upon that as the reasoning for why you should be allowed to poke into private communications isn't particularly compelling

coupled with the fact that we have the war on drugs to blame for our jails and prisons swelling from a few hundred thousand prisoners to two million prisoners just in the past couple decades leaving us with the unenviable crown of passing all other nations when it comes to incarceration rates, along with mandatory minimum/determinant sentencing sucking up all our resources from non-CJ institutions and hamstringing our ability to prosecute and incarcerate violent criminals...well thank you very much
Click to expand...

Whether or not the war on drugs is useful or not isn't for me to determine. Drugs are illegal, and my job isn't to try and justify the war on drugs, it's to get the drugs off the streets and apply the law in a fair and equal manner. If you don't like the war on drugs, don't take it out on cops, take it out on politicians and have them change the law.
 
Methadras said:
People have this idea that police are in their business is because THEY ARE and most of the time without any regard to probable cause. Even if the thread bare thinnest of reasons to apply probable cause are used, then why should I go out of my way to make their lives easier? Whether or not I did anything wrong. I'm not sure who you are trying to fool here.
Click to expand...

the police do have the time to waste spying on loads of random people. if they do want your phone and are actively trying to get it then you probably are rather high up on a suspect list.
 
kirbyrj said:
So...I'm the one with an attitude because I told you that law enforcement isn't out there to get the innocent person? I have NEVER abused authority by asking an innocent person to let me see their cell phone. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yes, every time you ask someone to view their phone you're asking an innocent person. Only a judge, or jury can find someone guilty of a crime. At the point in time that you asked them it was before he was found guilty. It's this attitude we're talking about when we talk shit about cops. They think they're judge, jury, and executioner and deserve ll the rights in the world to do whatever they have to do to get the "bad" guys. Notice how bad is in quotes, good and bad are personal morals, what we view as legal and illegal is just what the government thinks is best, not what actually is good or bad. 1 innocent man punished, jailed, or harassed is worth 10 or even more criminals being let go to prevent that punishment. An innocent mans freedom is one of the most important things that we as a society value, or should value.

In short, if you're using the terms innocent and guilty with someone who has yet to be found guilty in court you're wrong. You have probable cause of their guilt, you may have evidence of their guilt, but until it is on the record in court they are innocent.
 
randomdean100 said:
Yes, every time you ask someone to view their phone you're asking an innocent person. Only a judge, or jury can find someone guilty of a crime. At the point in time that you asked them it was before he was found guilty. It's this attitude we're talking about when we talk shit about cops. They think they're judge, jury, and executioner and deserve ll the rights in the world to do whatever they have to do to get the "bad" guys. Notice how bad is in quotes, good and bad are personal morals, what we view as legal and illegal is just what the government thinks is best, not what actually is good or bad. 1 innocent man punished, jailed, or harassed is worth 10 or even more criminals being let go to prevent that punishment. An innocent mans freedom is one of the most important things that we as a society value, or should value.

In short, if you're using the terms innocent and guilty with someone who has yet to be found guilty in court you're wrong. You have probable cause of their guilt, you may have evidence of their guilt, but until it is on the record in court they are innocent.
Click to expand...

I don't know what to tell you. I can't type up charges on people that I believe are innocent (that would be another whole set of issues which I also would have a problem with). I understand your concern about innocent until proven guilty, but that's why there are other legal terms like, "probable cause."
 
kirbyrj said:
Whether or not the war on drugs is useful or not isn't for me to determine. Drugs are illegal, and my job isn't to try and justify the war on drugs, it's to get the drugs off the streets and apply the law in a fair and equal manner. If you don't like the war on drugs, don't take it out on cops, take it out on politicians and have them change the law.
Click to expand...
I'm not taking anything out on anyone but don't come into this thread spouting off that the only people netted by the war on drugs are guilty people because that's false.

But more importantly, you have very little room to act the martyr in this situation if your position is that you are merely prosecuting drug laws as they exist and that's the main justification for why you (and others) should be allowed to snoop into citizen private communications.
 
randomdean100 said:
In short, if you're using the terms innocent and guilty with someone who has yet to be found guilty in court you're wrong. You have probable cause of their guilt, you may have evidence of their guilt, but until it is on the record in court they are innocent.
Click to expand...

That's a technicality. So let me rephrase...I have never asked someone to see their cell phone who I didn't have probable cause that they committed a crime.
 
mope54 said:
I'm not taking anything out on anyone but don't come into this thread spouting off that the only people netted by the war on drugs are guilty people because that's false.

But more importantly, you have very little room to act the martyr in this situation if your position is that you are merely prosecuting drug laws as they exist and that's the main justification for why you (and others) should be allowed to snoop into citizen private communications.
Click to expand...

I haven't made any excuse into snooping into private communication of citizens who didn't have probable cause that they committed a crime. I don't condone it. I don't do it. I don't see any problem with snooping into communications of people who I do have probable cause that they committed a crime whether or not its drug related or not.
 
I'd prefer you spent your time and our public resources focusing on violent crime
 
mope54 said:
it's interesting that you're relying on the fact that nearly all cases would involve illegal drugs

let's just say that many people feel that you shouldn't be prying into their private lives when it comes to drug use so your reliance upon that as the reasoning for why you should be allowed to poke into private communications isn't particularly compelling

coupled with the fact that we have the war on drugs to blame for our jails and prisons swelling from a few hundred thousand prisoners to two million prisoners just in the past couple decades leaving us with the unenviable crown of passing all other nations when it comes to incarceration rates, along with mandatory minimum/determinant sentencing sucking up all our resources from non-CJ institutions and hamstringing our ability to prosecute and incarcerate violent criminals...well thank you very much
Click to expand...

Uh so your saying that cops and the like shouldnt try to arrest people that are involved in illegal activities. because the people involved in said activities think they shouldnt be illegal. that has to be the single most retarded argument about drugs i have ever heard.

hell i like speeding and so do loads of other people but its not like we get moraly outraged when a cop pulls us over. since....its....ILLEGAL
 
shifty68 said:
Uh so your saying that cops and the like shouldnt try to arrest people that are involved in illegal activities. because the people involved in said activities think they shouldnt be illegal. that has to be the single most retarded argument about drugs i have ever heard.

hell i like speeding and so do loads of other people but its not like we get moraly outraged when a cop pulls us over. since....its....ILLEGAL
Click to expand...
no, I'm saying that police shouldn't be surprised to find people hiding information on their phones if they're involved with illegal drugs given that they believe they shouldn't be illegal in the first place

in your example of speeding, I wouldn't be surprised nor should I expect police to be surprised to find people with radar detectors given that they want to speed


that's a different thing from me claiming that police shouldn't prosecute drug users or dealers or speeders

usually people can make a distinction between those statements but hopefully that clarified it for you in a way that you can understand
 
mope54 said:
I'd prefer you spent your time and our public resources focusing on violent crime
Click to expand...

Drugs and violent crime often go hand in hand. Virtually always, people that commit violent crimes also have a cell phone and communicate with people who may have been involved in said violent crime.
 
kirbyrj said:
I haven't made any excuse into snooping into private communication of citizens who didn't have probable cause that they committed a crime. I don't condone it. I don't do it. I don't see any problem with snooping into communications of people who I do have probable cause that they committed a crime whether or not its drug related or not.
Click to expand...

And there's the disconnect we are having. You view the law as something similar to the bible, when in fact it is closer to the rules of a game. It should be the rules are mutually agreed upon by everyone, but that is not the case nor is it possible. In such a scenario we need a government, but right now the government is deciding the rules without caring what the populace wants, needs, or agrees with.

We don't believe the law is the final line, you do. You believe that the law is god, the law is right, and anyone breaking that law should have their rights violated, in the name of "justice". Yes, you're a good cop. But you have to think at what point does being a good cop actually mean you do bad things. Legal, but bad, things. The law prohibiting stuff that shouldn't be prohibited is one side of the coin, the law also always you to cross the line into what the general public thinks is bad or evil but you think is fine because your god, the law, says it is fine.
 
shifty68 said:
its not like we get moraly outraged when a cop pulls us over. since....its....ILLEGAL
Click to expand...
incidentally, people *do* get morally outraged when tagged by a camera or when they're the one that was pulled over on the freeway among a group of people driving over the limit

I'm not sure who you're trying to fool with your claim but it's incorrect as I'm sure kirby can attest to
 
kirbyrj said:
Drugs and violent crime often go hand in hand. Virtually always, people that commit violent crimes also have a cell phone and communicate with people who may have been involved in said violent crime.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with you but your case would have been stronger had you claimed you usually want to read those communications to prosecute violent criminals rather than
kirbyrj said:
Quite honestly, the reason why I'd want to look at a phone has everything to do with communication for drug deals.
Click to expand...
 
kirbyrj said:
Drugs and violent crime often go hand in hand. Virtually always, people that commit violent crimes also have a cell phone and communicate with people who may have been involved in said violent crime.
Click to expand...

Drugs and violent crime go together because drugs are illegal. The government made them go hand in hand. Look at prohibition, the gangsters were the brave ones to break the law, they were also the brave ones to do violent crimes. I'm not condoning violent crimes but by making any substance illegal you alter the ratio of violent people who do those things and peaceful people who do those things. Peaceful people won't generally break the law, violent people do more often. It's common sense that making something illegal increases the ratio of that act being also committed with violence.

in short, because drugs are illegal they are usually found with or near violent crimes, criminals do criminal things. But if drugs were legal we would see a decrease in the percentage of violent crimes caused by drugs. Cartels couldn't sell, distribute, or create drugs for profit anymore. The danger would be gone, so the need for violence gone as well. Legalizing drugs also makes drug users and circles less violent.
 
randomdean100 said:
And there's the disconnect we are having. You view the law as something similar to the bible, when in fact it is closer to the rules of a game. It should be the rules are mutually agreed upon by everyone, but that is not the case nor is it possible. In such a scenario we need a government, but right now the government is deciding the rules without caring what the populace wants, needs, or agrees with.

We don't believe the law is the final line, you do. You believe that the law is god, the law is right, and anyone breaking that law should have their rights violated, in the name of "justice". Yes, you're a good cop. But you have to think at what point does being a good cop actually mean you do bad things. Legal, but bad, things. The law prohibiting stuff that shouldn't be prohibited is one side of the coin, the law also always you to cross the line into what the general public thinks is bad or evil but you think is fine because your god, the law, says it is fine.
Click to expand...

Like I said before, I don't know what to tell you. I have to take the law at face value because it's my job. I'm not the one who writes the laws, but it's my job to enforce them. In order to enforce the law, you can't have a "gray" view of them. It has to be black and white and then you let the court decide how gray it is.

I know its cliche, but "walk a mile in my shoes," and see how this discussion looks from the other side. The people that get into law enforcement because they are on a power trip and like to bully people around end up as dead beat local cops (no offense intended to local cops). Most of the people I work with got into it because they wanted to help people and make a difference.
 
mope54 said:
incidentally, people *do* get morally outraged when tagged by a camera or when they're the one that was pulled over on the freeway among a group of people driving over the limit

I'm not sure who you're trying to fool with your claim but it's incorrect as I'm sure kirby can attest to
Click to expand...

ok your probably right i should have said I and instead of making broad statement. but really the people that get pissed at cops for pulling them over are delude. they broke the law the cops found out and now them are getting a ticket.
 
mope54 said:
incidentally, people *do* get morally outraged when tagged by a camera or when they're the one that was pulled over on the freeway among a group of people driving over the limit

I'm not sure who you're trying to fool with your claim but it's incorrect as I'm sure kirby can attest to
Click to expand...

I don't like the red light cameras. I think they're a joke and cause more accidents than actually cause people to stop.

If I can't tell exactly which car is going over the limit, I don't pull someone over. There's going to be another one 30 seconds later going just as fast.
 
kirbyrj said:
Calm down and take off your tin foil hat. I don't know how many times I have to tell you that you VERY LIKELY WILL NEVER be asked to see your cell phone unless there is a SIGNIFICANTLY good chance you've committed a crime. If you want to blow me off like I'm some douche bag, so be it. At the end of the day, if you've committed a crime, I'm going to get into your phone (legally), and if you're being charged with a crime anyway, your cell phone isn't going to be the only evidence against you.
Click to expand...

No tin foil hat here. You may be the paragon of law enforcement virtue, but some of your fellow blue boys leave a lot to be desired. At the end of the day, my changing my pincode to 10 digits just makes everyone's life hard trying to get into my phone, including LE even if I do commit a crime. Next time, keep your tin foil hat comments to yourself. That is what makes you come of as a D-bag.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top