Israeli Firm Helping FBI To Open Encrypted iPhone

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
This is just a hunch but, if this is in fact the company helping the FBI crack that encrypted iPhone, I have a feeling Apple is going to file a lawsuit against them soon.

Israel's Cellebrite, a provider of mobile forensic software, is helping the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation's attempt to unlock an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino, California shooters, the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper reported on Wednesday. If Cellebrite succeeds, then the FBI will no longer need the help of Apple Inc, the Israeli daily said, citing unnamed industry sources. Cellebrite officials declined to comment on the matter.
 
They never needed Apples help, this whole thing is about our current administrations war against the big bad corporations.
 
Apple won this round, i doubt that they will file a lawsuit against Cellibrite.
 
Jim Kim said:
Apple won this round, i doubt that they will file a lawsuit against Cellibrite.
Click to expand...
I would say this is a loss for Apple; on one level they have lost control of their o/s. If it plays out this way than the FBI can hack any iPhone and Apple cannot stop them. Successful end-around...

Apple could have opened the phone on their own terms and the FBI would continue to go to Apple for assistance when needed. No more...
 
Oh Gosh, just imagine if Apple did file a lawsuit against an Israeli company... The media would have them chastised as antisemitics in a heart beat. Yeah I know sounds like a stretch, but that seems to be the way things go now a days....
 
Last edited:
Big win for Apple. This PR headache goes away, they get breathing room to keep hardening their products, and it shows that the FBI was just fishing for legal precedent.
 
This is how it should have been done in the first place. Ask, not order, Apple to help. When they decline, go to a third party firm who is willing to help.
 
jardows said:
This is how it should have been done in the first place. Ask, not order, Apple to help. When they decline, go to a third party firm who is willing to help.
Click to expand...
But they won't wear down Apple to give backdoors at birth in their products, that way. In fact, Apple will become smarter at securing their product over time this way.
 
I can imagine the folks at Apple HQ are fuming a little/lot over this. :nailbiting: And I wouldn't be shocked if they activate the legal beagles.
 
Good, then they can just keep doing this for each and every phone they get a warrant for.

The law doesn't apply to The Law these days, authorities seem to view the law as an unacceptable barrier to policing. The best we can hope for is that the resources required to carry out these actions make it impractical to do so en masse.
 
Jim Kim said:
Apple won this round, i doubt that they will file a lawsuit against Cellibrite.
Click to expand...

You call this a win?

Wait until you see the new laws that will be passed to stop Businesses from doing this. I have said it before, the Government won't allow this and because industry won't work with the Government to find a happy middle ground the Government is going to be making up those rules alone and most likely they won't be such a great deal for us.
 
Since the phone at this point, effectively belongs to the FBI as part of an ongoing investigation, I have no problem with the FBI accessing the data on this phone. The prior owner is dead and unless someone in the chain of heirs wishes to claim the phone, it is abandoned property. The FBI should be able to do with their phone what ever they want, including paying some willing person or company to access the data. The FBI should NOT be able to force an unwilling 3rd party(Apple or other) to do the work for them.
 
jardows said:
This is how it should have been done in the first place. Ask, not order, Apple to help. When they decline, go to a third party firm who is willing to help.
Click to expand...


It's not like the Government didn't offer to pay for Apple's help.

"Oh please mister tech god, don't make me force you to accept money for your help"
 
lcpiper said:
You call this a win?

Wait until you see the new laws that will be passed to stop Businesses from doing this. I have said it before, the Government won't allow this and because industry won't work with the Government to find a happy middle ground the Government is going to be making up those rules alone and most likely they won't be such a great deal for us.
Click to expand...

They would have to defeat CALEA first, which is why the FBI chose all writs for their case. I just simply believe that the FBI didn't think that Apple would call their bluff and want congress to get involved, which was what they were originally trying to avoid.
 
Dead Parrot said:
Since the phone at this point, effectively belongs to the FBI as part of an ongoing investigation, I have no problem with the FBI accessing the data on this phone. The prior owner is dead and unless someone in the chain of heirs wishes to claim the phone, it is abandoned property. The FBI should be able to do with their phone what ever they want, including paying some willing person or company to access the data. The FBI should NOT be able to force an unwilling 3rd party(Apple or other) to do the work for them.
Click to expand...
The ability they were initially asking for would remove the need for an unlock code. Something if they confiscate the phone off your person, they need a warrant to someone like Apple if they have it or ask you directly. If they ask you, you can take the fifth and say no.

But the method they were asking to be developed would remove the need for anyone to turn over an unlock code. Therefore they could access phones in other situations where people previously had protections or at least created a papertrail.
 
Franko said:
Big win for Apple. This PR headache goes away, they get breathing room to keep hardening their products, and it shows that the FBI was just fishing for legal precedent.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. Apple was claiming that the government wanted something that would be able to hack millions of iPhones. If this one phone can be hacked without compromising more, why didn't Apple mention that? Indeed, in another thread here Apple is requesting to know what's going on here.
 
Wait a minute, so the FBI went to a phone forensic company who specializes in this type of security? *smacks head* Why didn't we think of this sooner?
 
Ryokurin said:
They would have to defeat CALEA first, which is why the FBI chose all writs for their case. I just simply believe that the FBI didn't think that Apple would call their bluff and want congress to get involved, which was what they were originally trying to avoid.
Click to expand...

So the FBI has always used All Writs in every previous case, but this one is special, and they chose to use All Writs for an entirely different reason this time?
 
This is not a win for Apple. The FBI withdrew the request, so there was no conclusion. Saying this is a win is similar to when a big company settles out of court, the company (FBI) gets what they want without having to put anything on record. In this case, the 'on record' bit are the courts siding with Apple. Next time this comes up, Apple will be back in the same position.

Big win for the FBI.
Had Apple just helped them from the beginning like any patriotic citizen should, this would not even have been news. They made the focus about enabling other entities to achieve the goal, which more than enough people are willing to do.
 
Dead Parrot said:
Since the phone at this point, effectively belongs to the FBI as part of an ongoing investigation, I have no problem with the FBI accessing the data on this phone. The prior owner is dead and unless someone in the chain of heirs wishes to claim the phone, it is abandoned property. The FBI should be able to do with their phone what ever they want, including paying some willing person or company to access the data. The FBI should NOT be able to force an unwilling 3rd party(Apple or other) to do the work for them.
Click to expand...

You are mistaken, the phone always belonged to the County of San Bernadino and remains their property. The owner being dead is mostly immaterial, it is County owned property issued to a user for County business use. Heirs and inheritance and their privacy are not of any relevance in this case.

As for the All Writs Act being used to force Apple to assist the FBI, that is the very purpose of the law. As for it's limitations, a business being served under this act always has the opportunity to show to the court that complying with the order would be too burdensome to the company and the Government did stipulate that they would pay Apple for the help.

I do not see that there is anything unreasonable about going to someone and telling them that you need their help. That you will pay them for their help. And that as long as it not too hard on you, then you really need to help me. Not when it's the government doing the asking and the need is reasonable. That being said, it does no one any good to play this up as if Apple doesn't get a chance to put forth their reasons why they should not have to do comply with the court order or forget that they will be paid for their work. Apple is a business and not an individual person.

When the FBI get's a warrant to search a hotel room they get that warrant using the All Writs Act that compels the hotel to unlock the door and make the room available to the Government. The Apple case is much more complex but Apple had the opportunity to show why it would be unreasonable to ask them to help the FBI. Many people forget that Apple could have simple explained why it would damage their business and let the Judge make the decision. Instead Apple went about it a little differently.

As it stands now, the FBI has found other help and I don't think Apple is going to get anywhere when it comes to getting the FBI to tell them how the phone was unlocked if successful. You know, Apple could have resisted this court order without making a huge deal of it in the media. But Tim Cook pulled the public outcry card and now Apple and their investors have to live with it.

AAPL Interactive Stock Chart | Yahoo! Inc. Stock - Yahoo! Finance

It will be interesting to watch the bottom line for awhile.
 
heatlesssun said:
Not exactly. Apple was claiming that the government wanted something that would be able to hack millions of iPhones. If this one phone can be hacked without compromising more, why didn't Apple mention that? Indeed, in another thread here Apple is requesting to know what's going on here.
Click to expand...
Apple didn't mention this in their filings or public defense because they didn't know about it. This most likely is an exploit that the intelligence agencies have been sitting on. The FBI probably knew about but wanted to see if they could force a favourable legal precedent.
 
What?

You are losing me, Apple didn't know about what?

You have some bad ideas that are incorrect.

First, the FBI is not a US Intelligence Agency, All US intelligence Agencies fall under the DoD and the FBI is under the DoJ. Many of you think that because they are all under the US Government that they are all just the same thing but it's far far from the truth. That was the whole point of forming the DHS, to get all these different Agencies to play together and share. There are still legal limits on what can dross that line between military and law enforcement and obviously all efforts to cooperate and share incur the risk of crossing that line.

What I still find amusing is this tin-foil hate conspiracy idea that the FBI is trying to make a play for a legal precedent for something that they have already been doing for more than a hundred years. The only difference in this case and thousands before it is that this time the Court Order requires the served business to do a little more work then normal. It requires a business that creates software for a living to create a custom tool to unlock a phone and get paid to do it.

So many of you want to look at this as if it's the FBI that's trying to change the game. It's Apple that re-engineered their product and claim it's absolutely secure and claim to the government that their phones just can't be unlocked any more. Sorry, can't be done.

Then when pressed in a courtroom, Apple comes clean and says, well yes, they can still unlock the phones, and on and on.

You can believe Tim Cook's bullshit if you want to, but I'm not buying it.

I'll repeat it one more time. The FBI doesn't need a precedent for using the All Writs Act to force Apple to unlock a iPhone because this is how the FBI has already done it in every prior instance. That boat sailed long ago.

The only difference between now and then is whether or not Apple can sell the Judge on how burdensome this assistance will be.
 
Sorry Apple it's classified and a matter of national security! You didn't want to help so now your out. All the way out! ;)
 
lcpiper said:
What?

You are losing me, Apple didn't know about what?

You have some bad ideas that are incorrect.

First, the FBI is not a US Intelligence Agency, All US intelligence Agencies fall under the DoD and the FBI is under the DoJ. Many of you think that because they are all under the US Government that they are all just the same thing but it's far far from the truth. That was the whole point of forming the DHS, to get all these different Agencies to play together and share. There are still legal limits on what can dross that line between military and law enforcement and obviously all efforts to cooperate and share incur the risk of crossing that line.

What I still find amusing is this tin-foil hate conspiracy idea that the FBI is trying to make a play for a legal precedent for something that they have already been doing for more than a hundred years. The only difference in this case and thousands before it is that this time the Court Order requires the served business to do a little more work then normal. It requires a business that creates software for a living to create a custom tool to unlock a phone and get paid to do it.

So many of you want to look at this as if it's the FBI that's trying to change the game. It's Apple that re-engineered their product and claim it's absolutely secure and claim to the government that their phones just can't be unlocked any more. Sorry, can't be done.

Then when pressed in a courtroom, Apple comes clean and says, well yes, they can still unlock the phones, and on and on.

You can believe Tim Cook's bullshit if you want to, but I'm not buying it.

I'll repeat it one more time. The FBI doesn't need a precedent for using the All Writs Act to force Apple to unlock a iPhone because this is how the FBI has already done it in every prior instance. That boat sailed long ago.

The only difference between now and then is whether or not Apple can sell the Judge on how burdensome this assistance will be.
Click to expand...
The FBI was trying to establish a precedent that it was a legally appropriate use of the all writs act to force a manufacturer to write code specifically to defeat it's own security measures.
 
Franko said:
The FBI was trying to establish a precedent that it was a legally appropriate use of the all writs act to force a manufacturer to write code specifically to defeat it's own security measures.
Click to expand...

Actually, when I asked "what?". I was specifically referring to this sentence which makes no sense without more context.

Apple didn't mention this in their filings or public defense because they didn't know about it.
Click to expand...

And you need further understanding of the law it seems because I think you have too broad a view of what "legal precedent" entails.

I'll say it again, precedent was set long ago and it doesn't matter that in this case it requires additional effort on the part of Apple. Furthermore, precedent does not in any way limit or obviate the reality that Apple will always have an opportunity to show that the ordered action is burdensome to Apple. In fact, I think Apple is missing the boat if the stay is not lifted and this case allowed to progress. It is entirely possible that Judge Pym would find in Apple's favor that the court order would be burdensome and that it would be asking too much of them and then we would have had an end to it right there. Instead it's going to play out.

Sometimes, when you try to game the game too hard, it works out against you in the end.
 
lcpiper said:
So the FBI has always used All Writs in every previous case, but this one is special, and they chose to use All Writs for an entirely different reason this time?
Click to expand...

It's different because in previous times, Apple just had to assist, and if they said they couldn't help them, that should end it. That didn't happen this time. There's a big difference in "help us out" and "you will provide the following capabilities"
 
Ryokurin said:
It's different because in previous times, Apple just had to assist, and if they said they couldn't help them, that should end it. That didn't happen this time. There's a big difference in "help us out" and "you will provide the following capabilities"
Click to expand...

Really? I think not.

Apple had the exact same option in every previous case, an opportunity to show that the government's request was burdensome. I am sure that this time it is more burdensome in many aspects. But it doesn't make the whole thing different and it doesn't mean that they won't have the same exact opportunity in the future. Government asks for assistance, Judge says the request looks legit and signs court order, Company either accepts it or puts forth an argument as to why they shouldn't have to do what's asked. Judge makes their decision. And precedent does not have any bearing on a companies opportunity to contest the offer based on it being unreasonably burdensome because many things change just as in this case.

Maybe you need to take some time and read some other court orders and subpoenas to get a better feels for how they are written.

Subpoena to Twitter

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2012/01/fricosugov.pdf

And a great read by the way on Lavabit.

Edward Snowden’s E-Mail Provider Defied FBI Demands to Turn Over Crypto Keys, Documents Show

Court Orders and Subpoenas are not written in very polite terminology. In fact they are pretty demanding as it goes.
 
lcpiper said:
What?

You are losing me, Apple didn't know about what?

You have some bad ideas that are incorrect.

First, the FBI is not a US Intelligence Agency, All US intelligence Agencies fall under the DoD and the FBI is under the DoJ. Many of you think that because they are all under the US Government that they are all just the same thing but it's far far from the truth. That was the whole point of forming the DHS, to get all these different Agencies to play together and share. There are still legal limits on what can dross that line between military and law enforcement and obviously all efforts to cooperate and share incur the risk of crossing that line.

What I still find amusing is this tin-foil hate conspiracy idea that the FBI is trying to make a play for a legal precedent for something that they have already been doing for more than a hundred years. The only difference in this case and thousands before it is that this time the Court Order requires the served business to do a little more work then normal. It requires a business that creates software for a living to create a custom tool to unlock a phone and get paid to do it.

So many of you want to look at this as if it's the FBI that's trying to change the game. It's Apple that re-engineered their product and claim it's absolutely secure and claim to the government that their phones just can't be unlocked any more. Sorry, can't be done.

Then when pressed in a courtroom, Apple comes clean and says, well yes, they can still unlock the phones, and on and on.

You can believe Tim Cook's bullshit if you want to, but I'm not buying it.

I'll repeat it one more time. The FBI doesn't need a precedent for using the All Writs Act to force Apple to unlock a iPhone because this is how the FBI has already done it in every prior instance. That boat sailed long ago.

The only difference between now and then is whether or not Apple can sell the Judge on how burdensome this assistance will be.
Click to expand...
A voice of sanity...

The purpose of the FBI is not to invade the privacy of American citizens but to protect those citizens from criminals and such. If there is a need to fear the FBI for fear of creating a police state than supporting politicians who want to expand the size and scope of the Federal Government is a giant step in the wrong direction. Why refusing to help the FBI Apple is not protecting normal people but rather is enabling criminals or worse...
 
Ryokurin said:
It's different because in previous times, Apple just had to assist, and if they said they couldn't help them, that should end it. That didn't happen this time. There's a big difference in "help us out" and "you will provide the following capabilities"
Click to expand...

Ryokurin, that part of different has a place, but it's place is in Apple's contention of how burdensome it will be to force them to do this.

It's a process, the government submits for the court order, the subject of the court order gets a chance to get out of it if they can convince the Judge that the court order is unreasonable. No amount of precedent changes this process. Every case still relies on both sides arguments and any other relevant information brought before the Judge. In the New York case the Judge says the All Writs Act can't be used because the arguments put forth do not justify what the government is asking for and that congress has previously addressed the issue as law makers and not passed a law that would have settled this once and for all.

But the California case is not the New York case and although the New York case did set precedent, it is still a different case with different arguments put forth and a different thing asked of apple in the court order. Similar, not the same. But it still doesn't change the legal process and it won't deny Apple of their right to address burden. You are getting the cart before the horse is what I am saying.
 
thejokker said:
A voice of sanity...

The purpose of the FBI is not to invade the privacy of American citizens but to protect those citizens from criminals and such. If there is a need to fear the FBI for fear of creating a police state than supporting politicians who want to expand the size and scope of the Federal Government is a giant step in the wrong direction. Why refusing to help the FBI Apple is not protecting normal people but rather is enabling criminals or worse...
Click to expand...

I agree that expanding the scope and size of the Federal Government is not a smart move. I think the Government needs to go on Ultra SlimFast as it is. It's way too big and into too many things that the States have full power to do themselves for themselves. Too many people fail to understand that a person's voice is easier to hear the closer the listener is. When you take an issue that your City can solve for you and push it to State instead, you make your State government bigger, more expensive, and you limit your ability to change or even manage it because you have pushed the problem and the solution farther away. Now, your local issue has become a State issue and face it, does the rest of the State care much for your local problem because now you have to convince them that it needs to be dealt with over the top of all the other State problems. It's even worse when you push things to Federal levels and your voice is even smaller.

Now I would agree that this issue is a Federal Issue but I am drifting off target here.

I am not comfortable backing up the claim that refusing to help the FBI is helping criminals. Depending on the situation it might effectively work out that way but that coin has two sides. You also can't just give the FBI everything they ask for. Some things are reasonable, some are not. Apple says this request is unreasonable, I disagree. Apple has done a lot of talking outside the courtroom as to why this request is too burdensome for their company but much less in the courtroom. We might not find out how this is going to go because of the Stay on the court order, the FBI might drop the case if they no longer need Apple's help. Of course that mean's Apple is on their own to figure this thing out.

You never know, the FBI might tell Apple to get bent but then again, they might invite Apple in on this thing if Apple agrees to help out. One hand washes the other is what I heard.
 
Zigmorph said:
Oh Gosh, just imagine if Apple did file a lawsuit against an Israeli company... The media would have them chastised as semanticists in a heart beat. Yeah I know sounds like a stretch, but that seems to be the way things go now a days....
Click to expand...
the fuck are you talking about? this isn't even remotely related to the FBI/apple case. also "semanticist" lol.
 
DF-1 said:
the fuck are you talking about? this isn't even remotely related to the FBI/apple case. also "antisemitics" lol.
Click to expand...
Fixed that for you :) I'm blaming auto spell... also was off on a tangent..

Anyways, If Apple took this company to court over this don't you think the AIPAC would have something to say about it?
 
The AI.. what?

I had to Google that one.

All the Israeli support groups are very vocal and yes, I think that anything remotely threatening to anything Israeli would draw comment if not assault. They are very very defensive minded. Not that they don't have good reason to be. Just calling it the way I see it and no need to read alot into it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top