Texas Rangers Serve Warrant to Apple to Gain Access to iPhone Owned by Sutherland Springs Killer

[LigTasm]

Jesus Christ is right! What specific crime do you think they're looking for?

Just fucking read a goddamn thing or two before spouting off:



-- http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CR/htm/CR.18.htm

They can't just go see what's on his fucking phone without explaining to a judge what exactly they expect to find on it.

Do they have evidence of some other crime possibly committed? Do they evidence of someone else being involved? If so, they would have to specifically list the possible crimes, who specifically they think was involved, and the facts for why they believe they'll find evidence of all that on the phone.

OK... so since that's what they have to do don't you suppose that's what they did since they got the warrant and all? And if they didn't have the specifics the judge would have said no and everyone would have been done with it?

 

[mope54]

OK... so since that's what they have to do don't you suppose that's what they did since they got the warrant and all? And if they didn't have the specifics the judge would have said no and everyone would have been done with it?

They either did that or the judge might have done what you all are advocating for here: looks like a bad dude, let's go through his shit.

Judges, especially Texan judges and even moreso during a highly politicized case like this, aren't immune from making a wrong or poor ruling.

I already wrote earlier that over-reaching warrants have been issued during the past few decades during the war on drugs. They don't make the news, though, because no one gives a shit about a drug dealer or addict who ends up being unlawfully searched. Some get their convictions overturned, though, and then people get their panties all twisted about our legal system being too lax, etc.

 

[LigTasm]

They either did that or the judge might have done what you all are advocating for here: looks like a bad dude, let's go through his shit.

Judges, especially Texan judges and even moreso during a highly politicized case like this, aren't immune from making a wrong or poor ruling.

I'm not advocating for anything, in fact I would have preferred them to just take Apple up on the offer to unlock it at the start so we don't have to worry about setting dangerous precedents. The FBI and the other alphabet agencies don't need one more single shred of ability to encroach and bypass our rights than they already have, their overreach is astounding at this point.

However the logical side of me says the incident occurred in a very small town, its likely that there are several different agencies working on it (butting heads) at the same time and the first 48 hours goes by awful quick when you have that many bodies and crime scenes to deal with. Possibly they just dropped the ball on that and now have other testimony or evidence to suggest they need something from his phone. I do not believe that Apple should be forced to give it up though, IMO they're SOL at this point.

 

[FrgMstr]

If the police want to search the iPhone for evidence of him committing the shooting that would be one thing but that's not why they want to search the phone. They want to search it to determine whether others were involved and who may or may not have helped him, which are entirely different crimes, which the police need some factual basis to believe that even happened before they can go looking for evidence of it.

The GPS record in the cloud can place him at the crime. That in itself, is search warrant worthy. Any subsequent intelligence might very well likely be held to a different standard. Keep in mind, no LEO was on scene. Any evidence that solidifies the witness stories is valuable. Your whole argument started with it does not matter because of all your unproven assumptions, LEO's job is to leave no assumption.

 

[jeremyshaw]

For years Apple and Verizon and others gave up the info, unlocked the phones, that precedent people keep crying about was set decades ago. This is a completely false idea, it's an argument that has no substance in actual court but draws attention from the press from the ignorant. Legal Precedent is not at issue.

For years, iPhones were not encrypted on the end-user side. Legal Precedent in this case is forcing Apple to create a backdoor into an user's device.

 

[FrgMstr]

That's not my argument. The point I made was LEO are not allowed to go digging for evidence of other crimes or accomplices without a factual basis for specific crimes they suspect. They aren't looking for evidence pertaining to the shooting itself

My point is that your understanding of the law is flawed. I was simply trying to break it down to make it simple. Some of the statements you have made here are fallacious. But, good talk.

 

[Extra-Titanian]

This thread's all over the place. Almost can't even tell what the arguments are about. The link is apparently talking about gaining access to the key stored in the hardware itself. Not the dude's iCloud account, which is an entirely different security architecture, if I'm following this correctly. But instead, we're fighting about the morals of looking at the dudes data?

 

[BloodDonor]

As I see it, there are 2 separate issues...

1) Can Apply physically do what the Government asks... if a Judge orders me to do 10000000 pushups in an hour, yeah, nah... not gonna happen
2) is the court order legal, or a fishing expedition... (just because a judge ordered it, doesnt mean its constitutional)... I agree the dude was a 'bad guy' and the evidence is there proving it was him, but slippery slope

 

[babadook]

They want to search it to determine whether others were involved and who may or may not have helped him, which are entirely different crimes

Why would those be entirely different crimes?

How is this not *exactly* what law enforcement should do, finding out if there were people aiding/instigating a mass murderer?

 

[geok1ng]

Guessing most of us think the answer to item 1 is yes.

because we know that corporations put backdoors into their products and such backdoors were exploited by NSA until they leaked online and become ransomware. i would be suprised if Apple really devoloped a phone that apple can not break into.

 

[kirbyrj]

I guess you haven't been paying attention to the news lately... NEWS FLASH! There's a lot of bad cops out there! Cops who have no business wearing a badge!

No there aren't. In a profession of ~1.1 million people, you hear about a fraction of a percentage and then assume that the rest are like the small percentage.

 

[nysmo]

Do they have evidence of some other crime possibly committed? Do they evidence of someone else being involved? If so, they would have to specifically list the possible crimes, who specifically they think was involved, and the facts for why they believe they'll find evidence of all that on the phone.

They dont need evidence of some other crime. They have plenty of evidence regarding the first crime. My original comment was that while inspecting his device for information related to the shooting they may uncover a trove of information related to other crimes they werent looking for. There is no dangerous precedent being set here, this is just standard detective work.

 

[trparky]

OK so if we allow the government to force Apple to open the phone this time, what makes you think that the government will only do it just this one time? What makes you think that the government will only use this power when particularly heinous crimes are committed? Based upon how corrupt the United States government really is and how they have shown such a blatant disregard for our most basic of rights because... we're the government, I simply cannot trust them to do the right thing.

As someone else said in this thread, if you give the government an inch they will take a mile. If you give up just a little bit of your freedom they will take all of it. This is the slippery slope down into Despotism and a police state.

 

[Verge]

How about "Hey Billy Bob, you're next!". They might not even know exactly what theyre looking for until they see it, such as plans for the next massacre, other redneck cells, etc. This is domestic terrorism and terrorists often have a variety of plans.

I don't think hardcore atheist antifa members are welcome in redneck communities.

 

[kirbyrj]

OK so if we allow the government to force Apple to open the phone this time, what makes you think that the government will only do it just this one time? What makes you think that the government will only use this power when particularly heinous crimes are committed? Based upon how corrupt the United States government really is and how they have shown such a blatant disregard for our most basic of rights because... we're the government, I simply cannot trust them to do the right thing.

As someone else said in this thread, if you give the government an inch they will take a mile. If you give up just a little bit of your freedom they will take all of it. This is the slippery slope down into Despotism and a police state.

This same argument was made with the San Bernardino shooter/terrorist. They unlocked the phone anyway using some other means. The government didn't turn into a police state.

The check and balance on your concern isn't the technological ability to unlock the phone. It's the issuance of the warrant in the first place. A good portion of the judges that rule on these are elected. You don't like the ruling, elect a different judge.

 

[lcpiper]

For years, iPhones were not encrypted on the end-user side. Legal Precedent in this case is forcing Apple to create a backdoor into an user's device.

Nope, that is immaterial. The precedent isn't about how, the precedent is about what, and what is giving up the information when required by a court order. Don't leave out the court order part, it's sort of important. The lawyers scream precedent, so do the people under the court order and the media who are farming the anti-government trolls. But precedent isn't even at issue because that was set and really doesn't even matter anymore because doh!, It's a court order, not a judgement, not a ruling, it's a standard principle of judicial power, a court order to do what companies' have been required to do for hundreds of years.

But it's beside the point and immaterial to this case because this is about a dead guys phone and a dead guy has no expectation or privacy under the law.

 

[FrgMstr]

My point was if you can't charge the shooter because he is dead, how can you make an argument in court for probable cause?

You can't charge the shooter because he is dead. You can still apply probable cause to search his property, or whoever those now below to legally belong to.

Can probable cause be established where there is no possibility of charges

Probable cause has NOTHING to do with filing charges.

 

[Jorona]

If he had written his accomplices, suppliers and who knows what on a piece of paper and burned it with a lighter would you expect the lighter or paper manufacture to restore the paper?

No... Like I said. I don't think the onus is on Apple to unlock it. Reading comprehension is key.

 

[lcpiper]

The rights of deceased suspects are not clearly defined. In some areas, rights persist after death and in others they erode significantly. In neither scenario, however, can one claim that no rights exist to be violated or that a warrant is unnecessary.

The property is at issue, the rights of others are at issue, and there does not exist a formal right to privacy codified in the constitution. The right to privacy stems from a legal decision about a penumbra of rights that must exist if the constitutional protections exist.

The link you provided doesn't have anything to say about the topic so I'm don't know why you posted it unless you were simply relying on the title. Also, the police would not have obtained a warrant if they didn't have to so that should be more evidence that what I'm explaining in this thread is correct.

In conjunction with a homicide Mope54, I'm not on a fishing expedition of the legal landscape, I'm on topic. This case is about the deceased's phone in connection with the homicide investigation. Forgive me if that isn't clear.

And from the linked blog.

However, another attorney I interviewed said officers do have the right to confiscate your camera to preserve evidence.

This can only be done in extreme cases such as homicides, rapes or kidnappings, said Michael Pancier, who not only is a nature photographer, but is representing me in my case against 50 State.

They can take the device even if it belongs to a third party if they have reason to believe it contains evidence relative to the crime. Do you think this becomes moot in the case of a homicide where the perpetrator is deceased?

 

[mope54]

This same argument was made with the San Bernardino shooter/terrorist. They unlocked the phone anyway using some other means. The government didn't turn into a police state.

The check and balance on your concern isn't the technological ability to unlock the phone. It's the issuance of the warrant in the first place. A good portion of the judges that rule on these are elected. You don't like the ruling, elect a different judge.

You have the argument wrong. The issue was never what would happen if police can unlock a phone, the issue was what would happen when the government forces a manufacturer to code a backdoor into their devices and unlock them at will.

The phone was unlocked via third party, not through a ruling. Had precedent been set in that case, thousands of warrants for old devices were waiting on prosecutors' desks.

They dont need evidence of some other crime. They have plenty of evidence regarding the first crime. My original comment was that while inspecting his device for information related to the shooting they may uncover a trove of information related to other crimes they werent looking for. There is no dangerous precedent being set here, this is just standard detective work.

You are confusing crime with behavior. One action can result in breaking multiple laws. The evidence law enforcement has is related to the shooting. The crimes they are looking for is whether he was part of a terrorist ring or had accomplices, which are separate crimes. They need some shred of evidence that those crimes occurred before they can go looking for them. The whole point of the 4th amendment is to restrict law enforcement from uncovering a "trove of information related to other crimes they weren't looking for." That's the "dangerous precedent" you and others are advocating for without realizing the danger, the history, or how the law actually works in regards to our constitutional protections.

 

[mope54]

Why would those be entirely different crimes?

How is this not *exactly* what law enforcement should do, finding out if there were people aiding/instigating a mass murderer?

They are different crimes, I'm not sure how else to explain it to you. I don't know if it's too early in the morning for me, but you're asking a law professor the equivalent of "why is the sky blue?" so I'm not sure how to clarify a basic definition to you.

The shooting of each, individual person is a separate crime. Any additional people involved in the attack would be a separate crime, etc.

I use this example for my students to illustrate (what is not) double jeopardy: let's say that I go out to a bar, get drunk, and then drive around town with a baseball bat knocking mailboxes off their posts. Just one action, but it results in multiple distinct crimes. At the state level, I'll most likely be charged with DUI, reckless driving, and vandalism. I can still be charged at the federal level for destruction of federal property and tampering with mail. Each one of those "crimes" is a violation of a specific penal code. If I have any accomplices they would be in violation of specific penal codes, which would constitute completely separate crimes. I'll get a trial on each of those charges and any accomplices would have separate trials for their own charges...and may even be acquitted. I could be acquitted while my acquaintances are convicted. That's the crazy world we live in...sometimes juries do wacky things.

Let's try and extend it to this situation.

Once the police pull me over, they can't simply arrest me and start rifling through my possessions unless they have reasonable suspicion that a crime occurred. They'd need something like relatively close description of me vandalizing mailboxes in the area. Then they can arrest me, and search me incident to that arrest but still not rifle through all of my possessions. They'd have to establish probable cause of some specific crime to obtain a search warrant of my vehicle, phone, home, etc. They don't need to search my possessions for evidence of me vandalizing mailboxes and they wouldn't try to obtain one for that. Instead, what they would most likely be looking for would be me stealing credit cards from the mailboxes, for example. They can't just assume that and use that assumption as the basis for a search warrant. They'd have to formulate some reasoning for that belief--some level of evidence, maybe a victim told them that a credit card was missing from they vandalized mail.

So yes, these kinds of interrogations and investigations are and should be part of a normal law enforcement arsenal. But it has to be built on evidence and not mere assumption and certainly not dragnet types of information collection. There's a relatively bright line here in the law between reasonable suspicion and probable cause and one leads to arrest whereas the other leads to a search warrant.

We also need to be mindful that while it's obvious to the casual observer that this guy is guilty as one can be, he's not guilty by legal standards. He still retains any rights that persist after death, his property still enjoys constitutional protections, and any accomplices he may or may not have had also still enjoy the full protection of the law regardless of how distasteful that may be to people. The information on that device is still subject to full legal protection even though you have a dead shooter on the side of the road.

 

[lcpiper]

You have the argument wrong. The issue was never what would happen if police can unlock a phone, the issue was what would happen when the government forces a manufacturer to code a backdoor into their devices and unlock them at will.

This is not accurate. The government never asked for such a thing. The government asked for Apple to provide the software, it could reside on an Apple computer in an Apple facility. They asked that the computer be made remotely accessible meaning an account created and given rights to run the applications and access the data. The did not ask that any software or tool be turned over to them. The entire thing could have been worked out but Apple tried playing a hard line instead of negotiating a solution that was not "unduly burdensome" for the company.

Other tin foil hat wearing people stoked that fire and refused to accept this as the actual situation.

 

[westrock2000]

The contention here seems to be around this: Are we, as a society entitled to justice, or do we have a reasonable expectation of justice?

There are some here who are stating a firm belief in an entitlement to justice.

And some are stating justice is only an expectation that we can reasonably rely on.

fascism <------------------------->unbridled freedom

Where are we on the scale, and which way will it drift?

 

[mope54]

In conjunction with a homicide Mope54, I'm not on a fishing expedition of the legal landscape, I'm on topic. This case is about the deceased's phone in connection with the homicide investigation. Forgive me if that isn't clear.

And from the linked blog.


They can take the device even if it belongs to a third party if they have reason to believe it contains evidence relative to the crime. Do you think this becomes moot in the case of a homicide where the perpetrator is deceased?

Sorry I didn't see this post before I responded to the others. Yes, the particular example you are citing becomes moot when the suspect is deceased.

The reason law enforcement can seize (not search) some types of evidence under some circumstances is because the courts recognized that suspects can and do dispose of evidence before it can be secured. Search and seizure protections weren't intended to hinder the police in their investigations so the court remedy to this was to allow seizures under exigent circumstances. This rationale started after Carroll v. United States, a case decided in 1925 during prohibition. The justices determined that cars were mobile enough that bootleggers could dispose of evidence before a warrant could be secured.

One important factor to note, however, is that we no longer have the same kind of concerns we did then. Magistrates are available 24/7 and immediately reachable. It doesn't take more than a few minutes to secure a warrant and that's usually how an important/high profile case would be handled. That's neither here nor there but just an interesting aside in terms of whether some level of leeway might need to be reeled in given how easily obtainable a warrant is in modern times.

In regards to your direct question, when a suspect is deceased there is no realistic way for that person to destroy property so exigent circumstances would be difficult to articulate to a judge.

To be clear, this case is not about a homicide investigation. The police stated they are looking for terrorism ties, which is a completely different crime from the shooting. They aren't looking for evidence of the shooting on the phone, they are looking for other involved parties in regards to additional crimes. They also aren't searching it without a warrant under exigent circumstances.

This is not accurate. The government never asked for such a thing. The government asked for Apple to provide the software, it could reside on an Apple computer in an Apple facility. They asked that the computer be made remotely accessible meaning an account created and given rights to run the applications and access the data. The did not ask that any software or tool be turned over to them. The entire thing could have been worked out but Apple tried playing a hard line instead of negotiating a solution that was not "unduly burdensome" for the company.

Other tin foil hat wearing people stoked that fire and refused to accept this as the actual situation.

What portion of what I wrote are you calling inaccurate? You created a strawman out of my post. I never wrote that law enforcement asked for possession of the backdoor, only that they were asking permission from the courts to force Apple to code one. You said I was wrong and then described in detail a process of Apple creating a backdoor to their device...

 

[Deleted member 93354]

This is not accurate. The government never asked for such a thing. The government asked for Apple to provide the software, it could reside on an Apple computer in an Apple facility. They asked that the computer be made remotely accessible meaning an account created and given rights to run the applications and access the data. The did not ask that any software or tool be turned over to them. The entire thing could have been worked out but Apple tried playing a hard line instead of negotiating a solution that was not "unduly burdensome" for the company.

Other tin foil hat wearing people stoked that fire and refused to accept this as the actual situation.

One would assume if it were possible to unlock the phone that Apple would have to do the entire thing under Apples roof. Any physical connection can be tapped, and the bits analyzed and modified and reused. That means the lab in question would have to be certified by law enforcement or it's legitimacy questioned in the court of law.

If apple wants to make an un-crackable phone though, that is their right.

 

[lcpiper]

The contention here seems to be around this: Are we, as a society entitled to justice, or do we have a reasonable expectation of justice?

There are some here who are stating a firm belief in an entitlement to justice.

And some are stating justice is only an expectation that we can reasonably rely on.

fascism <------------------------->unbridled freedom

Where are we on the scale, and which way will it drift?

I think I see what you are saying. But I'd throw in that there is still a difference between a system of laws and a system of justice. I think we are more about the laws than the actual justice end of that stick. Some would argue they are the same and others that you can't get to justice without law. Mope54 will get what I am saying right away. But for others, well, how many times is the law served, but justice falls a little short of the mark?

 

[lcpiper]

What portion of what I wrote are you calling inaccurate? ...

This portion, sorry for the broad paintbrush.

.................... the issue was what would happen when the government forces a manufacturer to code a backdoor into their devices and unlock them at will.

The court order was for a specific case and a specific instance and did not require that Apple give anything to the government other than provide them a means to access the data on the device. That one device. By extension Apple was under no demand to give the code to the FBI, to give the modified device to the FBI, to explain how they accessed the device, or to keep the code once the task was done. Apple could have extracted the encrypted data from the phone and then worked out how to get into it if they thought that was best. Someone else was able to do it, I have no doubt that Apple could have as well.

Now you, or others might have had a problem with the application of the All Writs Act and whether a Judge can compel a company to go to these lengths. But this Judge did, and it never progressed far enough for us to know if that would be challenged and how other courts would have ruled. So I would argue that until it's challenged, it's not actually an issue at all, it's a court order and it's enforceable until determined otherwise, no matter who doesn't agree with it.

 

[lcpiper]

One would assume if it were possible to unlock the phone that Apple would have to do the entire thing under Apples roof. Any physical connection can be tapped, and the bits analyzed and modified and reused. That means the lab in question would have to be certified by law enforcement or it's legitimacy questioned in the court of law.

If apple wants to make an un-crackable phone though, that is their right.

It is, but for the phone to be sold acrossed state lines the government has regulatory powers over Interstate Commerce, (the FTC), and for the phone to communicate, there is the FCC, and so yes, Apple can build what they want, within the limits of federal regulations, and the phone can be encrypted, within the limits of federal regulations. The quest remains, will federal regulations be changed to force companies to play ball.

We all have a right to self defense although there are competing disagreements about how the 2nd Amendment is applied in that regard. Remember that you don't need a gun in order to defend yourself. But the job is easier if you have one.

That being said, even though we all have a right to self defense and the 2nd Amendment shall not be infringed, we can not easily purchase a machinegun, and not just any company can sell them, or even manufacture them. Not without meeting Federal Regulations. There is no Amendment that speaks to our right to a fully encrypted cellular phone to protect our right to their usage. So why would you think that it's beyond the capacity of the federal government to set requirements that all data resident on cell phones, or that is maintained on cloud services, must be able to be retrieved in unencrypted format, when the courts lagaly order it? The feds don't have to tell them how to skin the cat, only that the cat must be available for skinning.

This is how I see the situation we face. This is why I feel that the industry needs to work with the Feds to figure out the best way to do it. I surely do not want the feds to come up with how all on their own cause they always screw that shit up and make bad, worse.

 

[lcpiper]

It's not about precedence - it's fact that the program will have to be entrusted to someone. Because ONCE THE PRECEDENCE HAS BEEN SET, there will be hundreds more requests for decryption right behind it..................

We covered this and it's simple, Apple was not compelled to give the code to anyone and they could have destroyed it after use. The simple fact that a couple weeks later someone else shit a solution proves beyond any doubt that the perfectly secure unbreakable encrypted data was never truly secure anyway, and that it wouldn't have been a great burden for Apple to do it themselves. The only thing in my mind that is in the air is whether this would have constituted an unreasonable burden for Apple to be force to effectively destroy their own products credibility when it comes to security. Which they have pretty much done several times since anyway, but they do do that all on their own.

And believe it or not, I can almost see myself accepting this as a reasonable claim cause it's not how secure the devices actually are that sells them, only how secure people believe them to be. Forcing a company to damage the reputation of their own products is to my mind, an unreasonable burden to place on them.

Oh, and precedence doesn't mean that Apple has to keep the program around. Where the hell did you get that idea? Precedence is a legal construct that means "We already argued this point in xxx vs xxx and the answer is YYY."

 

[Deleted member 243478]

I'm curious why we never hear about this from the Google/Android side.

Does this really need to be answered...bahaha Android security is like a flyscreen.

 

[kirbyrj]

It's not about precedence - it's fact that the program will have to be entrusted to someone. Because ONCE THE PRECEDENCE HAS BEEN SET, there will be hundreds more LEGAL requests for decryption right behind it.

Once the program exists to hack open every iPhone in existence, it can be stolen. This shit happens all the time.

Once the program has been created, it cannot be easily destroyed, because precedence means you have to keep it around at any time you might get a court order. But if it is stolen, all existing phones can be hacked by anyone.

You can imagine what a clusterfuck that would be for Apple, since you're in IT. ESPECIALLY if the intrusion to steal the firmware goes undetected for months.

They added this heavy encryption lock-down to cut down on the wave of physical theft of iPhones. You just also get protection of your personal data in that same feature.

It is right of Apple to fight this request without a higher court ruling. The value of decryption to Law Enforcement versus the cost of everyone losing that security will have to come from a constitutional court.

Your whole argument is moot because there already exists a "hack" by a 3rd party company. The only benefit for Apple is that they can't be held civilly liable. The argument for "everyone losing their security" is already over. It's just a matter of Apple being able to say, "We didn't do it" when they get sued.

 

[lcpiper]

Well it does make a guy wonder, how the hell is the ultimately encrypted phone hacked so easily?

Then there is all the problems with the new iPhoneX, people unlocking it with a photograph of the owner and shit. I don't see any evidence that an Apple phone is any more secure than an Android phone. Either you can get in, or you can't.

 

[Deleted member 93354]

It is, but for the phone to be sold acrossed state lines the government has regulatory powers over Interstate Commerce, (the FTC), and for the phone to communicate, there is the FCC, and so yes, Apple can build what they want, within the limits of federal regulations, and the phone can be encrypted, within the limits of federal regulations. The quest remains, will federal regulations be changed to force companies to play ball.

We all have a right to self defense although there are competing disagreements about how the 2nd Amendment is applied in that regard. Remember that you don't need a gun in order to defend yourself. But the job is easier if you have one.

That being said, even though we all have a right to self defense and the 2nd Amendment shall not be infringed, we can not easily purchase a machinegun, and not just any company can sell them, or even manufacture them. Not without meeting Federal Regulations. There is no Amendment that speaks to our right to a fully encrypted cellular phone to protect our right to their usage. So why would you think that it's beyond the capacity of the federal government to set requirements that all data resident on cell phones, or that is maintained on cloud services, must be able to be retrieved in unencrypted format, when the courts lagaly order it? The feds don't have to tell them how to skin the cat, only that the cat must be available for skinning.

This is how I see the situation we face. This is why I feel that the industry needs to work with the Feds to figure out the best way to do it. I surely do not want the feds to come up with how all on their own cause they always screw that shit up and make bad, worse.

That is not for me to judge, but the supreme court. There are limitations of protecting ones self on not-self incriminating, and unreasonable search and seizure. But that's not my call.

 

[Deleted member 93354]

Well it does make a guy wonder, how the hell is the ultimately encrypted phone hacked so easily?

Then there is all the problems with the new iPhoneX, people unlocking it with a photograph of the owner and shit. I don't see any evidence that an Apple phone is any more secure than an Android phone. Either you can get in, or you can't.

Face unlocking is optional, like finger print scanners. And to be honest, the supreme court ruled your face and fingerprints (AKA Biometric data) are not protected. If you bypass face locking and finger print scanning, then they might have a harder time.

I know there's a guy who's been sitting in jail well over a year now because he refuses to release a password to an encrypted device. They are holding them on contempt of court which is indefinite. I'm wondering when the supreme court will pick this up.

 

[kirbyrj]

Face unlocking is optional, like finger print scanners. And to be honest, the supreme court ruled your face and fingerprints (AKA Biometric data) are not protected. If you bypass face locking and finger print scanning, then they might have a harder time.

I know there's a guy who's been sitting in jail well over a year now because he refuses to release a password to an encrypted device. They are holding them on contempt of court which is indefinite. I'm wondering when the supreme court will pick this up.

So far, the only case I've seen is the guy who had child porn on his computer and refused to give the password to his encrypted drives. And there are other issues at play with that particular case that aren't directly related to the encrypting of the drives.

 

[lcpiper]

So far, the only case I've seen is the guy who had child porn on his computer and refused to give the password to his encrypted drives. And there are other issues at play with that particular case that aren't directly related to the encrypting of the drives.

Yes, that guy was busted in the "Play Pen" sting where the FBI ran that porn site for a week or so and pushed a, (what do they call it?), a NIT? onto the guy's machine when he went to the site and downloaded some illegal content.

 

[Simmonz]

So far, the only case I've seen is the guy who had child porn on his computer and refused to give the password to his encrypted drives. And there are other issues at play with that particular case that aren't directly related to the encrypting of the drives.

Wasn't he being held without trial so far ? Was he convicted of having child porn ? I don't remember him being convicted yet but I could be wrong.

This guy ?

https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/20...wont-decrypt-hard-drives-jailed-indefinitely/

 

[kirbyrj]

He's not being held on the child porn charge. He's being held on the contempt of court. So essentially, he did have a "trial" as the judge found him guilty of contempt, hence his confinement. And his confinement can end at any time he decides to decrypt his HDD's that are already known to contain child porn.

 

[Simmonz]

He's not being held on the child porn charge. He's being held on the contempt of court. So essentially, he did have a "trial" as the judge found him guilty of contempt, hence his confinement. And his confinement can end at any time he decides to decrypt his HDD's that are already known to contain child porn.

It can also end if the prosecutor decides to goosestep into the courtroom and present his case at some point.

 

[kirbyrj]

It can also end if the prosecutor decides to goosestep into the courtroom and present his case at some point.

Here, I thought you were being serious but then you equate prosecutors with Nazi's because they want to keep the child porn guy locked up.

That article is misleading. They seem to indicate that the forensic expert said his "best guess" was that it was child porn, but that's just a way of saying that it is child porn without having seen the files as the hash values match those of known child pornography. The reason he's in jail now is because the contents have reached the point of "foregone conclusion" status with the court limiting his 5th amendment protections.