The List Of 12 Other Cases Where The DOJ Has Demanded Apple Help It Hack Into iPhones
from the no-precedent? dept
In our last post we noted that while FBI Director James Comey insists that it wasn't trying to set a precedent, and this move was just about getting access to a single phone, law enforcement around the country was eagerly lining up behind the FBI to make similar requests. And... then last night it came out that even the DOJ is making similar requests in 12 other cases. And now, the full list of such cases has come out:That is, it's not known if they're all asking for the same level of forcing Apple to build a new operating system that reduces security and enables the FBI to hack through a weak passcode. It's safe to assume that's probably the case in at least some of them.
Still, given all of this, the details of all of these cases were kept sealed until now. And, it's been reported that Apple had asked for the San Bernardino case to be sealed as well, but the DOJ was the one who moved to make it public. And that lends tremendous weight to the idea that not only is the FBI desperately seeking to set a precedent, but it was waiting for a case with "good PR optics" to go public with, so that it could pull on some heart strings to get the public on its side. The high profile "terror" case in which a bunch of people were murdered in cold blood apparently was the perfect case.
But, yeah, once again, Director Comey was flat out lying when he claimed the FBI has no interest in setting a precedent.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: all writs act, doj, encryption, fbi, going dark, iphones, james comey, precedent, privacy, security
Companies: apple
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Outside of a keystroke logger or corrupted encryption, is it possible to get into that third party encryption? Would Apple be of any assistance in such a case?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple making the next version impregnable even to themselves
I'm pretty sure that even the San Bernadino phone is impregnable (or more pedantically expensive to crack) provided that Farook had good password discipline.
Given the odds are nothing interesting is on that phone, he may well have not cared.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Otherwise, they would want everything public to discredit the prosecutors at every turn. Sealing it says "I have something to hide". What exactly do you think they are hiding?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hmmm? I think you misspelled FBI.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That or you copied one of my other anonymous posts paralleling this.
You are on to something either way. There are 2 huge problems with this case and in order.
#1. Judicial overreach of very epic proportions, because they are ordering a company to both do work they have no power to command, and compromise protective systems that will impact persons not even involved with the case that will with 100% certainty be used to cause collateral damage. The government agencies are well known liars and thieves. If they do not force Apple to completely turn over the work and source code they will just have one of their embedded employees steal the work, and begin to use it everywhere they damn well please.
#2. Apple has not said this work is impossible to accomplish. This means the encryption is likely to be reversible and like you said... DAMNING to their products and definitely seems to indicate that they do have something to hide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think that it can be done and that is why Apple wants these requests sealed. I am sure as hell the conversation at Apple right now is how do we make sure the next version of ios is bullet proof.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Try harder please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tip of the iceberg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not breaking encryption
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not breaking encryption
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not breaking encryption
There is a huge difference between "breaking the encryption" and "removing the passcode attempt limitations". Changing the OS to allow unlimited passcode attempts does nothing to the encryption on the phone. The phone will still be encrypted. It will just allow you to enter passcodes until your little heart gives up and it won't erase the phone for too many of those attempts. Once the correct passcode is entered the phone will be unlocked, not decrypted. This means that the OS will allow the user to use the encrypted phone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not breaking encryption
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get it over with ... Calvin & Hobbes style
Remember, "If you do the job badly enough, sometimes you don't get asked to do it again".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oops.
As much as I would get supreme enjoyment from that outcome, the precedent would still be made that a company can be forced by a government agency to engineer the dissolution of their own security measures, and we would see an epidemic of that sort of abuse by law enforcement fishing for causes to arrest. (They did that lots before smart phones were encrypted.)
And then Apple would probably get some kind of criminal suit for maliciously sabotaging a police investigation.
If it weren't for all that crap, Apple willfully bricking the phone would make my week.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At what cost should Apple be allowed to say no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thank you for the breadcrumbs
What would be great is if someone has links to ALL the filings in all of these cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]