
U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone - potshot
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-28/u-s-drops-california-case-against-apple-after-accessing-iphone
======
snowwrestler
I'm seeing a lot of comments to the effect that the government will just try
again at some point.

Well, welcome to life in a democracy. Nothing is ever settled with finality
because there are plenty of ways for future generations to change the laws we
cherish today--for good or ill.

We could revoke the 13th and 14th Amendments and have slavery again--there is
no _legal_ impediment to that. That we don't do that is a reflection of our
cultural values--today--which we continually discuss and reinforce.

We could abolish the EPA, or the IRS, or the NSA. We don't because these have
enough supporters who value what they do, today. The 2nd Amendment remains
strong today because millions of Americans work every day to keep it that way.

So, the long-term solution for strong encryption must be a cultural one. We
have to be prepared to fight the crypto wars forever, like unions are still
fighting the labor wars a century later. Like civil rights activists are
fighting racism even today--and will be for the foreseeable future.

Is that depressing? Not to me; I find it inspiring, much better than a world
in which government decisions are truly final. Beware that level of power IMO.

~~~
panarky
> Well, welcome to life in a democracy.

The problem is not that things change in a democracy. The problem is that the
change we get does not represent the will of the people.

A majority of Americans is dissatisfied with the Patriot Act [1] yet it keeps
getting renewed.

A majority of Americans thinks political spending is corrupt [2] and that the
political system is rigged, yet we get Citizens United to pour even more
corporate cash into the machine.

A majority of Americans voted for the Democrat in 2000, but the Republican was
installed instead [3].

People overwhelmingly disapprove using public funds to bail out reckless
bankers [4], but somehow it happens anyway.

There was a global uproar over SOPA and PIPA which shut down this draconian
legislation. But you can't kill the zombie, and it keeps coming back, now in
secret trade agreements like TPP and TTIP that citizens aren't even allowed to
read.

The Total Information Awareness program was suspended in 2003 [5] after a
public outcry over warrantless mass surveillance. Naturally it was all
reincarnated into secret NSA programs.

We'll see the same thing with devices and personal encryption. This is only a
temporary setback for the powers that be, they'll be back with another
sensational, emotional case soon enough.

The current system does not represent the will of the people. It's an
oligarchy supported by a security apparatus run amok.

[1] [http://www.gallup.com/poll/5263/civil-
liberties.aspx](http://www.gallup.com/poll/5263/civil-liberties.aspx)

[2]
[http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-09-28/bloomb...](http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-09-28/bloomberg-
poll-americans-want-supreme-court-to-turn-off-political-spending-spigot)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000)

[4] [http://www.gallup.com/poll/106114/six-oppose-wall-street-
bai...](http://www.gallup.com/poll/106114/six-oppose-wall-street-
bailouts.aspx)

[5]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Information_Awareness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Information_Awareness)

~~~
Aleman360
The US isn't based on majority rule. No one wants that.

~~~
mtgx
No, but I think Americans want a _semblance_ of representation. When The
People have close to 0% sway in Congress' opinions on bills, and corporations
have like 70%, I'd say that's a pretty big freaking deal, no?

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig)

Every time there's an argument about wanting _more democracy_ in the US, it
seems someone always appears to say "but that's mob rule!". No, nobody wants
mob rule. But there's a canyon between what exists now and what a more
representative government could look like.

~~~
panarky
Excellent video, I hadn't seen that.

Predictably, the argument devolves into one about direct democracy vs.
representative democracy, and that's really not the issue at all.

The issue is that the current system consistently acts contrary to the will of
the people.

To quote the Princeton study from your video:

    
    
      The preferences of the average American appear to have only a
      minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon
      public policy.

~~~
erichocean
> _The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule,
> near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy._

That's a feature, not a bug.

------
chii
I feel like cases shouldn't be droppable unless both parties mutually agree,
and the courts also must first agree.the courts should not agree if it's a
case that could set a precedent that can have far reaching implications.

What if next time, a smaller player than Apple was caught in this sort of
case, and they can't fight back as easily? Then it'd be easier to setup a
precedent favourable to one party. This seems like a way to legally manipulate
the common laws, and I think courts should put in place measures to prevent
such manipulation.

~~~
nickff
One of the reasons that courts do not allow cases to continue when a party
loses interest in the dispute (for whatever reason) is that the court can no
longer trust that party to continue making a forceful case. You can end up
with situations where the party refuses to spend money on making good
arguments and finding evidence, then make very bad precedent because of it.

~~~
lucb1e
That's actually a good point, setting precedent by one side not being
represented properly.

Thinking further, one company could easily setup another and sue it for one
thing or another. The set-up company presents a believable but purposefully
flawed case and voilà: legal precedent.

~~~
nickff
Some have made the argument that certain government agencies are participating
in this sort of sham arrangement, under the guise of 'consent decrees' where
an interest group sues an agency, and 'forces' the agency to assume a new (or
expanded) power. This is a contentious issue (as you might have imagined).

------
downandout
I would treat this claim with a great deal of skepticism. However, this is by
far the smartest play for the government. Had they gone to court and lost
(probably after an appeal), they would have set a precedent that would be very
problematic for them going forward. By claiming this, falsely or otherwise,
they hurt Apple's security reputation (most consumers will not understand or
care that this happens to be an old iPhone with an old version of iOS - they
will just hear or read that an iPhone was cracked), and they avoided a
potentially problematic legal outcome.

The DOJ came out on top here, whether they are lying or not.

~~~
Someone
As to the possible lying, English isn't my native tongue, but I found the use
of the phrase "without compromising any information on the phone" in this
statement:

 _“Our decision to conclude the litigation was based solely on the fact that,
with the recent assistance of a third party, we are now able to unlock that
iPhone without compromising any information on the phone,” Eileen Decker, the
U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, said in a statement._

at least curious. Googling "no data was compromised" gives me only links that
use that in the meaning "third parties did not get access to the data".

So, if that really is what Eileen Decker said, what exactly did she mean?

~~~
SeoxyS
I think they meant compromising as in potentially triggering deletion or
corruption of the data.

------
p01926
It stinks that the case ended like this — without setting a sensible precedent
— but I think there is still some upside:

FBI director Comey's "Going Dark" narrative no longer holds water with anyone
who's paying attention. He cried wolf so loud he's been heard on every
continent. If and when he tries this again, he'll get a ton more blowback.

Similarly, Obama's jibes about security "absolutism" now appear ridiculous. As
are his criticism of impenetrable black boxes protecting child molesters. What
he really wants is for the Emmental-like extensions of our brains to have even
more holes. That's an obviously un-winnable argument.

Also, the bar for proving you've tried all possible alternatives for gaining
access just got a lot higher in applying the All Writs Act. It took three
months plus a month of major international news stories specifically about
this court case to gain entry — something that might really be impossible to
achieve next time. But now everyone knows when they swore under oath many
times in multiple public venues that they couldn't gain access, what they
really meant was "not yet" and not "it's impossible".

Finally, Apple should now be motivated to remove themselves as the weak link
in their security ecosystem. System updates shouldn't be possible without
first wiping the information needed to derive the encryption key or first
supplying that key. I can also dream about them open sourcing their code to
allow security researchers to bug hunt (an impossible dream). And maybe
they'll change their minds on bug bounties. Whatever happens, it's now beyond
doubt that foreign entities are exploiting vulnerabilities in the iPhone and
we all expect Apple to beef up their security accordingly — regardless of how
this may hinder law enforcement.

------
matt_wulfeck
You could say they dropped it because they accessed the phone.

You might also say they dropped it because going to court and losing would
greatly narrow the scope of the All Writs act. Then the "maybe illegal" spying
coersion becomes "actually illegal"

~~~
mtgx
I would hope the media follows up with "so what did you find out from it?" and
don't just leave it to "trust us, we unlocked it".

~~~
fooey
They'll just say "can't comment on an active investigation" if they don't find
anything to make the whole thing seem worthwhile.

~~~
zmmmmm
To which it would be reasonable to ask, "so why did you hold this whole case
in public, against Apple's wishes, if it is now so secret you can't even
comment on it?"

~~~
imron
To which they will reply, "we would not have commented on what we found on the
device if Apple had been compelled to help us break in to it, and we will not
be commenting on what found on the device now"

Holding the case in public, and publishing the contents of the phone in public
are very different things

~~~
zmmmmm
> Holding the case in public, and publishing the contents of the phone in
> public are very different things

And saying they "can't comment" as the GP suggested is different to publishing
contents of the phone. They could easily comment on whether they found
anything or not, whether it had any importance to the case, the nature of what
they might have found without revealing specifics.

If they do simply say they "can't comment" then we will know they are lying,
because because they already did comment, quite voluntarily: they just held a
whole court case in public about it which revealed all kinds of gory details.
A court case which Apple asked to seal and the FBI said "no, we want this to
be public".

------
jameshart
So in the last week, a lot of media reports around the Brussels attacks have
focused on how, in the immediate aftermath of the arrest of an alleged Paris
conspirator, the Belgian authorities were premature in announcing that they
were learning information about his co-conspirators, which caused those people
to bring forward their attack plans.

Now, the FBI has just announced to the world that any information locked up in
the San Bernardino iPhone is now in their hands. Presumably any co-
conspirators who thought their contact details might be in that phone are now
aware of that.

Now, on the other hand, for the past month or so, the FBI has on the contrary
been doing a very good job of informing the world, with to some extent Apple's
help, that they did _not_ have access to the information in that phone. That
may have served to reassure those same conspirators that the FBI was not onto
them.. When perhaps they had actually cracked the phone some time ago, and
were in fact in the process of employing that intelligence.

Too charitable to suspect the FBI of having pulled that off?

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
AFAIK didn't the San Bernadino person not use their work phone for this? The
iPhone the FBI wanted into was their work phone, already Government-
controlled. Not their burner phone, which was destroyed.

~~~
jameshart
As far as you know. Now consider that the FBI statements about what evidence
they gathered from San Bernardino (evidence which is largely not part of a
criminal prosecution so not subject to defense discovery) as part of a vector
of information which the FBI might choose to manipulate to better enable their
ability to exploit the intelligence they have. So what do you really know
about work phones and burner phones?

------
Johnny555
I wish Apple would be able to recoup their legal costs from the DoJ -- the
government shouldn't be allowed to force a company to spend money on defending
their rights (using our "unlimited" tax dollars to do so), only to drop the
case at the last minute making the entire case moot.

Apple should be able to recover their legal costs.

~~~
eric_h
While I agree, the counterargument will likely be that all of Apple's lawyers
are on salary and as such Apple's legal costs would be no different with or
without the court proceedings.

~~~
Johnny555
That's kind of like saying that all of Apple's engineers are on salary, so
even it it takes a team of 100 engineers 6 months to write the software the
DoJ asked for, there's really no cost to Apple.

Businesses don't often pay employees to do nothing, that legal team would be
doing other corporate legal work if they weren't working on this case, and I'm
sure they paid outside consultants to help with the case.

~~~
eric_h
That is a fair point. I will reiterate that I agreed with the original poster
and was positing what the counterargument presented from the courts/3 letter
agencies would be.

We'll never see that counterargument regarding the cost of engineering FBiOS,
since the case was withdrawn.

[Edit: we'll never see it because I believe that the FBI will not likely go
after Apple again, specifically because they put up a much more forceful fight
against it than the FBI ever thought they would. Admittedly I'm speculating,
but I don't think I'm being unreasonable]

------
cmurf
Who wants to take bets on how? My bet is they copied the flash, and are
iterating passcode guesses until it slows down too much (or implodes, however
it's configured) and then they reflash and iterate again. And it was only a 4
digit passcode, so it was pretty easy to do this.

The next bet is whether they find anything relevant? My bet is no. Next bet
after that is whether they admit it? My bet is they won't.

But the more important one is if they tell Apple or open a CVE for the exploit
they used if it's not a flash and guess technique they used? Is it ethical for
FBI to sit on an exploit?

~~~
airza
that's not how the security enclave works as far as i know, you can't copy
that part off and so you can't copy off + bruteforce the drive?

~~~
icebraining
From what I understand, the iPhone in question is an older model, without the
secure enclave.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
The person in question had an iPhone 5C, which is very similar internally to
an iPhone 5, and it doesn't have the Secure Enclave because it lacks Touch ID.
The 5's successor, iPhone 5S, has it, I think.

------
jamescun
This is possibly the worst outcome. The tide of public opinion was turning
towards Apple and privacy, and away from the FBI; for it to enter the court
under this pretence there was a strong argument to be made against the latter.
With this announcement, for the many, this matter will now be "resolved". When
it inevitably rears its ugly head again, the same pretence may no longer be
true.

~~~
breck
I think I know what you mean but don't forget there is a specific and horrible
case here too. Many people died and now the FBI has access to the phone. I
don't know what the odds are that they will find anything useful in way of
easing the pain of the victims or preventing an occurrence, but certainly it
seems highly plausible. And at the very least a lot of resources going into
this part of the investigation can now be used elsewhere. They were able to
access the phone and (hopefully) it required some expensive physical+software
breaks, which seems to be a reasonable compromise in the privacy vs security
debate.

I think this is a great outcome.

~~~
eridius
Most people believe the chances of the phone containing anything of value are
very slim.

~~~
breck
Odds may be slim of there being anything newsworthy on the phone but do you
think that it wouldn't be of value to the investigative team, who probably has
to chase down hundreds of leads, contacts, and so forth? Unless the phone was
wiped, I would be 99% confident that the team doing the actual investigation
will get immense value from this phone, even if it's just tying up many loose
ends.

~~~
eridius
They already had the 6-week-old iCloud backup from the device. Don't forget as
well that this was a work phone, the personal phone was destroyed, which
suggests there's nothing of interest on the work phone (presumably just info
related to work).

------
nodesocket
The reality is that the FBI accessed it, so they no longer required Apple's
help.

"The Justice Department said Monday it has accessed data on the iPhone used by
a shooter in last year's San Bernardino, California, attacks and no longer
needs Apple's help in cracking it."

Apparently a 3rd party from Israel
([http://www.cellebrite.com/](http://www.cellebrite.com/)) helped the FBI
which begs the question, how did they do it? Do they have universal access to
all iOS devices or just this particular device? This really makes me start to
think there is a backdoor.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
One suggestion I heard was to reset the state of the NAND constantly to evade
the PIN input limit.

------
shalmanese
The FBIs motives have always been nakedly transparent in this case. They had
no interest in the specific phone, they wanted to use it as a wedge issue to
force a precedent. Once they figured out this avenue was a bust, they withdrew
to find a different angle. Since everything is classified anyway, it's
irrelevant if they actually cracked the phone or not but if they did, it was
probably by buying an exploit from the NSA TAO store [1].

[1]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_ANT_catalog](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_ANT_catalog)

------
karmacondon
So what happens to the other 200+ iphones that law enforcement needed opened?

It seems like there are at least certain iphones that can be opened using this
method and similar hardware based approaches. Are the feds going to move
forward with that? It seems like accessing this particular phone wasn't
trivial or cheap. So I'd imagine that it will come down to whether or not it's
"worth" the cost of flashing individual chips for each of the other devices.

And what happens if there is potentially exonerating evidence on one of those
phones? Does the defense team have to come up with the money to pay for a lab
or outside company to open the phone? And also, is an encrypted phone going to
be the new 'dna evidence'? Like, will a brand new iphone that's linked to a
major crime be held away for years until the security community can hack it,
potentially setting people free or sending them to jail?

Sorry for all the interrogatives. Even though this particular case has been
settled, there are still a lot of questions surrounding default device level
encryption.

------
johnhattan
Am I thinking right when it seems to me like the feds are kicking the can down
the road?

Even though the feds found an exploit that allows 'em to decrypt the current
iOS, Apple's response is undoubtedly gonna be much-improved security in the
next version.

So in a few years when the feds demand that an iOS 10.x device be decrypted,
this whole pageant will start over again.

~~~
mcphage
> Am I thinking right when it seems to me like the feds are kicking the can
> down the road?

Yes, but who knows when they'll ever get this good a case again?

------
fucking_tragedy
Reminder that the FBI used the deaths of 14 people to prop up their agenda of
'make the invoices we receive cheaper'.

They chose this case and not any of the dozens of similar investigations
mentioned in articles that have come out since.

It's a disgrace to the victims, their families and friends.

It's also a disgrace to the public, trying to scare us into complacency.

~~~
cmurf
OK. But what does it say about the scant majority of the country that at least
tacitly (through polls) supported the FBI in this?

I think this whole thing is every bit as much a trial balloon to see how the
public accepts the various arguments. And I think that's still unclear. The
polls suggest a scant majority supported the FBI, but not enough to get
Congress to change the law make it clear companies can be rolled over by the
government.

That means there will be a next time.

------
GuiA
Would they be doing anything illegal if they in fact had not been able to
unlock the phone, but were saying so to save face?

~~~
malchow
Yes. AAPL has averred to the judge that they in fact accessed the phone. I was
skeptical over the last 72 hrs whether that was a ruse or not. I now think it
is not.

"The government has now successfully accessed the data stored on Farook's
iPhone and therefore no longer requires the assistance from Apple Inc.
mandated by Court's Order Compelling Apple Inc. to Assist Agents in Search
dated February 16, 2016."

The government also gets to use the same logic regarding the power of the
court to compel at some time in the future, when this assuredly comes up
again.

------
drallison
So, the US DOJ has in hand an exploit which allows them to access protected
data on an iPhone, access that Apple and the phone's designers clearly did not
intend to be allowed. Ethical behavior would have the US DOJ describe the
exploit to Apple immediately so that the flaw in the system can be repaired.
Publishing the exploit in publicly available documents would speed Apple's
efforts to repair the fault.

~~~
thesimon
But that would help the terrorists !1 /s

------
partiallypro
Who wants to be there was absolutely nothing on the phone of value for the
intelligence community? It's like the Reddit "what's in the safe" threads.

I just wonder what methods they used, I think it'd be pretty interesting to
learn just the general strategy, as I assume they would never tell how exactly
they did it.

------
jrbapna
Was I the only one who assumed the DOJ could unlock the phone for a while now,
but instead chose to legally force Apple to do it to set a precedence? This
news almost seems like a win for Apple; if there was a good chance that the
DOJ would have won the case, they probably would have pursued it till the end.

------
billhendricksjr
I promise I don't wear a tin foil hat, but it would be great if they proved
that they did access it. The cynic in me wonders if they're tapping out
because they didn't want to lose in court and set a precedent they don't like.

------
Gratsby
The case is droppable because it lacks public support. That was clear a month
ago. It's an impossible scenario - requiring an engineering effort from a
consumer focused company. If Apple wanted to comply, it would have been
extraordinarily costly.

What's good about the case is that it brought forth a discussion about
privacy. This case coupled with the Clinton email scandal should move a few
ideas forward developing solutions that wouldn't otherwise have been
profitable ventures. Where Lavabit had a very niche market a few years ago,
companies thinking along those lines will have success moving forward.

------
pavornyoh
Can Apple counter sue for them to reveal how they accessed the phone? Surely,
there must be a loophole in there somehow...

~~~
GraemeLion
Nope. The government does not have to disclose investigative techniques. If
Apple wanted to help the government, they could have, but they chose not to
take that tact. Expecting the government to help Apple now is folly.

~~~
pavornyoh
What about Cellebrite thus www.cellebrite.com. This article seems to suggest
it is them - [http://gizmodo.com/the-company-helping-unlock-the-san-
bernar...](http://gizmodo.com/the-company-helping-unlock-the-san-bernardino-
iphone-ha-1766641607)

~~~
GraemeLion
Why would the company used have any responsbility? Remember, the phone is
owned by San Bernadino county. They wanted it cracked. The holder was the San
Bernadino Sherrifs', they want it cracked. The FBI wants it cracked. The judge
issued a warrant covering the data on it, and then the all writs act
compelling companies to assist if they can.

Apple could not.

Cellebrite could.

I get what you're saying, but this is having your cake and eating it too.
Apple chose not to assist. The FBI found someone who could. Why would that
company then have to disclose to, basically, a third party (even a third party
inventor of the phone) their standard work product and trade secrets?

------
stephensurh
This doesn't really mean anything. The question is: Does Apple have the right
to make an uncrackable phone? We have no resolution on that issue: Only the
knowledge that the iPhone 5s is not such a phone.

~~~
terminado
Hmmm, well, what metaphysical Right does the action of creating such a phone
fall under, philosophically speaking?

Which broader Right is this specific activity a representation of?

What does the act of fabricating a secret keeper mean, and does a company gain
rights, or are the rights of some set of individuals collectively conferred
upon the company by default?

Would making a different object, such as a gun, alter said rights? Pretty sure
the constitution says Apple can proceed without interference, but these are
questions worth contemplating.

------
scarmig
This is a legally naive question, but how does this not run afoul of the
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act?

Particularly, how isn't this some violation of section a2 ("intentionally
accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access," the
same thing that got Aaron Swartz indicted)? Is it basically, since the feds
had a warrant, they can do whatever they want? (And if they don't have a
warrant, is it still legal?)

~~~
GCA10
The phone belonged to San Bernardino County, which was quite happy to have the
FBI get to work on it. Syed Farook had been authorized to use the phone, but
only under the county's terms. If it had been Farook's phone, and if his
surviving relatives asserted some claim, that might have made matters a little
trickier.

But in this case, Farook is dead. He never owned the phone. The organization
that did own the phone wants the FBI to crack it, for easily understandable
reasons. On ownership, at least, the facts are unusually friendly to the FBI.

------
mzarate06
One question I'm not seeing often ...

From here, what's stopping the FBI from claiming they found X, Y, and Z on the
phone, and further claiming they were all important pieces of evidence, that
could possibly have prevented the attack, etc., etc., when they really didn't?
Then, use that to bolster their arguments against encryption and privacy?

What means will keep them honest about what they did or did not find?

------
sjreese
So, the long-term solution for strong encryption must be a cultural one. We
have to be prepared to fight the crypto wars forever, like unions are still
fighting the labor wars a century later. Like civil rights activists are
fighting racism even today--and will be for the foreseeable future.

So true .. and it up to you to continue our peoples struggle. - I've seen this
time and time again .. WTC7 was one of those don't believe your eyes. and Now
the Gov. lackeys need your info to sell as so-called information brokers to
get you special offers. Based on any and all of your actions. ( think supper
cookies ) but moved to a mobile platform you! And you if don't want special
offers - then you are a terrorist! - and YOU become the focus. Not WTC7 - Waco
or that poor man in the US house who forgot he was 2nd admin C&C denied. But
did not get a chance to explain - before the cover up started. I support APPLE
& Mr. Snowden vs. the FBI/INFORMATION BROKERS on this hope you do as well.

------
bradhe
This claim seems dubious at best. There's no proof that they got access, and
it's in their best interest to claim they did. On one hand, I'm not totally
sure we should assume that they're not capable of gaining access to iPhones
willy-nilly. On the other hand, I'm re-evaluating my security posture...

~~~
molecule
_> This claim seems dubious at best. There's no proof that they got access,
and it's in their best interest to claim they did._

Wouldn't that be perjury?

[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2778264-Apple-
Status...](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2778264-Apple-Status-
Report.html#document/p1/a285980)

~~~
imron
Sure, but what's a little perjury between government officials:
[http://www.salon.com/2013/06/12/how_james_clapper_will_get_a...](http://www.salon.com/2013/06/12/how_james_clapper_will_get_away_with_perjury/)

~~~
fncypants
Lying to an indifferent, disagreeable, and dysfunctional legislature is one
thing. Lying directly to a federal judge with contempt power is how one ends
up in jail before packing up your suitcase and walking out the courtroom.

~~~
imron
I wish it wasn't so easy for you to just pass off what James Clapper did as if
it was something of little consequence.

It should have been something of consequence.

------
sinak
While this case might have ended, but the battle isn't over yet. Via Matthew
Keys on Twitter:

"There are 6 other cases where Apple is still fighting the DOJ re: unlocking
phones"

[https://twitter.com/matthewkeyslive/status/71458323211775590...](https://twitter.com/matthewkeyslive/status/714583232117755904)

^ Link includes an image with 7 other cases where Apple has either objected to
warrants, 2 that are still in process.

The most interesting one is the last, which involves an iPhone 6+ running iOS
9.1. It's not yet clear whether the zero day that allowed the government to
access the San Bernardino phone also works on the iPhone 6, which has a secure
enclave (unlike the San Bernardino phone). There are some other iPhone 6 and
iPhone 5S devices in the list too running older versions of iOS.

------
mtgx
If it only worked this once, why not declassify it?

[http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/28/news/companies/fbi-apple-
iph...](http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/28/news/companies/fbi-apple-iphone-case-
cracked/index.html)

------
free2rhyme214
The only thing this title tells me is that the iPhone 5C is not secure
anymore. Thoughts?

~~~
fabulist
One shouldn't expect much of anything to remain secure if an organization with
the resources of the FBI has physical possession of it.

------
adriancooney
Congratulations Apple and encryption. A precedent has be set. The FBI can't
just bully companies into complying with their requests. Hopefully companies
in future will have the integrity and courage to stand up like Apple did.

~~~
JustSomeNobody
I'm not so sure the results are as you say.

------
cwills
Hard to verify. Perhaps if the FBI or other law enforcement continue to use
the supposed vulnerability - eventually information obtained from a breached
iPhone will appear in court as evidence..

------
RichieAHB
While the claim about accessing the iPhone seems difficult to substantiate,
the suggestion that the FBI have dropped the case seems likely. The fact that
they can drop the case in this instance, when the wheels had started to come
off, smacks of having their cake and eating. Let's hope the next case where
they try to get the ball rolling towards the dangerous precedent they are
looking to set yields a similar outcry as this one.

------
frabbit
Meh. If any of this exposes anything, it is that you do not want your secrets
to rest in anyone's hands but your own. Apple may/may-not have managed to
protect their keys, but there is no guarantee that is the case.

Meanwhile Joe Public comes away with the idea Apple==SafeEncryption.

If this were some new encrypted messaging service we'd all be ripping the shit
out of it just on this basis.

------
girkyturkey
Now does this mean that iPhones can be hacked? The government has said that in
the vast majority of cases it will disclose security vulnerabilities, though
in a small handful it doesn't. It would be good for everyone’s security if
they disclosed, but they probably won’t

~~~
ctdonath
It means there is a known & exploitable flaw in one security option on one
model of phone running one version of an operating system. Given that a
government had to hire a computer forensics company to do it, I wouldn't call
this a "hack" (a la the difference between a locksmith and a burglar).

Apparently there is a law (enacted under the Obama) _requiring_ the disclosure
of the cracking technique, at least to the manufacturer, precisely to
facilitate improvements in security.

~~~
PascalsMugger
Does this disclosure requirement apply when the work is contracted to a third
party? I have a hard time believing security companies would ever work for the
government if doing so required them disclosing the vulnerabilities they use
to the manufacturer. If the disclosure is not required of third parties then
all such a policy does is incentivizes government agencies to ostensibly farm
out such work to compliant security firms. This is how we end up with private
firms as extensions of government a la Blackwater. Seems ill advised.

------
davesque
I'm a little worried now about how long it will be before they come back and
claim that there was some critical piece of evidence on the phone and start
saying how evil Apple is for not wanting to cooperate because what are they,
freedom haters?

------
known
"Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it."
\--Einstein

------
squozzer
As much as I dislike its implications, this is the way the case should have
gone. Most of us knew the Feds would eventually crack the iPhone - the attempt
to deputize Apple in their investigation was a matter of expedience.

------
imron
> Government agencies are now able at least to break into handsets which don’t
> yet have the latest software upgrades.

Surely that should be latest _hardware_ upgrades. The latest software upgrades
are no good if not backed up by the secure enclave.

------
dustinpkane
How do we think they did this?

Probably copied phone's memory and implemented a way to restore the state of
the phone, then brute force try passcodes? I guess that could take only a week
if they had only a 4 digit passcode.

------
Grue3
Here's what really happened: they made Apple the offer they couldn't refuse,
and Apple unlocked it. The rest is just a PR move for naive people to keep
thinking their Apple phones are secure.

------
spdustin
Is there any avenue for Apple to begin legal action against the US Gov't for
hacking the phone, in order to shine a light on the truth of how the phone was
"hacked"?

------
pasbesoin
So, finally, the need for the perception that they can accomplish this on
their own outweighed the need for the perception that they can compel this of
a third party.

Meh

------
vinhboy
I wonder which security group helped the FBI. There must be another whole
world of, government friendly, security researchers I don't hear about.

------
remarkEon
If true, what's the significance of that speculation that it was an Israeli
contractor that built this? Who gets access to this hack?

------
personjerry
I suspect they didn't actually crack it. I think it's likely that they just
realized the losing battle they were fighting. It sounded like a lot of public
sentiment was against the FBI and they were unlikely to win the case (and it
seemed like the information wasn't vital to them anyway) so they just gave an
excuse to drop the case.

This has an additional benefit: rather than having the "boundaries" here be
defined by a ruling, now in theory they have more time to work in a "gray
area".

~~~
omonra
I'm not sure about public sentiment - have you seen polls about it?

My take is that HN crowd is completely unrepresentative vis-a-vis the opinion
of majority on this issue.

~~~
personjerry
You may be right; I have not. I had read that most of the big companies like
Facebook and Microsoft, at least, were against the FBI on this issue so that
is more of what I meant by "public" sentiment, although now thinking about it,
that means I've made a much less compelling argument.

------
awqrre
Could some random party bring that lawsuit back to court on "behalf" of the
FBI without the FBI's approval?

------
thegayngler
Is it true that Apple doesn't pay people to hack their products so they can
patch up their security holes.

------
a3n
I wonder what the government's obligation is to Apple, to let them know the
nature of the vulnerability.

~~~
nacs
I'm sure Apple already knows how they are doing it.

The tech that FBI is claiming to have cracked is the iPhone 5C which does not
have the Secure Enclave hardware that all later iPhones do and which are far
more of an actual challenge to crack.

------
f_allwein
fwiw, John McAffee has said that he can decrypt the iPhone:
[http://www.siliconbeat.com/2016/02/18/102312/](http://www.siliconbeat.com/2016/02/18/102312/)

------
xufi
As expected. The FBi just wanted some media attention as far as I believe it
to be

------
Negative1
Woah, wait a minute. By purposely bypassing security restrictions present on
the device via some sort of exploit isn't the FBI violating the iPhone terms
of use? Could Apple theoretically sue them for doing this (and most
importantly, for not sharing _how_ they did this)?

~~~
philovivero
As I understand it, one is not allowed to sue the government unless the
government gives you permission first. I don't know if there are any
limitations around this other than public opinion.

But I suspect if Apple attempted this, the FBI would just say they're not
allowed to sue.

------
fucking_tragedy
This is just to drum up iPhone 6 sales with it's secure enclave ;)

------
jgalt212
Yay, now AAPL is free to go back to focusing on evading taxes.

------
joering2
Hats off to John McAfee!

------
dschiptsov
Via over the air OS "upgrade", I suppose?

------
JustSomeNobody
Can't wait to find out what they found on it.

------
sandra_saltlake
Hats Off to John McAffee.

------
lisper
Told ya.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11199093](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11199093)

------
HoppedUpMenace
Just a random thought: Isn't it quite an interesting coincidence that they
found a way into the iPhone just as people were reporting problems with iOS
9.3?

~~~
HoppedUpMenace
It would appear random thoughts are not entertained here lol.

