Why Apple says iPhone court order violates its free speech

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Is the software code a company chooses to write a form of speech or expression?

And, by that logic, is forcing a company to write a specific program it believes violates its principles akin to compelling a student to recite the Pledge of Allegiance against his beliefs? Or forcing an organization to espouse policies it does not believe in?

That's one key question at the center of the high-profile legal battle over the San Bernardino iPhone.

Apple is making the case that the US government's attempt to force the company to write new software that would help the FBI override security protections on an iPhone recovered from terror suspect Syed Rizwan Farook is a form of compelled speech.

"The court's order discriminates on the basis of Apple's viewpoint," the company's lawyers argued in a lengthy legal brief for a California district court.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Passcode/2016/0226/Why-Apple-says-iPhone-court-order-violates-its-free-speech

[Nbadan]

This isn't a privacy issue as Apple would like to portray.....Apple isn't being asked to crack its encryption code...they are being asked to kill the code that erases the data in the phone after 10 failed password attempts....

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This isn't a privacy issue as Apple would like to portray.....Apple isn't being asked to crack its encryption code...they are being asked to kill the code that erases the data in the phone after 10 failed password attempts....

You aren't even addressing the argument they are making in court. Is computer code speech or not?

[Nbadan]

You aren't even addressing the argument they are making in court. Is computer code speech or not?

Pffftt.....Look...If any one of us was in the same position as Apple we could try and drag it out with powerful lawyers, but eventually we would have to crack the phone because of National security...eventually, its gonna happen under court order because as we've seen, national security trumps all..including intellectual property.....Apple is just buying time till they have to crack the phone and upgrade all Iphones.....seriously, give the phone to Apple, let them crack it using their code..in conditions where they control...

[DMX7]

WWSD

What Would Scalia Do?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Pffftt.....Look...If any one of us was in the same position as Apple we could try and drag it out with powerful lawyers, but eventually we would have to crack the phone because of National security...eventually, its gonna happen under court order because as we've seen, national security trumps all..including intellectual property.....Apple is just buying time till they have to crack the phone and upgrade all Iphones.....seriously, give the phone to Apple, let them crack it using their code..in conditions where they control...

STill cannot do it. If you cannot understand the significance for asking for code to be given first amendment protection that is on oyu. That is still the actual argument they are making and you cannot even address it directly.

IP is a completely different issue than this and you have no constitutional right beyond what article 4 lays out.

[Nbadan]

Till cannot do it. If you cannot understand the significance for asking for code to be given first amendment protection that is on oyu. That is still the actual argument they are making and you cannot even address it directly.

I addressed it in my first comment...this is not a first amendment or any amendment issue...

[Nbadan]

Apple Is Said to Be Working on an iPhone Even It Can’t Hack


The only way out of this back-and-forth, experts say, is for Congress to get involved. Federal wiretapping laws require traditional phone carriers to make their data accessible to law enforcement agencies. But tech companies like Apple and Google are not covered, and they have strongly resisted legislation that would place similar requirements on them.

"We are in for an arms race unless and until Congress decides to clarify who has what obligations in situations like this," said Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Read more: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/24/apple-is-said-to-be-working-on-an-iphone-even-it-cant-hack.html

[Nbadan]

In Apple's fight to knock down a court order requiring it to help FBI agents unlock a killer’s iPhone, the tech giant plans to argue that the judge in the case has overreached in her use of an obscure law and infringed on the company’s 1st Amendment rights, an Apple attorney said Tuesday.

Theodore J. Boutrous -- one in a pair of marquee lawyers the technology company's has hired to wage its high-stakes legal battle -- outlined the arguments Apple plans when it responds to the court order this week.

At the heart of Apple’s response, Boutrous said, will be an objection to the use of the All Writs Act as the legal basis of the order compelling the company to assist the FBI. The act, which was first passed by Congress in 1789 and updated periodically, is a sweeping legal tool that allows judges to issue orders if other judicial avenues are unavailable.

In seeking the order, prosecutors said the act provided legal grounds to force Apple to write new computer software that would allow FBI agents to discover the phone's four-digit security passcode.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-apple-legal-argument-free-speech-20160223-story.html

Apple must have free speech rights, because it's a corporate person and not a lowly human....

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I addressed it in my first comment...this is not a first amendment or any amendment issue...

that is not for you to decide. thanks for your meaningless unexpert opinion.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-apple-legal-argument-free-speech-20160223-story.html

Apple must have free speech rights, because it's a corporate person and not a lowly human....

And so you bring up a 14th amendment issue given the court's definition of 'persons.' Logical consistency is not your strong suit.

They are a corporation, are they supposed to assert their rights as citizens? I dislike corporate 14th amendment interpretations as much as the next guy but I see little difference from being compelled to write a book against your will and writing a string of code against your will. They don't even know if it will actually help them. Wishcasting a\doesn't justify a utilitarian ethic. There is no clear and present danger.

[Aztecfan03]

You aren't even addressing the argument they are making in court. Is computer code speech or not?
If it is, then what difference would it be from being subpoenaed.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If it is, then what difference would it be from being subpoenaed.

Compelling someone to write something against their will is what it is. If you want to make an argument about habeas corpus then make one. Begging the question is quite popular around here yet posits nothing.

[ElNono]

This isn't a privacy issue as Apple would like to portray.....Apple isn't being asked to crack its encryption code...they are being asked to kill the code that erases the data in the phone after 10 failed password attempts....

It absolutely is. It's being asked to create software that allows cracking it's encryption. Furthermore, once that code exists and precedent is set, there's no stopping other courts from issuing similar orders.

At the end of the day, the final result is encryption on the device being foiled, and the promise of privacy through encryption broken.

[ElNono]

It's even debatable that the FBI or NSA isn't already able to decrypt that phone. People that have worked in hardware and specifically chip security (I've done that for quite a few years), know there's there's plenty of techniques you can use to compromise and extract the information they need (decapsulation + electron scanning microscope, microscopic bus probes, side channel attacks, voltage and clock glitching, etc).

But that's not what this is about. All those techniques are time consuming, costly, some of them destroy the chip while extracting the information. What the FBI wants is a set precedent in court so they can do this in a massive scale and quickly.

[TheSanityAnnex]

It's even debatable that the FBI or NSA isn't already able to decrypt that phone. People that have worked in hardware and specifically chip security (I've done that for quite a few years), know there's there's plenty of techniques you can use to compromise and extract the information they need (decapsulation + electron scanning microscope, microscopic bus probes, side channel attacks, voltage and clock glitching, etc).

But that's not what this is about. All those techniques are time consuming, costly, some of them destroy the chip while extracting the information. What the FBI wants is a set precedent in court so they can do this in a massive scale and quickly.
Yup. And good for Apple giving them the finger.

[Splits]

It's even debatable that the FBI or NSA isn't already able to decrypt that phone. People that have worked in hardware and specifically chip security (I've done that for quite a few years), know there's there's plenty of techniques you can use to compromise and extract the information they need (decapsulation + electron scanning microscope, microscopic bus probes, side channel attacks, voltage and clock glitching, etc).

But that's not what this is about. All those techniques are time consuming, costly, some of them destroy the chip while extracting the information. What the FBI wants is a set precedent in court so they can do this in a massive scale and quickly.

Excellent post. And they chose this case specifically because they knew how sympathetic it would make their case look to the stupid plebs. "It's just this one phone" is not how precedent in court cases and law enforcement work.

[TeyshaBlue]

This is about $$$...nothing more.

While it defies U.S. government, Apple abides by China's orders — and reaps big rewards.
http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-apple-china-20160226-story.html

[TeyshaBlue]

Tim Cook gets on my last nerve.

[ElNono]

This is about $$$...nothing more.

While it defies U.S. government, Apple abides by China's orders — and reaps big rewards.
http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-apple-china-20160226-story.html

Lots of ignorance in that article, tbh. Apple is just as accommodating to the FBI and US government, since it provides exactly the same information from their servers as it does to China. They even provided an iCloud backup of that phone to the FBI already.
The problem is that if the phone isn't backing up data to their servers (the problem with this particular phone was it stopped backing up 2 weeks before the attack), then you can only get that data from the phone itself.

[ElNono]

Unfortunately, this is a relatively complex topic, and it's difficult to just 'water it down' for mass consumption. The media coverage has been pretty lame in general due mostly to that.

[TeyshaBlue]

Lots of ignorance in that article, tbh. Apple is just as accommodating to the FBI and US government, since it provides exactly the same information from their servers as it does to China. They even provided an iCloud backup of that phone to the FBI already.
The problem is that if the phone isn't backing up data to their servers (the problem with this particular phone was it stopped backing up 2 weeks before the attack), then you can only get that data from the phone itself.

YOU LIE. GFY.

I didn't understand that it was the same services rendered locally. The article certainly paints it differently. Ive read many techblogs that make pretty much the same agreements as the times tho.

[ElNono]

YOU LIE. GFY.

I didn't understand that it was the same services rendered locally. The article certainly paints it differently. Ive read many techblogs that make pretty much the same agreements as the times tho.

Servers run by Apple can be subpoenaed and the information provided to authorities. Backups stored there are encrypted, but Apple does have that key. From those backups you can dump iMessages, App data, Facetime call logs, etc.

The whole hoopla of Apple moving their iCloud servers to china for the chinese market raised eyebrows because nobody trusts China's government or legal system, and because hacking in China goes pretty much unfettered. But, for all intents and purposes, that's just complying with each country's laws and regulations, much like they do here in the USA.

It's funny because the argument over not having the servers there would be that such data would be better "protected" from hacking or government snooping here in the US (being we're a great country with a solid legal system, etc), but this particular case highlights what a bunch of BS that is. The FBI trying to apply a law from the 1700's to force a third party to unlock a high tech gadget. If that's not an absurd malfeasance of the law, I don't know what it is.

[Nbadan]

It's even debatable that the FBI or NSA isn't already able to decrypt that phone. People that have worked in hardware and specifically chip security (I've done that for quite a few years), know there's there's plenty of techniques you can use to compromise and extract the information they need (decapsulation + electron scanning microscope, microscopic bus probes, side channel attacks, voltage and clock glitching, etc).

But that's not what this is about. All those techniques are time consuming, costly, some of them destroy the chip while extracting the information. What the FBI wants is a set precedent in court so they can do this in a massive scale and quickly.

Who is the conspiracy theorist now? Funny how tables turn..



The Obama administration told a U.S. magistrate judge on Friday it would be willing to allow Apple Inc. to retain possession of and later destroy specialized software it has been ordered to design to help the FBI hack into an encrypted iPhone used by the gunman in December's mass shootings in California.

The government made clear that it was open to less intrusive options in a new legal filing intended to blunt public criticism by Apple's chief executive, Tim Cook, who said the software would be "too dangerous to create" because it would threaten the digital privacy of millions of iPhone customers worldwide.

"Apple may maintain custody of the software, destroy it after its purpose under the order has been served, refuse to disseminate it outside of Apple and make clear to the world that it does not apply to other devices or users without lawful court orders," the Justice Department told Judge Sheri Pym. "No one outside Apple would have access to the software required by the order unless Apple itself chose to share it."

Meanwhile, the legal fight continued to reverberate on the presidential campaign trail as Republican candidate Donald Trump called on Americans to boycott Apple until it complies with the court order.

more ...

http://phys.org/news/2016-02-apple-software-fbi-hack-iphone.html

:lol

[ElNono]

Who is the conspiracy theorist now? Funny how tables turn..

What do you mean? Hacking hardware isn't anything new... Apple CPUs are not even deemed secure devices...


more ...

http://phys.org/news/2016-02-apple-software-fbi-hack-iphone.html

:lol

smh, you still don't get it. When the next court comes around and orders the same thing, based on the precedent set that this order is legal, Apple has to comply.

From what you posted:
...and make clear to the world that it does not apply to other devices or users without lawful court orders...

IOW, every time a court raises the All Writs act and compels Apple, it has to unlock the phone. That effectively means the software cannot be "destroyed", since it has to be reused over and over again.

For all intents and purposes, this is effectively a "government backdoor"...

[Nbadan]

For all intents and purposes, this is effectively a "government backdoor"...

By then apple has made it's phone encryption software so secure the crack is outdated...think it will make a patch?

[ElNono]

Furthermore, legally speaking, it's not a crime to build an encryption system. Apple here is not the defendant, it's a third party company.

The interpretation that the All Writs act can be used to compel a company to undermine it's own security to solve somebody else's problem is dubious at best.

That's why what Apple is really pushing for is having Congress to step forward and actually enact legislation that specifically deals with this, fully understanding that such a backdoor undermines US business interests worldwide.

[ElNono]

By then apple has made it's phone encryption software so secure the crack is outdated...think it will make a patch?

And therein lies the problem. Once the government has a legal precedent where it can compel Apple to write whatever backdoor it so chooses, then Apple is no longer in control of it's security.

It's also problematic, because now other (more repressive) governments will request the same.

It's a slippery slope that also affects their competitiveness. A company in Germany or Seoul can build actual secure phones, where Apple no longer can, which makes their products less attractive.

And it's not just Apple. Once the legal precedent is set, there's nothing stopping the government from requesting the same on Intel, Cisco, etc.

[Nbadan]

The court order is not looking for a generic firmware update that can be used against other iPhones. Its request is narrow in scope, asking for an update customized for that specific device. And because the FBI would have to send Apple the iPhone to apply the update, the custom software would never have left Apple.

Apple has argued that creating such a bypass for the iPhone's security would create a method for others to exploit the iPhone -- hackers, corporations, foreign governments, and the U.S. government alike. But if that code never leaves Apple's control, perhaps it could prevent such errant usage after all.

“All companies have a way to modify their own devices and software -- it’s like car companies having spare keys for individual cars ... they exist,” said Lance James, chief scientist at Flashpoint, a threat intelligence and data analytics company. “Even if that requires them to modify the firmware with a key they have, they don’t have to give that software to the FBI.”

http://www.infoworld.com/article/3035253/encryption/how-apple-could-let-the-fbi-crack-your-encrypted-iphone.html?token=%23tk.IFWNLE_nlt_infoworld_daily _2016-02-19&idg_eid=b959ac7c152e042b9cad78f7c2cf7a7c&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=InfoWorld%20Daily:%20Afternoon%20Edit ion%202016-02-19&utm_term=infoworld_daily#tk.IFW_nlt_infoworld_dail y_2016-02-19

"Apple’s current refusal to comply with the Court’s Order, despite the technical feasibility of doing so, instead appears to be based on its concern for its business model and public brand marketing strategy,

[ElNono]

That's now how it works though. There's no such things as a "firmware customized for that specific device". The lack of understanding on how this work is really the biggest issue with this.

Ultimately, Apple's main objection is not with the creation of the software, that they admit they can create, it's the legal precedent set by compelling them to do it using a 3 centuries old law.

[ElNono]

FWIW...

San Bernardino Police: Reasonably Good Chance Nothing Of Value On Shooter's iPhone

San Bernardino police chief, Jarrod Burguan, who was part of the investigation into the two shooters who killed 14 during a mass shooting event last December, says there probably isn't any useful information on Syed Farook's government-issued phone. "I'll be honest with you, I think there is a reasonably good chance that there is nothing of any value on the phone (http://www.businessinsider.com/san-bernardino-police-reasonably-good-chance-nothing-of-value-on-shooters-iphone-2016-2)," Burguan said. Burguan is siding with the FBI, though, which is seeking to compel Apple to build custom software to allow law enforcement to extract data from Farook's phone. "This is an effort to leave no stone unturned in the investigation," Burguan told NPR (http://www.npr.org/2016/02/26/468216198/san-bernardino-police-chief-weighs-in-on-whether-apple-should-unlock-shooter-s-p). "To allow this phone to sit there, and not make an effort to get the information or the data that may be inside of that phone is simply not fair to the victims or the families."

[ElNono]

Apple does not keep or store the device unique key. That's why it's being compelled to write the software.

The car analogy is pretty terrible too, tbh, an encryption key works nothing like a lock and key. You can make a key given a lock. It doesn't work like that with encryption. You have to either extract the key from the chip, or have access to the key to repeatedly brute force the decryption.

That's why I'm saying that trying to "water down" this discussion for mass consumption has been a terrible thing.

[Nbadan]

That's now how it works though. There's no such things as a "firmware customized for that specific device". The lack of understanding on how this work is really the biggest issue with this.

Ultimately, Apple's main objection is not with the creation of the software, that they admit they can create, it's the legal precedent set by compelling them to do it using a 3 centuries old law.

....maybe, but the Iphone 5c can be cracked with software....later models such as the IPhone 6/6S Touch ID is key 'slotted' to a isolated "Secure Enclave" on the Apple A8 chip. The same area also holds credit card indices. Once the Touch ID paired, the hardware is set unwriteable/unlockable. Apple can not break in, nor can anyone. The only way is to get a new SoC board, and Touch ID, paired by Apple.....

[ElNono]

....maybe, but the Iphone 5c can be cracked with software....later models such as the IPhone 6/6S Touch ID is key 'slotted' to a isolated "Secure Enclave" on the Apple A8 chip. The same area also holds credit card indices. Once the Touch ID paired, the hardware is set unwriteable/unlockable. Apple can not break in, nor can anyone. The only way is to get a new SoC board, and Touch ID, paired by Apple.....

Ehh, that's how is designed to operate. But you can break in. It just costs quite a bit of time and money. ie: you can send it to a chinese lab to do what chipworks (https://www.chipworks.com/)does for 500k (decap, image and extract the MCU private key). This is stuff that's been done many, many times. That's how smartcards on satellite systems or even game consoles are hacked all the time, and actually a big reason the DMCA came to be to begin with.

Nothing really is uncrackeable. It just takes different orders of time, money, and more importantly, power. Apple design sought to avoid being asked to provide encryption keys. The reasoning is that if they don't have them, they can't possibly provide them.

That doesn't make getting the key impossible, it makes it costly and time consuming. But, "time consuming" is something the FBI doesn't want to deal with if they can just order Apple not to pursue that route.

[Splits]

Strange bedfellows...


Forcing Apple to Hack That iPhone Sets a Dangerous Precedent (http://www.wired.com/2016/02/forcing-apple-hack-iphone-sets-dangerous-precedent/?mbid=social_twitter)



CONGRESSMAN DARRELL ISSA


ARE APPLE AND other tech companies somehow against America’s national security if they create uncrackable encryption software that government investigators or even the company’s own engineers can’t break into?


That’s the question coming to a head in the controversy over whether or not Apple should be forced to engineer new software to allow the FBI to unlock the iPhone used by one of the terrorists from the San Bernardino attack that killed 14 people in my home state of California last year.


The attacks were unspeakable and more needs to be done to prevent attacks like these in the future. But the FBI cannot mandate that Apple create a backdoor to override the iPhone’s encryption features without creating a dangerous precedent that could cast a long shadow over the future of how we use our phones, laptops and the internet for years to come. We must understand the gravity of what is at stake if we give government this unprecedented review of our private communications.


At first glance, the issue seems simple: Why shouldn’t law enforcement have access to information that could help us hunt down other terrorists or even to help prevent other terrorist attacks in the future?


But this simplification overlooks the reason why companies have built their systems so securely to begin with: namely, to prevent criminals, terrorists and hackers from gaining access to our private and sensitive information. It’s a huge technological breakthrough that engineers are able to build systems so secure that even their own architects cannot break into them. And it’s why major players in the tech industry—from Facebook and Twitter to Microsoft and Google—are lining up to support Apple’s stance.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

FWIW...

San Bernardino Police: Reasonably Good Chance Nothing Of Value On Shooter's iPhone

San Bernardino police chief, Jarrod Burguan, who was part of the investigation into the two shooters who killed 14 during a mass shooting event last December, says there probably isn't any useful information on Syed Farook's government-issued phone. "I'll be honest with you, I think there is a reasonably good chance that there is nothing of any value on the phone (http://www.businessinsider.com/san-bernardino-police-reasonably-good-chance-nothing-of-value-on-shooters-iphone-2016-2)," Burguan said. Burguan is siding with the FBI, though, which is seeking to compel Apple to build custom software to allow law enforcement to extract data from Farook's phone. "This is an effort to leave no stone unturned in the investigation," Burguan told NPR (http://www.npr.org/2016/02/26/468216198/san-bernardino-police-chief-weighs-in-on-whether-apple-should-unlock-shooter-s-p). "To allow this phone to sit there, and not make an effort to get the information or the data that may be inside of that phone is simply not fair to the victims or the families."

I get utilitarian ethic in policy making but when it comes to personal freedoms and rights I don't think it should matter.

[Nbadan]

CONGRESSMAN DARRELL ISSA

:lol

[ElNono]

Strange bedfellows...

I would normally laud him for his "integrity" blah, blah, blah, except that I already know he has none... most likely explanation is that Google/Facebook/Microsoft are one of his largest donors, IMO...

[ElNono]

I get utilitarian ethic in policy making but when it comes to personal freedoms and rights I don't think it should matter.

I agree. But then again, I think the biggest issue here is the attempt to coerce the courts to do Congress' job with a 200 year old law.

I understand it's an election year, and Congress will basically not touch any hot potato item. But it should really be their job to legislate about this. Just put your votes where your mouth is, and if the majority wants backdoors, I'm sure Apple will live with that decision, even if it doesn't agree with it.

Funnily enough, this is another fuckup by Barry, who should've sent a bill to Congress instead of trying to force this politically through the courts. The continuation of mass surveillance is probably one of the worst things of his presidency.

[MultiTroll]

Calif Judge said Apple had to open it.
Now this Brooklyn wussy judge says they don't.

Now the guvment is going to appeal it.
Where and when does this end?

[TDMVPDPOY]

probably see lots of photos of goats and yams...

[pgardn]

Unfortunately, this is a relatively complex topic, and it's difficult to just 'water it down' for mass consumption. The media coverage has been pretty lame in general due mostly to that.


I have seen more, "this is what it's really about arguments", than I can ever remember.
So personally, I'm going with the argument that people are going to make this into an argument of their choosing.

I think the above is a fitting summary at this point.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I have seen more, "this is what it's really about arguments", than I can ever remember.
So personally, I'm going with the argument that people are going to make this into an argument of their choosing.

I think the above is a fitting summary at this point.

It's pretty standard in federal court to look to what is actually happening as opposed to the labels. IE if the feds get their way what Apple will actually have to do. When it comes down to writing a crack to their firmware protections it should be easily seen as a form of speech even if it is to a machine.

A federal court also recent eviscerated a similar case asking for a similar crack:


A federal judge in New York ruled in favor of Apple on Monday, saying that an obscure Colonial-era law did not authorize him to force the firm to lift data from an iPhone at the government’s request.

The ruling is not binding in any other court, but it takes on an outsize importance as the U.S. government battles Apple in a separate case in California over whether the tech firm should help unlock a phone used by one of the shooters in the San Bernardino terrorist attack in December.

The two cases involve different versions of iPhone’s operating system and vastly different requests for technical help, but they both turn on whether a law from 1789 known as the All Writs Act can be applied to cases in which the government cannot get at encrypted data stored on suspects’ devices.

Magistrate Judge James Orenstein in Brooklyn, who sits in the Eastern District of New York, has become the first federal judge to rule that the act does not permit a court to order companies to pull encrypted data off a customer’s phone or tablet.

In a 50-page opinion disdainful of the government’s arguments, Orenstein found that the All Writs Act does not apply in instances where Congress had the opportunity but failed to create an authority for the government to get the type of help it was seeking, such as having firms ensure they have a way to obtain data from encrypted phones.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/judge-rules-in-favor-of-apple-in-key-case-involving-a-locked-iphone/2016/02/29/fa76783e-db3d-11e5-925f-1d10062cc82d_story.html

[MultiTroll]

I have seen more, "this is what it's really about arguments", than I can ever remember.
So personally, I'm going with the argument that people are going to make this into an argument of their choosing.

I think the above is a fitting summary at this point.
Right.
I'm not on either side.
Just that left as it is, great, terrorist phucks can communicate by smart phone.
This way the accomplished planners in their group can communicate to Fasheed Sheepie and give orders.
I'd like to see this stopped whether it be by private or government.

Assholes can't/won't cooperate with one another.

[ElNono]

Right.
I'm not on either side.
Just that left as it is, great, terrorist phucks can communicate by smart phone.
This way the accomplished planners in their group can communicate to Fasheed Sheepie and give orders.
I'd like to see this stopped whether it be by private or government.

Assholes can't/won't cooperate with one another.

You can't stop that, even if you unlock any phones. Strong crypto is a well known, and well studied subject. There's no "crack" for RSA or ECC (yet).

There's nothing stopping bad actors from writing their own encryption apps and running them on their phones or computers. It's very likely that's already happening.

The way you deal with that is doing intelligence work.

Unfortunately, there's people that still think that any encryption is easily breakable, and that's just not true.

RSA has been around since the 1970s, there's still no quick solution to break a 4096 bit key. Quantum computing looks promising, but it's more a dream than a reality right now.

[pgardn]

It's pretty standard in federal court to look to what is actually happening as opposed to the labels. IE if the feds get their way what Apple will actually have to do. When it comes down to writing a crack to their firmware protections it should be easily seen as a form of speech even if it is to a machine.

A federal court also recent eviscerated a similar case asking for a similar crack:



https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/judge-rules-in-favor-of-apple-in-key-case-involving-a-locked-iphone/2016/02/29/fa76783e-db3d-11e5-925f-1d10062cc82d_story.html

In court you go for facts that allow you to win via the law. This does not necessarily illustrate all the ramifications a complex situation like this might have.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

In court you go for facts that allow you to win via the law. This does not necessarily illustrate all the ramifications a complex situation like this might have.

But it is an example of what Apple is actually arguing in court as opposed to your general dismissal that we cannot know what they are arguing.

[pgardn]

But it is an example of what Apple is actually arguing in court as opposed to your general dismissal that we cannot know what they are arguing.

That is NOT what I wrote.

People/ press arguing about the situation and what really is at stake is not the same as what Apple argues in court.
Read again.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That is NOT what I wrote.

People/ press arguing about the situation and what really is at stake is not the same as what Apple argues in court.
Read again.

The notions are not mutually exclusive. I'm trying to get this discussion amongst people to focus on what matters ie the reality of the people in court and the arguments actually being made. Judicial review, law, and what is filed is what is at stake. What Apple is arguing is part of that.

[pgardn]

The notions are not mutually exclusive. I'm trying to get this discussion amongst people to focus on what matters ie the reality of the people in court and the arguments actually being made. Judicial review, law, and what is filed is what is at stake. What Apple is arguing is part of that.

Ok. Understood. As an example...

The State of Texas making an abortion law the Supreme Court is supposed to take up soon... there is always much more behind what is argued for the sake of making a case viable. We all know there is much more behind the State of Texas requiring abortion clinics to be close to emergency centers and hospitals. According to many parties from software encryption experts, to privacy rights, to the FBI exerting control over a larger swath of domestic territory, to the safety of the citizenry, this Apple case seems to have it all if viewed from a wider perspective. And viewing this from so many angles is a part of what many experts from many different areas are doing which makes it confusing and interesting. And it is also putting ideological enemies on the same side in some instances which is always curious and refreshing.

All I am saying is there is lots more. And people who have very strong opinions concerning specific personal interests are feasting on all sorts of aspects concerning this case.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Ok. Understood. As an example...

The State of Texas making an abortion law the Supreme Court is supposed to take up soon... there is always much more behind what is argued for the sake of making a case viable. We all know there is much more behind the State of Texas requiring abortion clinics to be close to emergency centers and hospitals. According to many parties from software encryption experts, to privacy rights, to the FBI exerting control over a larger swath of domestic territory, to the safety of the citizenry, this Apple case seems to have it all if viewed from a wider perspective. And viewing this from so many angles is a part of what many experts from many different areas are doing which makes it confusing and interesting. And it is also putting ideological enemies on the same side in some instances which is always curious and refreshing.

All I am saying is there is lots more. And people who have very strong opinions concerning specific personal interests are feasting on all sorts of aspects concerning this case.

Sure but that is an objective reality. If the argument is being made outside of the principle parties then it should just be ignored. It's a red herring.

I get that there are a lot around here to get the difference but its a good way to determine who is worth listening to and who is not.

[pgardn]

Sure but that is an objective reality. If the argument is being made outside of the principle parties then it should just be ignored. It's a red herring.

I get that there are a lot around here to get the difference but its a good way to determine who is worth listening to and who is not.

Yes as far as the actual case is concerned. But it is clearly bigger than that.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yes as far as the actual case is concerned. But it is clearly bigger than that.

In the context of predicting the outcome of this case the larger scope is a hindrance. You have people making predictions because of their interpretation of what's going on. You're not.

We're not in disagreement I don't think.

[ElNono]

Here we go...

FBI director backtracks, says iPhone hacking case would set a legal precedent

When asked, under oath, whether or not a favorable decision in the ongoing San Bernardino case might be used as a legal precedent in future cases where the FBI would ask a tech company to write specialized software, Comey replied in the affirmative.

“If the All Writs Act is available to us, and relief under the All Writs Act fits the powers of the statute, of course” the FBI would indeed seek to compel similar assistance from tech companies, Comey explained.

“That’s just the way the law works,” Comey added, “which I happen to think is a good thing.”

http://bgr.com/2016/03/01/fbi-vs-apple-james-comey-iphone-hacking-precedent/

[pgardn]

In the context of predicting the outcome of this case the larger scope is a hindrance. You have people making predictions because of their interpretation of what's going on. You're not.

We're not in disagreement I don't think.

No we are not.

You are trying to keep your own subject on track which is understandable.
Im just listening and reading to all these "experts" in all these different areas commenting and all their pet theme. And it is confusing, yet interesting, that so many people are using this case to put a label on the whole mess which is of course why the plaintiffs and court will take a more specific track otherwise it would be like the new Republican primary. Chaos.

[pgardn]

Here we go...

FBI director backtracks, says iPhone hacking case would set a legal precedent

When asked, under oath, whether or not a favorable decision in the ongoing San Bernardino case might be used as a legal precedent in future cases where the FBI would ask a tech company to write specialized software, Comey replied in the affirmative.

“If the All Writs Act is available to us, and relief under the All Writs Act fits the powers of the statute, of course” the FBI would indeed seek to compel similar assistance from tech companies, Comey explained.

“That’s just the way the law works,” Comey added, “which I happen to think is a good thing.”

http://bgr.com/2016/03/01/fbi-vs-apple-james-comey-iphone-hacking-precedent/

So Comey says it would set a legal precedent that the FBI would use to protect victims and Justice. So maybe the FBI wishes this case would not have set any sort of precedent, but since it might, they will use it as the world has changed. The old phone books contained valuable names, numbers and addresses did they not Your Honor? And now they don't. We did not ask that the phone books contain valuable information to protect this country but we used them for just that purpose. But damn it took time and the pages were like tissue and often single pages torn out. And people stole the phone books from phone booths or shot at them to determine penetration of certain guns and projectiles.

Notably, the opening sentences to Comey’s blog post a few days ago read as follows: “The San Bernardino litigation isn’t about trying to set a precedent or send any kind of message. It is about the victims and justice and phone books .”






Im trying to weasel out of it for Comey but it's not working.

[Nbadan]

FBI director backtracks, says iPhone hacking case would set a legal precedent

It could, but it won't because phones are no longer software crack-able after the Iphone 5c.....pretty soon, even Apple won't be able to ever crack their own phones.....so this talk of legal precedent is moot...

[ElNono]

It could, but it won't because phones are no longer software crack-able after the Iphone 5c.....pretty soon, even Apple won't be able to ever crack their own phones.....so this talk of legal precedent is moot...

Wrong, you're still missing the point. If the All Writs act allows them to compel Apple to do what they don't want to do, then they can easily use the same route to compel Apple not to make uncrackable phones.

That's why precedent does matter.

[Nbadan]

Wrong, you're still missing the point. If the All Writs act allows them to compel Apple to do what they don't want to do, then they can easily use the same route to compel Apple not to make uncrackable phones.

That's why precedent does matter.

Yeah...I think that's a reach....

[ElNono]

Yeah...I think that's a reach....

Difficult to know where the slippery slope leads to... we've killed Americans without trial under the guise of national security.

Time will tell I suppose.

[boutons_deux]

Latest attack against TLS shows the pitfalls of intentionally weakening encryption

For the third time in less than a year, security researchers have found a method to attack encrypted Web communications, a direct result of weaknesses that were mandated two decades ago by the U.S. government.

These new attacks show the dangers of deliberately weakening security protocols by introducing backdoors or other access mechanisms like those that law enforcement agencies and the intelligence community are calling for today.

The field of cryptography escaped the military domain in the 1970s and reached the general public through the works of pioneers like Whitfield Diffie and Martin Hellman, and ever since, the government has tried to keep it under control and limit its usefulness in one way or another.

(https://csoonline.itcentralstation.com/products/comparisons/hp-arcsight_vs_splunk#tk.itcsfsb)One approach used throughout the 1990s was to enforce export controls (http://privacyink.org/pdf/export_control.pdf) on products that used encryption by limiting the key lengths, allowing the National Security Agency to easily decrypt foreign communications.

This gave birth to so-called "export-grade" encryption algorithms that have been integrated into cryptographic libraries and have survived to this day. While these algorithms are no longer used in practice, researchers found that the mere support for them in TLS (Transport Layer Security) libraries and server configurations endanger Web communications encrypted with modern standards.

In March 2015, a team of researchers from Inria in Paris and the miTLS project developed an attack dubbed FREAK (https://freakattack.com/). They found that if a server was willing to negotiate an RSA_EXPORT cipher suite, a man-in-the-middle attacker could trick a user's browser to use a weak export key and decrypt TLS connections between that user and the server.

In May, another team of researchers announced another attack dubbed Logjam (https://weakdh.org/). While similar in concept to FREAK, Logjam targeted the Diffie-Hellman (DHE) key exchange instead of RSA and affected servers that supported DHE_EXPORT ciphers.

On Tuesday, another team of researchers announced a third attack (http://www.computerworld.com/article/3039818/security/new-tls-decryption-attack-affects-one-in-three-servers-due-to-legacy-sslv2-support.html).

Dubbed DROWN, this attack can be used to decrypt TLS connections between a user and a server if that server supports the old SSL version 2 protocol or shares its private key with another server that does. The attack is possible because of a fundamental weakness in the SSLv2 protocol that also relates to export-grade cryptography.

The U.S. government deliberately weakened three kinds of cryptographic primitives in the 1990s -- RSA encryption, Diffie-Hellman key exchange, and symmetric ciphers -- and all three have put the security of the Internet at risk decades later, the researchers who developed DROWN said on a website that explains the attack (https://drownattack.com/#faq-factors).

"Today, some policy makers are calling for new restrictions on the design of cryptography in order to prevent law enforcement from 'going dark,'" the researchers said. "While we believe that advocates of such backdoors are acting out of a good- faith desire to protect their countries, history's technical lesson is clear: Weakening cryptography carries enormous risk to all of our security."

Attacks like DROWN show the costs that Internet users continue to pay for mandated vulnerabilities in encryption that gave intelligence agencies a small, short-term advantage, Matthew Green, a cryptographer and assistant professor at the Johns Hopkins Information Security Institute, wrote in a blog post (http://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2016/03/attack-of-week-drown.html). "Given that we're currently in the midst of a very important discussion about the balance of short- and long-term security, let's hope that we won't make the same mistake again."

http://www.csoonline.com/article/3040534/security/latest-attack-against-tls-shows-the-pitfalls-of-intentionally-weakening-encryption.html

[ElNono]

Snowden: FBI's Claim It Can't Unlock The San Bernardino iPhone Is 'Bullshit'

Edward Snowden, the whistleblower whose NSA revelations sparked a debate on mass surveillance, has waded into the arguments over the FBI's attempt to force Apple to help it unlock the iPhone 5C (http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/09/edward-snowden-fbi-san-bernardino-iphone-bullshit-nsa-apple) of one of the San Bernardino shooters. The FBI says that only Apple can deactivate certain passcode protections on the iPhone, which will allow law enforcement to guess the passcode by using brute-force. Talking via video link from Moscow to the Common Cause Blueprint for a Great Democracy (http://www.commoncause.org/issues/more-democracy-reforms/blueprint-for-a-great-democracy/?referrer=https://www.google.co.uk/?referrer=http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/09/edward-snowden-fbi-san-bernardino-iphone-bullshit-nsa-apple) conference, Snowden said: "The FBI says Apple has the 'exclusive technical means' to unlock the phone. Respectfully, that's bullshit." Snowden then went on to tweet (https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/707299113449230336?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) his support for an American Civil Liberties Union report (https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-future/one-fbis-major-claims-iphone-case-fraudulent) saying that the FBI's claims in the case are fraudulent. Apple's clash with the FBI comes to a head in California this month when the two will meet in federal court to debate whether the smartphone manufacturer should be required to weaken security settings on the iPhone of the shooter.

[TheSanityAnnex]

http://www.idownloadblog.com/2016/03/14/dos-threats-seize-ios/


DOJ threatened to seize iOS source code unless Apple complies with court order in FBI case (http://www.idownloadblog.com/2016/03/14/dos-threats-seize-ios/)

The United States Department of Justice (DoJ) has slid a disturbing footnote in its court filing against Apple that could be interpreted (http://fortune.com/2016/03/11/apple-fbi-source-code-signature/) as a threat to seize the iOS source code unless Apple complies with a court order in the FBI case.
The DoJ is demanding that Apple create a special version of iOS with removed security features that would permit the FBI to run brute-force passcode attempts on the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone 5c.
Meanwhile, President Barack Obama has made public where he stands on the Apple vs. FBI case, which has quickly become a heated national debate.
In the court papers, DoJ calls Apple’s rhetoric in the San Bernardino standoff as “false” and “corrosive” because the Cupertino firm dared suggest that the FBI’s court order could lead to a “police state.”
Footnote Nine of DoJ’s filing reads:
For the reasons discussed above, the FBI cannot itself modify the software on the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone without access to the source code and Apple’s private electronic signature.
The government did not seek to compel Apple to turn those over because it believed such a request would be less palatable to Apple. If Apple would prefer that course, however, that may provide an alternative that requires less labor by Apple programmers.

As Fortune’s Philip-Elmer DeWitt rightfully pointed out, that’s a classic police threat.
“We can do this easy way or the hard way. Give us the little thing we’re asking for—a way to bypass your security software—or we’ll take whole thing: your crown jewels and the royal seal too,” DeWitt wrote.
“With Apple’s source code, the FBI could, in theory, create its own version of iOS with the security features stripped out. Stamped with Apple’s electronic signature, the Bureau’s versions of iOS could pass for the real thing,” he added.
Whether or not the DoJ is trying to intimidate Apple, I do not know. But I know this—that quoted excerpt from DoJ’s court filing has got to send chills down everyone’s spine.
DoJ’s brief is “a cheap shot”

For its part, Apple called DoJ’s brief “a cheap shot,” with Apple’s top lawyer Bruce Sewell saying that the tone of the brief “reads like an indictment.”
“In 30 years of practice, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a legal brief that was more intended to smear the other side with false accusations and innuendo, and less intended to focus on the real merits of the case,” Sewell wrote (http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/10/11196548/apple-accuses-department-of-justice-fbi-smearing-desperation).


He went on to call DoJ’s move “desperate” and draw this analogy:
“Imagine Apple asking a court whether the FBI could be trusted because, there is this real question about whether J. Edgar Hoover ordered the assassination of Kennedy,” Sewell remarked.
“See ConspiracyTheory.com as our supporting evidence,” he half-jokingly added.
“For the first time ever, we see an allegation that Apple has deliberately made changes to block law enforcement requests for access. This should be deeply offensive to everyone that reads it. An unsupported, unsubstantiated effort to vilify Apple rather than confront the issues in the case.”
“Everyone should beware,” he continued, because “it seems like disagreeing with the Department of Justice means you must be evil and anti-American. Nothing could be further from the truth.”
“I can only conclude that the DoJ is so desperate at this point that it has thrown all decorum to the winds,” Sewell summed it up nicely.
Meanwhile, we now know where Obama stands on the Apple vs. FBI case.
Obama: “We can’t fetishize our phones above other values”

Speaking at the South By Southwest conference in Austin this past Friday, President Barack Obama has made known (http://www.techinsider.io/obama-comments-on-phone-encryption-2016-3) his stance on encryption and phone privacy.
“If it was technologically possible to make an impenetrable device where there’s no door at all, then how do we apprehend the child pornographer? How do we disrupt a terrorist plot? How do we even do a simple thing like tax enforcement?” Obama posed.
“If government can’t get in, then everyone’s walking around with a Swiss bank account in their pocket. There has to be some concession to get into that information somewhere.”


“Setting aside the specific case between the FBI and Apple, we’re gonna have to make some decisions about how we balance these respective risks,” he concluded.
“We can’t fetishize our phones above every other value. The dangers are real. This notion that sometimes our data is different and can be walled off from these other trade-offs is incorrect.”
Well, now we at least know that both the President and the Attorney General are undoubtedly aware of what DoJ’s lawyers are really up to here.
Arrest that “rascal” Tim Cook

Making the national debate about the FBI, encryption and phone security even more outrageous, Florida’s Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd has threatened to arrest “rascal” Apple CEO, if it comes up.
“You cannot create a business model to go, ‘We’re not paying attention to the federal judge or the state judge. You see, we’re above the law,’” he told (http://www.fox13news.com/news/local-news/103978708-story) Fox 13 News. “The CEO of Apple needs to know he’s not above the law, and neither is anybody else in the United States.”
So, would sheriff Judd hesitate to arrest Cook himself?
“I can tell you, the first time we do have trouble getting into a cell phone, we’re going to seek a court order from Apple,” he said. “And when they deny us, I’m going to go lock the CEO of Apple up.I’ll lock the rascal up.”


Why are we fighting Crypto Wars again?

In his thoughtful and provoking analysis of the national debate on security, privacy, phone encryption and the Apple vs. FBI fight, journalist Steven Levy offered (https://backchannel.com/why-are-we-fighting-the-crypto-wars-again-b5310a423295) a brilliant take on the situation.
“So think of this demand as a bespoke Clipper Chip, created by private-sector engineers who must produce it against their will,” he wrote. “By demanding that Apple change its operating system to get access to a single iPhone—and then another, and another and another—we are in the thick of Crypto Wars Redux.”
Levy commented the fact that the government spooks originally claimed the Apple motion was a one-off case until it was discovered that other prosecutors are anxiously awaiting to see how the case unfolds, eager to leverage a potential precedent as a basis to force Apple to help decrypt other iPhones with potential evidence in a variety of other cases.
Who’s afraid of a police state?

Apple’s insistence that the FBI’s request to create a version of iOS without the auto-wipe and passcode delay features might lead to a police state if further concessions are sought may not be as far-fetched as it seems, but that’s just my personal opinion.
And it has nothing to do with the fact that mountains of metadata the NSA bulk-collected from carriers, using programs with code names like Prism and XKeyscore, will soon be routinely used for domestic policing (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/03/10/surprise-nsa-data-will-soon-routinely-be-used-for-domestic-policing-that-has-nothing-to-do-with-terrorism/) that has nothing to do with terrorism.


That’s yet another disturbing topic dealing with security and privacy which isn’t discussed enough, methinks. As The New York Times so succinctly put (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/14/technology/in-the-apple-case-a-debate-over-data-hits-home.html?_r=0) it, people are beginning to realize that their smartphones are just the beginning.
“Smart televisions, Google cars, Nest thermostats and web-enabled Barbie dolls are next. The resolution of the legal fight between Apple and the government may help decide whether the information in those devices is really private, or whether the FBI and the NSA are entering a golden age of surveillance in which they have far more data available than they could have imagined 20 years ago.”
I couldn’t agree more with the article.
And which side do you stand on in the Apple vs. FBI case?

[Nbadan]

This case makes strange bedfellows...A phone is no different from any other personal property -searchable with a valid warrant. Apple knew they would run up against law enforcement issues but they went ahead and opted for marketing over common-sense.

If they 'get away' with this, then encryption will be applied to all digital devices: computers, tablets, cameras, TVs, etc. We will be living in a Libertarian 'paradise'...

[Spurminator]

Humor my technical ignorance on this, but why can't Apple release a security update to all phones running iOS that would protect those phones against whatever code they create to unlock the San Bernadino phone?

[Nbadan]

Humor my technical ignorance on this, but why can't Apple release a security update to all phones running iOS that would protect those phones against whatever code they create to unlock the San Bernadino phone?

They can...and you can bet they will....the problem (with most) is the legal president which it sets...can a company be compelled to break into its own phones in the future?

[ElNono]

Humor my technical ignorance on this, but why can't Apple release a security update to all phones running iOS that would protect those phones against whatever code they create to unlock the San Bernadino phone?

Don't even need to do that. But, as noted by Dan and previously, the problem is the legal precedent set, which not only applies to the US, but would be difficult to defend against other countries as well.

[ElNono]

FBI may not need Apple to unlock San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone

RIVERSIDE, Calif.— The FBI may have found a way without Apple’s assistance to unlock the iPhone used by one of the shooters in the San Bernardino terrorist attack, Justice Department officials said Monday.

Less than 24 hours before a highly anticipated hearing over access to the phone was set to begin, Justice Department lawyers requested a delay. A federal judge here agreed to postpone the oral arguments in which Apple and the U.S. government were set to face off over whether a court could force Apple to help the FBI unlock the phone.

The sudden about-face was a stunning development in a month-long legal saga, as government lawyers and the FBI director had been insisting for the past month that the bureau had found no other way to obtain access to the locked phone than to compel Apple to assist the government.

“Our top priority has always been gaining access into the phone used by the terrorist in San Bernardino,” Justice Department spokeswoman Melanie Newman said. “With this goal in mind, the FBI has continued in its efforts to gain access to the phone without Apple’s assistance, even during a month-long period of litigation with the company.”

On Sunday, the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, Eileen Decker, said in a terse application to a magistrate judge in Riverside, Calif., that “an outside party demonstrated to the FBI a possible method” to unlock the phone used by Syed Rizwan Farouk.

Farouk and his wife were killed in a shootout with police after the Dec. 2 attack, which claimed 14 lives.

If the method works, Decker said, it should eliminate the need for help from Apple.

It could also raise questions about the FBI’s capabilities in unlocking digital devices. “This suggests that the FBI either doesn’t understand the technology well enough or wasn’t telling us the full truth earlier when it said that only Apple could break into the phone,” said Alex Abdo, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed an amicus brief on behalf of Apple in the case.

A senior law enforcement official took issue with that statement and said that the great publicity surrounding the case prompted more companies to come forward with potential solutions.

Newman stressed that the bureau must first test the method to ensure it doesn’t destroy the data on the phone. “We remain cautiously optimistic,” she said. “If this solution works, it will allow us to search the phone and continue our investigation into the terrorist attack that killed 14 people and wounded 22 people.”

Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym directed the government to report back by April 5.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/apple-hearing-in-san-bernardino-over-locked-iphone-has-been-canceled/2016/03/21/1141a56e-efb8-11e5-85a6-2132cf446d0a_story.html

[boutons_deux]

NSA is so overwhelmed with data, it's no longer effective, says whistleblower

One of the agency's first whistleblowers says the NSA is taking in too much data for it to handle, which can have disastrous -- if not deadly -- consequences.

A former National Security Agency official turned whistleblower has spent almost a decade and a half in civilian life. And he says he's still "pissed" by what he's seen leak in the past two years.In a lunch meeting hosted by Contrast Security founder Jeff Williams on Wednesday, William Binney, a former NSA official who spent more than three decades at the agency, said the US government's mass surveillance programs have become so engorged with data that they are no longer effective, losing vital intelligence in the fray.

That, he said, can -- and has -- led to terrorist attacks succeeding.


Binney said that an analyst today can run one simple query across the NSA's various databases, only to become immediately overloaded with information. With about four billion people -- around two-thirds of the world's population -- under the NSA and partner agencies' watchful eyes, according to his estimates, there is too much data being collected.

"That's why they couldn't stop the Boston bombing, or the Paris shootings, because the data was all there," said Binney. Because the agency isn't carefully and methodically setting its tools up for smart data collection, that leaves analysts to search for a needle in a haystack.

"The data was all there... the NSA is great at going back over it forensically for years to see what they were doing before that," he said. "But that doesn't stop it."

Binney called this a "bulk data failure" -- in that the NSA programs, leaked by Edward Snowden, are collecting too much for the agency to process. He said the problem runs deeper across law enforcement and other federal agencies, like the FBI, the CIA, and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), which all have access to NSA intelligence.

http://www.zdnet.com/article/nsa-whistleblower-overwhelmed-with-data-ineffective/

[boutons_deux]

The Company Helping Unlock the San Bernardino iPhone Has a Long History of Selling Gear to US Police (http://gizmodo.com/the-company-helping-unlock-the-san-bernardino-iphone-ha-1766641607)

The company reportedly helping (http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-apple-encryption-cellebrite-idUKKCN0WP17J) the FBI access the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone data isn’t a household name in the US, but its data-extraction tools are all over the country. Cellebrite has been quietly helping US law enforcement bulk up its arsenal of surveillance gear for years.

The FBI postponed a hearing yesterday (http://gizmodo.com/4-theories-about-how-the-fbi-is-cracking-the-san-bernad-1766346763) about whether it could force Apple to write software to weaken the security on the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone. The reason: An unidentified “outside party” had offered a solution that didn’t require Apple’s help. According to (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-encryption-cellebrite-idUSKCN0WP17J) Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, that “outside party” is Cellebrite, a forensics firm that specializes in getting data off mobile devices. This is an unconfirmed report. “I am not able to comment on the identity of the outside party,” an FBI spokesperson told Gizmodo.

Cellebrite already has a cozy relationship with US law enforcement. In The Intercept’s catalog of government surveillance gear (https://theintercept.com/surveillance-catalogue/cellbrite/), ACLU staff attorney Nathan Wessler called one Cellebrite device “a favorite of police departments everywhere.” Cellebrite is making millions from FBI contracts, as Motherboardreports (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/meet-cellebrite-the-israeli-company-reportedly-cracking-iphones-for-the-fbi?utm_source=mbtwitter):


According to public records (https://www.fpds.gov/ezsearch/fpdsportal?q=cellebrite+CONTRACTING_AGENCY_NAME:%2 2FEDERAL+BUREAU+OF+INVESTIGATION%22&s=FPDS&templateName=1.4&indexName=awardfull&x=0&y=0******=0), Cellebrite’s US subsidiary has taken over $2 million worth of purchase orders from the FBI since 2012. Interestingly, a purchase order with the agency for $15,278.02 for “software renewals for seven machines” was signed on March 21, 2016: the same day (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-encryption-hearing-delay-idUSKCN0WN2CZ) that the Apple hearing was delayed. However, the “principal place of performance” for that order is listed as Chicago, not San Bernardino.


In addition to the FBI, Cellebrite has federal contracts (https://www.fpds.gov/ezsearch/search.do?indexName=awardfull&templateName=1.4.4&s=FPDSNG.COM&q=cellbrite) with the Drug Enforcement Agency, the Patent and Trademark Office, US Immigrations and Custom Enforcement, the Transportation Security Administration, and the State Department.

Cellebrite’s gear isn’t only for high-profile terrorism cases or federal agencies—state and local law enforcement also rely on its equipment to get data off mobile devices. The company’s Universal Forensics Extraction Device is regarded as such a gold-standard investigative tool that it’s been name-dropped on The Fall (http://www.cellebrite.com/Mobile-Forensics/News-Events/Press-Releases/cellebrite%E2%80%99s-latest-forensic-technology-featured-on-bbc-crime-drama-the-fall-to-help-solve-murder-mystery-investigation) and (ugh) CSI:Cyber.

http://gizmodo.com/the-company-helping-unlock-the-san-bernardino-iphone-ha-1766641607?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+gizmodo%2Ffull+%28Gizmodo%29

[Nbadan]

Predictable....

http://mashable.com/2016/03/25/fbi-iphone-cellebrite/#4wpRgbZ7w5qH


The FBI has been trying to hack into the iPhone used by the San Bernardino shooter for months. But this week, when the Justice Department suddenly announced that a mysterious "outside party" was helping investigators access the data, security experts wondered who might be capable of cracking Apple's encryption.

Now, all eyes are on an Israeli cybersecurity company whose past connections and recent movements suggest it may be the FBI's white knight.

Israeli newspaper Yedioth Aharonot reported Wednesday that the unidentified party is Cellebrite, based just outside Tel Aviv. But the FBI and Cellebrite have refused to confirm any relationship. And on Thursday, unnamed law enforcement officials speaking on background to USA Today squashed reports of a partnership.

Mashable has learned, however, that the company's executive vice president for mobile forensics, Leeor Ben-Peretz, spent the last few days in the United States. According to a person who recently worked with the company and who spoke on condition of anonymity, Ben-Peretz is Cellebrite's top executive who would demonstrate its forensics capabilities.

The long-term consequences for Apple may be worse than if they had cooperated with the Feds.....

[ElNono]

The long-term consequences for Apple may be worse than if they had cooperated with the Feds.....

Not really... you can patch a bug. Undoing court precedent is a lot more difficult.

[z0sa]

We are in an Orwellian state of war. During normal circumstances, the Constitution protects the rights of corporations (apparently). But due to this whole war on terror thing, our current situation can only be described an extraordinary. True constitutionalists must admit the founders never imagined such an event (or enemy) occurring and therefore did not adequately defend us from such a loophole. Nonetheless, said loophole exists, which is why, for example, Americans are (at the moment) legally being killed without facing a trial.

[boutons_deux]

FBI Denies It Lied About Ability To Crack iPhone, Also Suggests Cellebrite Rumor Is Wrong

FBI Director James Comey reacts angrily to a similar opinion piece at the WSJ suggesting the DOJ lied:


You are simply wrong to assert that the FBI and the Justice Department lied about our ability to access the San Bernardino killer’s phone.

I would have thought that you, as advocates of market forces, would realize the impact of the San Bernardino litigation.

It stimulated creative people around the world to see what they might be able to do.

And I’m not embarrassed to admit that all technical creativity does not reside in government.

Lots of folks came to us with ideas.

It looks like one of those ideas may work and that is a very good thing, because the San Bernardino case was not about trying to send a message or set a precedent;

it was and is about fully investigating a terrorist attack.

James B. Comey


https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160325/10254234015/fbi-denies-it-lied-about-ability-to-crack-iphone-also-suggests-cellebrite-rumor-is-wrong.shtml

... as if we should believe anything the FBI/CIA/NSA says.

[ElNono]

Another rumor going around is that the FBI lost the PR and legal battle, and before the court would effectively set a precedent that the All Writs Act cannot be used to compel third party companies like that, the FBI pulled away...

[ElNono]

Apple Asks Judge Overseeing NY iPhone Case To Wait Until More Is Known About FBI's New Magic Unlocking Trick

While there are 10 (known) cases covering 13 Apple devices that the DOJ is asking Apple to help unlock, there are two "big ones" that are receiving most of the focus. The big one in San Bernardino, which has been put on hold as the FBI claims it may have actually found a way into the phone -- and the one in NY where magistrate judge James Orenstein wrote a wonderful rejection letter for the DOJ's request. The Justice Department has appealed that decision, and the case has been handed over to Judge Margo Brodie.

However, Apple is now requesting that this case also be put on hold, until more is known about the FBI's hacking attempts in the California case:

As in the San Bernardino Matter, the DOJ argues in this case that an All Writs Act order is appropriate because Apple’s assistance is necessary to effectuate the search warrant issued by the Court.... (“[T]he government cannot access the contents of the phone and execute the warrant without Apple’s assistance.”); .... (“The government does not have any adequate alternatives to obtaining Apple’s assistance.”). This is a disputed issue. Judge Orenstein concluded in his opinion that that the government “failed to establish that the help it seeks from Apple is necessary” as required by New York Telephone.... Apple expects to similarly contest the necessity requirement in connection with the DOJ’s application to this Court.

The iPhone in this case runs an older operating system (iOS 7) than the iPhone in the San Bernardino Matter (iOS 9). Regardless of what the DOJ concludes regarding whether the method being evaluated in San Bernardino works on the iPhone here, it will affect how this case proceeds. For example, if that same method can be used to unlock the iPhone in this case, it would eliminate the need for Apple’s assistance. On the other hand, if the DOJ claims that the method will not work on the iPhone here, Apple will seek to test that claim, as well as any claims by the government that other methods cannot be used.

The outcome of the DOJ’s evaluation will not be known until April 5, when the DOJ submits its status report in the San Bernardino Matter. In the interim, both the Court and the parties lack sufficient information to determine the most appropriate way for this matter to proceed. Going forward without such information would be highly inefficient.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160325/00285034009/apple-asks-judge-overseeing-ny-iphone-case-to-wait-until-more-is-known-about-fbis-new-magic-unlocking-trick.shtml

[Spurminator]

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-fbi-drops-fight-to-force-apple-to-unlock-san-bernardino-terrorist-iphone-20160328-story.html

Federal officials said Monday that they have unlocked the iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino shooters and are dropping a request in front of a federal judge that sought to force Apple to help with that effort.

[Nbadan]

,,,,and just like that the Apple name brand takes a serious hit....

[ElNono]

This worked out great for Apple and privacy advocates in general, but it will keep on happening unless Congress finally addresses it head on.

[Nbadan]

Not really...


Thanks to Snowden, we know it's been an open book this whole time. Encryption has been "broken" because the NSA has been implementing backdoors into encryption schemas and denying true encryption techniques since the early 90's. This is no accident. This is by design.

http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/10/how-the-nsa-can-break-trillions-of-encrypted-web-and-vpn-connections/

Also...


A critical zero-day vulnerability has been discovered in all versions of Apple's OS X operating system that allows hackers to exploit the company’s newest protection feature and steal sensitive data from affected devices.
With the release of OS X El Capitan, Apple introduced a security protection feature to the OS X kernel called System Integrity Protection (SIP). The feature is designed to prevent potentially malicious or bad software from modifying protected files and folders on your Mac.

The zero-day vulnerability (CVE-2016-1757) is a Non-Memory Corruption bug that allows hackers to execute arbitrary code on any targeted machine, perform remote code execution (RCE) or sandbox escapes, according to the researcher.
The most worrisome part is that the infection is difficult to detect, and even if users ever discover it, it would be impossible for them to remove the infection, since SIP would work against them, preventing users from reaching or altering the malware-laced system file.

Apple has patched the vulnerability, but only in updates for El Capitan 10.11.4, and iOS 9.3 that were released on 21st March.
Other versions do not appear to have a patch update for this specific vulnerability from Apple, meaning they are left vulnerable to this specific zero-day bug.

http://thehackernews.com/2016/03/system-integrity-protection.html

[ElNono]

That's not really new. Bugs and Zero-days appear almost monthly, and they get patched almost as fast. Eventually, though the attack surface keeps getting smaller and smaller. That's why there's no jailbreak for iOS 9, for example. That's what the FBI hit before they contacted this third party company.

The absolute worst case for Apple would've been if the court set a precedent that they had to build a backdoor for the government. That didn't happen, so that's definitely a win for Apple, and a bad miscalculation by the FBI.

But, as exploits and bugs get more rare, eventually the FBI will be back at a court of law demanding the same. That's why Congress will have to act.

[ElNono]

FWIW, good writeup here, and why this will end up back in the courts if Congress doesn't act:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/feds-drop-fight-with-apple-over-terrorists-iphone-221310

[Nbadan]

FBI Agrees to Unlock iPhone of Arkansas Teens in Murder Case
Source: Associated Press

The FBI has agreed to help an Arkansas prosecutor unlock an iPhone and iPod belonging to two teenagers accused of killing a couple.


Faulkner County Prosecuting Attorney Cody Hiland said Wednesday that the FBI agreed to the request from his office. The trial for 18-year-old Hunter Drexler was delayed Tuesday so prosecutors could ask for help.

Drexler is accused in the shooting deaths of Robert and Patricia Cogdell.

-snip-


Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/fbi-agrees-unlock-iphone-arkansas-teens-murder-case-38041135

The FBI wanted Apple to crack Farook's phone; Apple refused; now the FBI has a way to crack ANY 5c iPhone....and they're not telling Apple....

[MultiTroll]

Techies,
If the Govt wanted to play hardball/dirtball and get back at Apple, could they hire a hacker to get into Cook and the other upper echelon phaggots at Apple and get into their personal devices?

[ElNono]

Techies,
If the Govt wanted to play hardball/dirtball and get back at Apple, could they hire a hacker to get into Cook and the other upper echelon phaggots at Apple and get into their personal devices?

They wouldn't need a hacker. It was widely suspected they already had a way into the phones, they just were looking for a court order to do it quicker, and because whatever bug they're using will eventually be closed.

[MultiTroll]

They wouldn't need a hacker. It was widely suspected they already had a way into the phones, they just were looking for a court order to do it quicker, and because whatever bug they're using will eventually be closed.
I was thinking find internal emails / communication ala the Sony hack.

"Here is how we can weasel out of paying U.S. taxes. Lets scam a plan to form some bogus offshore/other country headquarters etc etc Peace Out Tim Cook".

I'm not saying anything legal would come of it, Apple is too sneaky for that. I mean dirt for the court of public opinion.

[ElNono]

I was thinking find internal emails / communication ala the Sony hack.

"Here is how we can weasel out of paying U.S. taxes. Lets scam a plan to form some bogus offshore/other country headquarters etc etc Peace Out Tim Cook".

I'm not saying anything legal would come of it, Apple is too sneaky for that. I mean dirt for the court of public opinion.

Some of that came up on a couple of trials already (book price fixing, non-compete deals)...not sure what else you can dig up, tbh... with the CEO being openly gay, they'll probably pull the homophobic card...

You can always not buy their shit if you don't agree with their stand on this...

[MultiTroll]

Some of that came up on a couple of trials already (book price fixing, non-compete deals)...not sure what else you can dig up, tbh... with the CEO being openly gay, they'll probably pull the homophobic card...

You can always not buy their shit if you don't agree with their stand on this...
non complete deals?

I'm not on the govt or Apples side, but I do want to see Apples phony sanctimonious *We want to protect our customers privacy* line of crap exposed.

Couldn't hackers get some dirt like how they knew all about the factory in China that crammed 18,000 workers into a building doing 12 hour shifts 7 days a week and had a bunch of the workers jumping out the windows attempting suicide? Tim: "Who gives a f? We will have more profit."

[ElNono]

non complete deals?

I'm not on the govt or Apples side, but I do want to see Apples phony sanctimonious *We want to protect our customers privacy* line of crap exposed.

Couldn't hackers get some dirt like how they knew all about the factory in China that crammed 18,000 workers into a building doing 12 hour shifts 7 days a week and had a bunch of the workers jumping out the windows attempting suicide? Tim: "Who gives a f? We will have more profit."

I actually laud where they stand on customer privacy, hopefully more companies would be as mindful about the issue and follow their lead.

I don't own any Apple stock nor work for them either, but you're going to find that Apple is actually one of the main leaders on improving work conditions in China, publishing reports both on workforce conditions and ecological impact. Their tax dealings are not much different than most other companies and are well known, since Tim Cock even went in front of Congress to testify about them, tbh... I would say the biggest 'dirt' is that the CEO is gay, but that's pretty well known too...

[MultiTroll]

Apple is actually one of the main leaders on improving work conditions in China, publishing reports both on workforce conditions and ecological impact.
Big dog n pony show act. Apple has been happy to condone and benefit from severe exploitation all along.


Their tax dealings are not much different than most other companies and are well known,
Apple: "Mom, ElNono did it too"
C'mon.


Tim Cock Freudian slip? Typo? :lol


even went in front of Congress to testify about them, tbh...

If I ran a greedy corp, Congress is exactly who I would testify to if I wanted absolutely nothing to be done.
Bunch of do nothing phucks, many who are undoubtedly on Apples *payroll*.

[ElNono]

Big dog n pony show act. Apple has been happy to condone and benefit from severe exploitation all along.

Apple: "Mom, ElNono did it too"
C'mon.

Freudian slip? Typo? :lol

If I ran a greedy corp, Congress is exactly who I would testify to if I wanted absolutely nothing to be done.
Bunch of do nothing phucks, many who are undoubtedly on Apples *payroll*.

:lol dunno who came up with Tim Cock, but that's what they call him on the Tech Forum... might've been lefty, tbh

[Nbadan]

To tell Apple or not? That is the question..

FBI Bought Tool to Break Into IPhone Used in Terrorist Attack
Source: Bloomberg


The Federal Bureau of Investigation paid for the tool it used to break into a dead terrorist’s iPhone and is considering whether to tell Apple Inc. how it was done, FBI Director James Comey said.

The U.S. dropped a legal case against Apple last month after it succeeded in accessing the data on an iPhone 5c used by Syed Rizwan Farook, who with his wife carried out the deadly December attack in San Bernardino, California. Comey disclosed during a speech Wednesday at Kenyon College in Ohio that the FBI paid for the tool to break into the phone, although he didn’t provide further details.

"The FBI is very good at keeping secrets, and the people we bought this from, I know a fair amount about them, and I have a high degree of confidence that they are very good at protecting it and their motivations align with ours," Comey said. The FBI hasn’t said who provided the hacking tool.

Discussions are continuing about whether to provide Apple with details about how the hack was carried out, Comey said. "That’s an interesting conversation because we tell Apple and they’re going to fix it, and then we’re back where we started from," he said. "As silly as that may sound, we may end up there. We just haven’t’ decided yet."

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-04-07/fbi-bought-tool-to-break-into-iphone-used-in-terrorist-attack

[ElNono]

Apple Won't Sue FBI To Reveal Hack Used To Unlock Seized iPhone

Apple will not pursue legal action against the US government (http://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-wont-sue-fbi-to-discover-hack-used-to-unlock-seized-iphone/) to discover how federal agents broke into an iPhone (https://news.slashdot.org/story/16/03/28/2237207/fbi-unlocks-iphone-without-apples-help-in-san-bernadino-case) used by one of the San Bernardino shooters. Attorneys for Apple speaking on background during a media briefing call on Friday said that it believed the method used to unlock the iPhone 5c would be short lived. It follows similar comments by FBI director James Comey who said in a speech on Thursday that the hack used to unlock the encrypted phone works on a "narrow slice" of devices (https://news.slashdot.org/story/16/04/07/2019228/fbi-director-says-unlocking-method-wont-work-on-newer-iphones). Apple attorneys said that the company is "confident" that the security weakness that the government alleges to have found will have a "short shelf life." The FBI's hack in the San Bernardino case would not help agents access a newer iPhone 5s used by a drug dealer (https://apple.slashdot.org/story/16/04/08/192203/apples-fight-with-us-over-privacy-enters-a-new-round) in New York, where Apple faces a similar case against the government.

[Nbadan]

Senate bill draft would prohibit unbreakable encryption


WASHINGTON (AP) -- A draft version of a Senate bill would effectively prohibit unbreakable encryption and require companies to help the government access data on a computer or mobile device with a warrant.

The draft is being finalized by the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., and the top Democrat, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California.

Their goal, they said in a statement, is to ensure adherence to any court order that requires helping law enforcement or providing decrypted information. "No individual or company is above the law."

It was not immediately clear when they would introduce the bill.

Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CONGRESS_ENCRYPTION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-04-08-14-11-09

[boutons_deux]

Feinstein, another 1%er Dem, like Hillary, overseeing the decline.

[MultiTroll]

Listen to the reasoning of the phaggots supporting keeping this molesters phone locked up:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/former-police-officer-locked-in-solitary-confinement-for-7-months-after-not-handing-over-his-passwords/ar-BBspGZb?ocid=spartanntp

[MultiTroll]

Listen to the reasoning of the phaggots supporting keeping this molesters phone locked up:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/former-police-officer-locked-in-solitary-confinement-for-7-months-after-not-handing-over-his-passwords/ar-BBspGZb?ocid=spartanntp
psssh. Tell me this guy isn't working for terrorists:
https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=OIP.Mc42c33bc622d514ee229bb927648aa5eo2&w=250&h=179&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0&r=0 (https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=ahmed+ghappour&view=detailv2&&id=B55BA3D6D72B4207CB71AD0D7AB39D7AA0EA9888&selectedIndex=0&ccid=xCwzvGIt&simid=608043129581536545&thid=OIP.Mc42c33bc622d514ee229bb927648aa5eo2)
Ahmed Ghappour.
Some of you may remember him from U Texas law school

[CosmicCowboy]

So if the US government wants to force these multinational companies to help them crack encryption, what are they going to say when other countries require the same? If China wants to crack a dissidents phone how can the US government say it's OK to work for us but not them after they have FORCED them to make a crackable phone?

[ElNono]

Listen to the reasoning of the phaggots supporting keeping this molesters phone locked up:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/former-police-officer-locked-in-solitary-confinement-for-7-months-after-not-handing-over-his-passwords/ar-BBspGZb?ocid=spartanntp

This is actually a great example why the All Writs act needs to die a slow death. Plus it's likely unconstitutional in that case, since it can't possibly trump the fifth amendment.

The fact that you don't understand (or you do, and don't agree with) that constitutional rights apply to everyone, including criminals, is a different matter altogether.

[ElNono]

So if the US government wants to force these multinational companies to help them crack encryption, what are they going to say when other countries require the same? If China wants to crack a dissidents phone how can the US government say it's OK to work for us but not them after they have FORCED them to make a crackable phone?

Not only that, but it's a major competitive disadvantage. Any other country can make devices with actual secure encryption, whereas US companies cannot.

[MultiTroll]

I get it, they are trying to protect innocent people from having their phones hacked into by govt.

That having been said, for phucks sake does their have to be a one size fits all cookie cutter law? If MolestoPhuck is caught with pictures of 2 and 4 year olds zeroing in on their genitalia (granted, still with clothes on), Judge Fabbs has ruled that probable cause has been met. Bust into the rest of his electronic stuff and possibly save who knows how many kids in the future from being molested.

Solitary confinement? I'd hang him up by his nutts if he refused to give a reason why he wont give the passwords. He is OBVIOUSLY hiding something.

Can't common sense prevail?

[ElNono]

I get it, they are trying to protect innocent people from having their phones hacked into by govt.

That having been said, for phucks sake does their have to be a one size fits all cookie cutter law? If MolestoPhuck is caught with pictures of 2 and 4 year olds zeroing in on their genitalia (granted, still with clothes on), Judge Fabbs has ruled that probable cause has been met. Bust into the rest of his electronic stuff and possibly save who knows how many kids in the future from being molested.

Solitary confinement? I'd hang him up by his nutts if he refused to give a reason why he wont give the passwords. He is OBVIOUSLY hiding something.

Can't common sense prevail?

Based on what? The government's word? He's not been charged with any crime as of yet, and the reason we have a 5th amendment is so we're not forced or coerced to prove the government case against us.

If the government doesn't need the passwords to prove their case, why force him to reveal them?

The claim is entirely the government, it's their burden to prove it. Until then, that person is innocent. This solitary confinement under the guise of contempt will not fly for long. Either the government proves it's case, or he has to walk. It's a clear violation of his constitutional rights. And that's exactly how the system should work.

You gotta be careful with this "common sense". One of this days a journalist is going to air the dirty laundry of certain part of government and they'll lock him up in solitary confinement until he provides the password that reveals the whistleblower. A snitch that, in that particular case, would be doing a great service to all of us citizens.

[MultiTroll]

You gotta be careful with this "common sense".
Ok so lets take the above example of MolestaPhuck. But lets say, just for discussions sake, that he is a Chester. He is not being framed, he is not the victim of some incompetent govt police work.

What is the way to proceed with his elec gadgets storing child porn and only Satan knows what else.

[ElNono]

Ok so lets take the above example of MolestaPhuck. But lets say, just for discussions sake, that he is a Chester. He is not being framed, he is not the victim of some incompetent govt police work.

What is the way to proceed with his elec gadgets storing child porn and only Satan knows what else.

What is normally done in cases like this when they can't press charges because they don't have enough evidence: get better evidence. Put him on a 24 hours surveillance, bug his computer, his monitor, his keyboard. If he's a predator, he'll slip up again.

[MultiTroll]

Mister I have seen all the Perry Masons and a good number of Law and Orders.

If they did not have enough evidence then they should not have arrested him. All that served to do is tip him off.

[ElNono]

Mister I have seen all the Perry Masons and a good number of Law and Orders.

If they did not have enough evidence then they should not have arrested him. All that served to do is tip him off.

They were probably unaware he encrypted all his data. Too bad, they'll know better next time.