Skip to main content

Within 1 hour of Malaysia Flight 370 going missing, Apple was working w/ officials to find it

Screen Shot 2016-03-01 at 6.02.42 PM

Apple has been in Washington D.C. today testifying before the House Judiciary Committee regarding the San Bernardino case. General Counsel Bruce Sewell is representing Apple during the hearing and has fielded a wide range of questions so far. One notable question, however, came from Louisiana representative Cedric Richmond, who pressed Sewell to explain just how quickly Apple would be able to comply with a governmental request for assistance.

Specifically, Richmond used the example of a phone that had the location of a nuclear bomb on it. “If there is terrorist, and he’s put the location of a nuclear bomb on his phone, and he dies, how long would it take Apple to develop the technology to find out where the bomb is? Or would Apple not be able to develop the technology to tell us in a short period of time?,” Richmond asked.

Apple’s Sewell explained that the first thing Apple would do is look at all of the data surrounding the phone, noting that when Apple has an emergency situation, it has a set of procedures it follows to get everything done. Specifically, Sewell noted that when the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 went missing, Apple was working with officials within an hour to try to find the plane:

“When the Malaysia airline went down, within one hour of that plane being declared missing, we had Apple operators corroborating with telephone providers all over the world, with the airlines, and with the FBI to try to find a ping. To try to find some way to locate that plane.”

It’s interesting to see just how involved Apple is with so many different aspects of events that go on in the world. Many people probably never suspected that Apple played any role in searching for the missing Malaysia Airlines flight.

Apple’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee has just wrapped up. Throughout the day, most of the questions have centered around things that we already know, such as how the government changed the password of the Apple ID in question within hours of it gaining possession. Watch the full stream here:

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

You’re reading 9to5Mac — experts who break news about Apple and its surrounding ecosystem, day after day. Be sure to check out our homepage for all the latest news, and follow 9to5Mac on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to stay in the loop. Don’t know where to start? Check out our exclusive stories, reviews, how-tos, and subscribe to our YouTube channel

Comments

  1. dwisehart - 8 years ago

    You say “Many people probably never suspected that Apple played any role in the missing Malaysia Airlines flight.” I think you mean “Many people probably never suspected that Apple played any role in the search for the missing Malaysia Airlines flight.”

    Apple played no role in the events that led to loss of that flight.

    • jmiko2015 - 8 years ago

      Unless they used Apple Maps on that flight

      • Jesse Nichols - 8 years ago

        I’ve never had a single problem with Apple Maps. It’s always worked perfectly for me.

        That being said… Omg! I laughed so hard at this that I almost spit water onto my keyboard…

  2. pdixon1986 - 8 years ago

    Apple is active around the world because they have to maintain an image – they dont want to be “that company that could have helped but didnt” — the questions is “are they doing everything they can do to help?”

    In this particular case the answer is “no!”… There is a phone, that is 100% related to a very serious crime – it could contain vital information that they havent yet been able to obtain (granted it might not), but Apple is NOT doing everything in their power to help crack the case.

    So all this shows is that Apple are allowed to pick a choose what they help with and how far they help…

    If a law abiding citizen refused to help and had the means to help further but openly chose not to, they wouldn’t have the money to fight the matter in court and end up in prison for obstructing the course of justice…

    Yes protect peoples privacy — but apple only have to create a triple master key access that has it’s own encryption that cannot be copied… apple keep a key, the FBI keep a key, and a 3rd party (such as the courts) keep a key… they must all agree in order to access a device.

    It’s just amazing how it went from “it is impossible” to “well actually we could but it will take time” to “we have a set of procedures for emergencies” (implying they already can do it)… What gives a company the rights to decide which criminals phone is accessed or not — surely the FBI who are in charge of national security have a better understanding of how to proceed…
    To me it just sounds like Apple is that little kid who doesnt want to give back the toy regardless of the logical reasons presented to them by those who know better – instead they what to keep hold of it and protect it because it belongs to someone they have a crush on… :-(

    I should hope none of my family member are shot or killed etc and apple refuse to go the whole 9 yards

    • dcperin - 8 years ago

      “All three must agree to access a device.” Uhhhh, Apple doesn’t agree on this specific case and look what they’re going through to MAKE Apple comply. You’re naive if you think the FBI wouldn’t abuse any power they could get out of this. That’s what they do, push the limit of the law and manipulate it to their advantage.

      Secondly, you said it yourself. There is NO proof that anything of importance will even be on the phone. It’s a total guess as to whether they’ll get anything off the iPhone. They win and they’ll use this case as a precedent for other cases.Thays the scary part.

      • pdixon1986 - 8 years ago

        The device 100% belongs to a known criminal relating to the case — yes, there could be nothing on it BUT for the sake of bringing closure to those involved it would be nice to check.
        Apple are refusing because they dont want to hand over all power…

        Plus… if you cant trust your government, or the FBI – then why are you even living in the US.
        I didnt agree with half of what the UK were saying – so i left… many do it.

        People are just too scared because of their dirty little secrets… i for one wouldnt want a person walking around with secret details, possible attacks, illegal pornorgraphy, child pornographic images…

        You say “They win and they’ll use this case as a precedent for other cases.That’s the scary part.”
        NO!!!! — the scare part is if they DON’T win — this will then make apple the go to device for all terrorists, criminals, child abusers etc because they know no-one can do a darn thing to access their privacy…
        A pervert could opt for the 128gb and fill it all with child porn and as long as they dont link to icloud etc they will be protected – they can even send over imessage because it’s encrypted…
        Even if a person is caught with some picture, they wont get the full prosecution they deserve because Apple wont allow any access to the device…

        So great… you get to sleep tight knowing your text message and photos are all safe — meanwhile some victim is suffering because possible evidence is being stored on a device protected by Apple…
        Thanks… thank you for understanding.
        Your privacy comes at a cost…

        If privacy is so important to you – please leave the internet!

      • PhilBoogie - 8 years ago

        Good grief man, get a grip on yourself! After that, wipe your iPhone and get something else. After that, you may want to check the facts of the case.

        “The device 100% belongs to a known criminal relating to the case”

        Start with that one, because it’s not true.

      • dcperin - 8 years ago

        I’m just shocked your mind thinks that way. You see it as a San Bernardino case only. Think big picture. Sure, it helps with criminals in the world, but what about the majority of the population that are law abiding citizens? Where is the privacy they deserve bc they never did anything to lose it. I don’t trust the US government, I don’t trust any federal government in the world. You’ve got it mixed. Why should I leave my home bc the federal government can’t be trusted…? That’s letting them win and allows them to think its okay to do these things. The only way to fix it is to stand up and tell them they’re wrong. I’m sorry you thought it was easier to leave the UK than to fight for what was right. I won’t leave the very ‘imperfect’ country that I was born in, and that I love. It’s a cop out.

        Again, your idea sacrifices the privacy for the many, to shine a light on the few. The very few. Where’s the logic in that..? Justice or freedom isn’t going around and looking at everyones phone and either giving them the all clear or arresting the criminals for what they have on it.

        Your thinking of the way justice should be is absolutely flawed, and I feel sorry you think like that.

      • dcperin - 8 years ago

        I also like how you speak for the families directly hurt by the terrorist… Wait, didn’t some of them even side with Apple….?

    • iSRS - 8 years ago

      First off, only a narcissist would think that the Government wants what is on their phone. I sure as help don’t think the government cares about me at all.

      However, I don’t think Apple should be forced to undo the security of this, or any, iPhone. I don’t think Google and their many partners should be forced to undo the security of any Android phone.

      This isn’t about this one phone (that, let’s all agree, likely doesn’t have anything of value, since the personally owned phones and computers were destroyed by the terrorists – they wouldn’t have forgot about this one if it did).

      This is about what happens once that code is created, and gets into the wild. Which it would be nearly, if not outright, impossible to prevent. That puts us ALL at risk, regardless of what phone, os, computer, tablet, or any wifi enabled product. It sets a precedent, everyone knows that, the FBI admitted it would. Ignoring that fact is naive.

      Pull the heart strings all you want, actions should never be made based on emotion.

      • dcperin - 8 years ago

        Not trying to be rude, but the government cared enough about us to spy on us once, and got caught. Why not want to see what on our phones if they have the ability? I rather be narcissistic and not spied on than not care and have them looking through personal, non criminal conversations or photos. I thoroughly enjoy my privacy.

        There is two sides, like you said. Our government has been hacked how many times? When have they ever shown the ability to protect their information from getting into the wrong hands? Once that happens then someone in China or a basement in rural Alabama has the ability to access the most popular mobile phone on the planet. Um, no thank you.

        Other side is a government that has spied on us before having access to our iPhones. Again, no thanks.

    • michaelcpearson7 - 8 years ago

      You can’t really believe the your statement, “If you can’t trust your own government…” Really?
      What about Flint, MI? Those people trusted their government yet they switched the water out to save $100 a day and now children have lead poisoning.
      I could go on and on and on but I don’t have to. You get the point. The government has tons of ways to get information from text messaging, emails and countless other ways. They do not have permission to delve into my phone.

      Listen… if the police got a warrant to search your home and once in they found a safe, they can not compel the make of the safe to give them access to the safe. There are hundreds of briefs on this. This is the exact same thing. If the police can crack the safe then go at it. If they can’t… then “Oh Well”. It’s just that simple.

      • jacosta45 - 8 years ago

        “Oh Well. Its’ just that simple.” This should be in an Apple ad because, you know, they’re all about simplicity lol.

    • applewatch20152015 - 8 years ago

      You’re a f**king idiot

    • 89p13 - 8 years ago

      Then buy an Android and either (a) Do Not Password Protect It or (b) Engrave the password on the phone so that EVERYONE can see it!

      With your views – YOU HAVE A CHOICE – either (a) or (b) above.

      Your solution takes my choice of privacy away from me and those who want Privacy & Security on our devices!

      As I have said in my posts many, many times – WE ALL VOTE WITH OUR $$$$. Buy The Device YOU WANT with the features YOU WANT – Do Not Attempt to Deprive Me of My Choices!

    • Michael Ladd (@mladd) - 8 years ago

      There is no proof that the phone was 100% related to any crime. Apple HAS been helping in this case. Information WAS retrieved for this case. Law Enforcement “broke” the phone to prevent anyone, including Apple from getting to additional, previous backups of the phone. There is not a single piece of evidence that implies that information critical to the case is contained on the previous backups. It has not been disclosed (to my knowledge) that there was any critical information on this case gleaned from the initial backups from October that they do have, which Apple assisted with.

      You are probably the kind of person that would submit to an illegal search just because “I don’t have anything to hide”. That’s fine, for you. I would respectfully decline a request for an illegal search because it’s my right as a US citizen to do so.

      Oh, and an innocent and unconnected person or company refusing to assist law enforcement in an investigation is not obstruction of justice.

      Apple has assisted in MANY cases over the years and has not written press releases for all of them. This has nothing to do with Image, but has everything to do with personal privacy, and precedent. You want to bring up child porn and other sensational FUD. Fine. But now what’s to keep divorce lawyers and small claims suits from going after Apple to get information off phones in those cases? “See, your honor, this message shows he promised to return my lawn mower the next day.”

      On top of all that, trusting the government to secure a tool of this nature, that it would never be lost, hacked, copied, shared inadvertently or purposefully, used maliciously internally or externally, is just idiotic.

  3. This retard from Louisiana thinks someone has a suitcase nuke? FFS why is it all politicians have their heads up their asses? This moron has been watching too many episodes of 24. This crap you guys are covering is making me pretty angry.

    I don’t know about the location of any nukes, but your US-based hillbilly militia should stop all their lip-flapping and finally put their money where their mouths have been and start crossing politicians off their lists.

    • 89p13 - 8 years ago

      I agree – It’s the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt) discussion all over again! Well, take that argument and stick it where the sun don’t shine, Louisiana representative Cedric Richmond.

      Maybe you should be devoting some of your fear and anxiety to what happens to your constituents if another Katrina hits Louisiana!

  4. Rich Davis (@RichDavis9) - 8 years ago

    Finding the location doesn’t require hacking into a device. Most cell phones best data is collected by going to the cell phone service providers to find out what calls they’ve had which doesn’t require hacking into the phone as they can find out who else they are making/recieving calls.

    I used to work for a vendor that sold computer equipment to government and one of my accounts was the Dept of Justice and they had a unit that was tracking motorcycle gangs and they had a very elaborate method of tracking phone calls, which was instrumental in taking down a motorcycle gang, this was prior to smartphones. I think a lot of these terrorists are probably smart enough to not keep that much information on their smart phones. Heck, don’t a lot of drug dealers just use burner phones and switch them constantly because they don’t have to have their calls traced? You’re average drug dealer probably has little to no actual information on their smartphone as they use them to just make/take calls to their network and they typically are a cash based business.

  5. John Smith - 8 years ago

    I thought Apple believes the sanctity of people’s mobile phones is higher than saving life ?

    It surprises me that such an irresponsible corporation was willing to assist.

    I guess that their assessment came down in favour of helping rather than obstructing would be a better marketing position in this case.

  6. AbsarokaSheriff - 8 years ago

    The FBI (law enforcement) has not come clean about what they really want. Would a terrorist put anything interesting on their work phone which they could be asked to hand over at any time. No.

    So they want Carte Blanche to look at any phone at any time. In New York, the police were denied the right to have Apple assist in unlocking a phone for a Meth case. Apparently there are at least 175 phones that law enforcement want to examine. Are they all going to be examined in an Apple clean room.

    No, they’ll want to take them back to their office for forensic examination which can take years, where anyone could image and clone them. There is no way to safeguard all of these devices.

    Apple is asking to sign their digital signature through certificates for something that would degrade their products. It’s like forcing McDonalds to add Salmonella to their food or Smith and Wesson to put in an automatic disable feature for their firearms. Forcing a manufacturer to degrade their product and certify it through their signature is coercive at best.

    It is law enforcement’s job to ask for every single mechanism of investigation but at some point we have to look at the risk/rewards ratio. Is degrading the security of something that we use for payment, for private browsing, for entertainment, for finance worth it.

    In order to avoid a police state or a monarchy, that has everything it wants, we have to be able to say no.

    We could remove all guns and that would make a safer world but not a more free one. If we removed all cars from the road we would reduce accidents.

    The price of freedom is not free. Yes, we won’t be able to look at the phones but we’ll have our own security and trust in these phones.

Author

Avatar for Chance Miller Chance Miller

Chance is an editor for the entire 9to5 network and covers the latest Apple news for 9to5Mac.

Tips, questions, typos to chance@9to5mac.com