While the FBI has so far refused to say whether or not it will let Apple know how the San Bernardino iPhone was unlocked, a second case in New York could provide the Cupertino company with a legal right to the information.
When the FBI first said that it might be able to access the San Bernardino iPhone without Apple’s help, halting its court case against Apple, that also brought a temporary halt to a second case in New York. There the DOJ was using the same All Writs Act argument in a Brooklyn court (above) to demand Apple help it unlock another iPhone in an unrelated drugs case.
That case was deferred in order to await the outcome of the FBI’s unlock attempt, and things could get interesting if the DOJ opts to return to the NY court …
If the same method used by the FBI works in the NY case, then the case will be vacated as happened in California. But if the method doesn’t work (we don’t yet know the model of iPhone involved), then the case will resume. That, says a Reuters report, could allow Apple to demand proof that the San Bernardino method failed in the NY case, and such proof would mean revealing the method used.
Prosecutors have not said whether the San Bernardino technique would work for other seized iPhones, including the one at issue in Brooklyn. Should the Brooklyn case continue, Apple could pursue legal discovery that would potentially force the FBI to reveal what technique it used on the San Bernardino phone, the source said.
This was supported by Apple’s filing in the case, reported in MacWorld.
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 DOJ has said that it would advise the court of its intentions no later than 11th April.
It’s widely believed that the mobile forensics company Cellebrite used NAND mirroring to circumvent the 10-attempt passcode lockout.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
I have no faith in anything that the FBI will be “forced” to reveal if this comes to pass.
I agree with you, but from a legal perspective, it would greatly weaken the DOJ’s case to say “we tried this method, it didn’t work, trust us, but no, we won’t tell you the method.”
Part of me hopes that this newly uncovered back door is real and Apple never finds out about it. Should the government be forced to release this new information if Apple sues? The irony!!
The part of you with a masochistic authoritarian streak? The part of you that likes a little bit of risk that hackers could steal your financial information you previously considered secure?
There is no such thing as a unbreakable consumer produced phone or system. Don’t let Apple or any other company lie to you. If you believe Apple can guarantee that promise you’re so naive.
No, cdm, you are right. What I want is as unbreakable as possible and a company committed to timely updates and trying to stay one step ahead. I do believe this describes Apple.
I see no reason that the New York decision would be vacated. Why? The decision is there although it has been appealed by the FBI. Now, the FBI can drop its appeal but that does NOT means that Judge Orenstein’s denial is overturned.
As I see it, the only way for the FBI to have that vacated is to pursue the appeal, and win. Apple will, of course, ask why the method used in San Bernardino didn’t work, and I guess that the Court will direct the FBI to tell them. The FBI is going to lose one or other of these – either the existing denial will stand, or they’ll have to disclose the method.
Apple is a very rich & greedy corporation with crafty lawyers. I’m sure they will try this ploy to either (a) gain information or (b) force New York to drop the case to avoid disclosure.
Fortunately not all lawyers work for the rich and the other side will have their own lawyers. So we’ll see how this finishes up.
At the finish of it all I would want to see two things …
* Apple not informed of anything about sources and method(s)
* More cases – with enhanced public relations impact – brought to keep Apple in the public eye as defending the rights of criminals
Apple is now part of the problem, not part of the solution, and needs to be treated as such.
John, every post you make shows that you have a bias against Apple. An irrational one, to be specific. I suggest you update your user name from John Smith to Jerry Fletcher…
But to your points:
*If the DOJ continues to push these cases in the courts, you can bet they will, at some point, have to disclose the methods they used, including the methods on the San Bernadino case if they claim this method can not be used on a future case in question.
*Nearly every Technology company is backing Apple, as are former law enforcement, DOJ, etc. in this situation. So do you have this same irrational hatred for every technology company?
*The DOJ can continue to play this in the court of public opinion to destroy Apple’s image, but if they continue to be dishonest (and you can not claim they have been completely honest in their statements and portrayals, as they are intentionally leaving information out of their comments in order to get the public on their side), then the Government should be held accountable. I do not want my government to be this corrupt, which is exactly what abuse of power is, corruption.
Apple could just use their pile of cash to buy said Israeli Tech firm… just a thought. They do have offices in Israel already. “Hey guys want head up our new security team here? how a cool Billion sound? just sign here… now how’d you do it?”
FBI trolling is going to cause DOJ major issues in tech industry, they seems to be pushing Apple in unlocking an iPhone for them but it most probably asking everyone in tech sector to come out and support Apple in standing against FBI and DOJ. (Opinion)