Support NeoGAF

[Wings 嫩翼翻せ]

A recent development by Steve Dent of Engadget has revealed an alarming story concrning new technology functioms associated with the new iPhone models. The FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) has only a few hours prior developed a method for obtaining access to another user's iPhone X device, something they previously have been barred from doing by the Apple company. This is what may very well be the first [documented] case of such in the world.

Full Story

Agents in Columbus, Ohio entered the home of 28-year-old Grant Michalski, who was suspected of child abuse, according to court documents spotted by Forbes. With a search warrant in hand, they forced him to put his face on front of the device to unlock it. They were then able to freely search for his photos, chats and any other potential evidence.

They discovered emails in which he discussed incest and sex with minors with another defendant, William Weekly. Reportedly, they also discussed sexual acts with an individual that Weekly identified in the emails as his daughter.

Without a fingerprint or face, authorities have thus far been unable to obtain passwords, because even Apple can't access them. Apple has also refused to create backdoors for law enforcement, with CEO Tim Cook saying it would compromise the security of all users. That argument has some merit, as hacking tools developed by the NSA were stolen by hackers.

The FBI have used suspects' fingerprints to unlock their phones, and even tried to crack an iPhone by 3D-printing a dead person's finger.

... Surprisingly, using Face ID or similar face recognition systems from Huawei and other device makers to unlock a suspect's phone has possibly never been tried. As such, it's not clear if it's lawful to do so, even though law enforcement can obviously use someone's face as evidence for witness identification and other purposes.

... "That's a Pyrrhic victory as there was contraband found on other devices but there would be no need to challenge the warrant's facial recognition feature as my client was not harmed by its use."

As it stands, it seems we have reached a crossroad: though CEO Tim Cook has vehemently refused to provide access to previous generation iPhones, there goes without saying that it has become up to the user itself to refrain from providing such information at the risk of giving away access by force. Now that tech has brought us past the protection of the designers, what is our next bout? Simply neglecting device features, or giving away more data to the companies that refuse to protect?

 

[Boss Mog]

If a judge issues a search warrant for a person's phone based on credible information then Law enforcement has every right to do whatever it takes to get into that phone if Apple refuses to cooperate. It's like if they had a search warrant for a house but said "oh the door is locked, I guess we can't search". No, you break in the door if you have to. Apple is pathetic, it's basically protecting pedophiles and terrorists.

 

[RubxQub]

When I saw the headline I assumed there was a hack, but this was just the police scaring a guy into face unlocking his own phone so they could get access to it.

Apple refusing to put backdoors into it's own system is to prevent them from being hacked. Once a backdoor exists, it's open season to be exploited by anyone who cares to figure out how to do it...and they will.

That's why Apple has the stance it does.

If the government can forcibly extract data off your device, than so can bad actors...and that affects every single person who owns the device, not just the people using those devices for nefarious reasons.

If there was a way to introduce this functionality to assist with this kind of search/seizure process without compromising the phone's security, I'm sure Apple would be all for it...but of course no such thing exists. By the very nature of intentionally introducing a way around security, you invite others to find that way and exploit it.

Villainizing Apple for not intentionally making their phones less secure to everyday users doesn't make sense.

I personally applaud them for being so hard on it. And yes...it's unfortunate that the result of this added security to every single person who owns the device is that certain bad actors can hide their wrongdoing on those devices...but Apple doesn't secure their phones for them. They secure them for every other user that doesn't want their dick picks and personal information extracted from their device without their consent.

 

[Meh3D]

If a judge issues a search warrant for a person's phone based on credible information then Law enforcement has every right to do whatever it takes to get into that phone if Apple refuses to cooperate. It's like if they had a search warrant for a house but said "oh the door is locked, I guess we can't search". No, you break in the door if you have to. Apple is pathetic, it's basically protecting pedophiles and terrorists.

Please elaborate on the bolded part please.

 

[Gabrius]

^ bolded part is fear mongering. Go to an airport and deal with the TSA if you need an example of its effects.

 

[BANGS]

Well that's a shame, I wonder if that's even legal? Like, how exactly did they force him?

 

[RubxQub]

It looks like it's a bit of an undefined space, but for now it seems like as long as a judge is willing to sign a warrant compelling someone to do it, the police will be more than happy to request and execute them.

 

[Aintitcool]

It's compete bullshit that apple phones are secure, remember fapgate? Yeah all those celebs had iphones. I also personally witnessed my iphone 4s be hacked and spied on, and feel like my new iphone 6s isn't anymore secure.

 

[Pagusas]

If a judge issues a search warrant for a person's phone based on credible information then Law enforcement has every right to do whatever it takes to get into that phone if Apple refuses to cooperate. It's like if they had a search warrant for a house but said "oh the door is locked, I guess we can't search". No, you break in the door if you have to. Apple is pathetic, it's basically protecting pedophiles and terrorists.

I strongly disagree with your last statement.

 

[RubxQub]

It's compete bullshit that apple phones are secure, remember fapgate? Yeah all those celebs had iphones. I also personally witnessed my iphone 4s be hacked and spied on, and feel like my new iphone 6s isn't anymore secure.

Socially engineering celebrity iCloud passwords is vastly different than hacking into an iPhone.

The people who got into those celebrity accounts aren't some 1337 h4x0rs who broke iCloud encryption and got into the iCloud servers to steal data. They just socially engineered the passwords and viola.

Not to mention Apple has 2-factor authentication they never bothered to use which would have prevented all of that.

 

[BANGS]

It's compete bullshit that apple phones are secure, remember fapgate? Yeah all those celebs had iphones.

That was people hacking into their icloud accounts, it had nothing to do with the phones...

 

[Fbh]

I can't really disagree with anyone here?

I get the stance Apple is taking. If they build a backdoor that would just open the door for it to get exploited

And I'm ok with the FBI hacking the phone to gain access. As someone said, if the police have a search warrant for your house and you refuse to open the door then they'll break it down. They won't be like "well it's locked so I guess there's nothing we can do and we should just go home"

 

[quickwhips]

If you want a secure I phone don’t use finger or face. Your pin is still secure.

 

[Blam]

It's compete bullshit that apple phones are secure, remember fapgate? Yeah all those celebs had iphones. I also personally witnessed my iphone 4s be hacked and spied on, and feel like my new iphone 6s isn't anymore secure.

You do understand that whole thing wasn't just done in one month right? One person was stupid leaked some shit, and put his own info in those leaks, and then everyone in that community went in full force and leaked everything because they knew the value of their leaks would be dropped and people would do it if they didn't.

That and their accounts were hacked, and their iclouds downloaded.

 

[Dontero]

jokes on them i don't lock my phone at all

 

[dream]

It's compete bullshit that apple phones are secure, remember fapgate? Yeah all those celebs had iphones. I also personally witnessed my iphone 4s be hacked and spied on, and feel like my new iphone 6s isn't anymore secure.

So what could Apple do to assuage your "feelings?"

 

[Horsemama1956]

I don’t have a problem with this.

I mean don’t put yourself in a position to have a search warrant issued by the FBI. If you’re at that point of FBI involvement they probably already have a bunch of other shit on you.

 

[oagboghi2]

If a judge issues a search warrant for a person's phone based on credible information then Law enforcement has every right to do whatever it takes to get into that phone if Apple refuses to cooperate. It's like if they had a search warrant for a house but said "oh the door is locked, I guess we can't search". No, you break in the door if you have to. Apple is pathetic, it's basically protecting pedophiles and terrorists.

I was with you until the last part. That is silly

 

[RainblowDash]

Fact: You can be compelled to incriminate yourself via unlocking your phone with face or touch ID or a swipe pattern on android.

You cannot however if you use a pin.

I have the Xs and use a pin.

 

[Zog]

I don’t have a problem with this.

I mean don’t put yourself in a position to have a search warrant issued by the FBI. If you’re at that point of FBI involvement they probably already have a bunch of other shit on you.

If you're accused or suspected, you must be guilty?

 

[TyphoonStruggle]

If a judge issues a search warrant for a person's phone based on credible information then Law enforcement has every right to do whatever it takes to get into that phone if Apple refuses to cooperate. It's like if they had a search warrant for a house but said "oh the door is locked, I guess we can't search". No, you break in the door if you have to. Apple is pathetic, it's basically protecting pedophiles and terrorists.

Wrong.

If there's a way for Apple to hack your phone, then there's a way for hackers to enter your phone.

It's not about Apple protecting pedophiles and terrorists. It's about Apple protecting everyone from bad actors.

 

[demigod]

Im not even sure why this is even news like its invading someone’s privacy. This is no different than your computer being confiscated by authorities. Nothing wrong with it if they got a court order.

 

[Catphish]

I don’t have a problem with this.

I mean don’t put yourself in a position to have a search warrant issued by the FBI. If you’re at that point of FBI involvement they probably already have a bunch of other shit on you.

Um, no.

MLK had an FBI file.
John Lennon had an FBI file.

Just because they're sometimes right doesn't mean they're allowed to act is if they're always right.

 

[manfestival]

arrest warrant and no real hack.... fake news move along

 

[Torrent of Pork]

On a slightly related topic, I feel bad for the poor bastard working for law enforcement that goes through my porn folder if I were to ever be the subject of a serious investigation. Nothing in there is illegal, but it's definitely raunchy in uncommon ways.

 

[oagboghi2]

On a slightly related topic, I feel bad for the poor bastard working for law enforcement that goes through my porn folder if I were to ever be the subject of a serious investigation. Nothing in there is illegal, but it's definitely raunchy in uncommon ways.

Incest porn?

 

[Torrent of Pork]

Nah, just some extreme bdsm and fetish material. I just imagine the horror of some poor government employee who just sat through a 10 minute clip of some twink being 'forced' to sit on a 15" toy thicker than a beer can, and seeing the thumbnails of the rest of the 30 gigs worth of depravity on my hard drive.

 

[LOLCats]

My face when...

 

[haxan7]

So there's no way that Apple can create a way for law enforcement to legally access someone's locked phone once a judge has ruled that it would be legal to do so, without opening the door to hackers and dramatically decreasing the security of all iPhones?

Honest question. I am completely ignorant about how those things work.

Nah, just some extreme bdsm and fetish material. I just imagine the horror of some poor government employee who just sat through a 10 minute clip of some twink being 'forced' to sit on a 15" toy thicker than a beer can, and seeing the thumbnails of the rest of the 30 gigs worth of depravity on my hard drive.

If that happens to me I hope the government employee is ok with looking at images of poop.

 

[Torrent of Pork]

So there's no way that Apple can create a way for law enforcement to legally access someone's locked phone once a judge has ruled that it would be legal to do so, without opening the door to hackers and dramatically decreasing the security of all iPhones?

Honest question. I am completely ignorant about how those things work.

If it's a backdoor big enough for the US government, it's big enough for somebody looking for your banking info.

 

[Avasarala]

I'd like to make a dual post here! First the mod part: Please dear users don't bring us here tomorrow! It will likely be a busy day anyway!!

-----------

Non-mod: Just a post to the discussion because I am exhausted and have no one else to talk to:

Fact: You can be compelled to incriminate yourself via unlocking your phone with face or touch ID or a swipe pattern on android.

You cannot however if you use a pin.

I have the Xs and use a pin.

I have similar knowledge from my life (that I choose to not share) that I am relatively confident that the law, and I believe the US constitution "treats" (maybe by interpretation?) differently a "closed paper journal found on one's person" and "a cellular device."

Additionally I understand the quoted poster to be correct that one can be legally compelled to provide biometric data to access electronics, but one cannot, or can be differently (and more difficultly) compelled to provide a pin or a password.

If there's someone willing with some manner of professional opinion on the matter, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts!

 

[switchback27]

I'd like to make a dual post here! First the mod part: Please dear users don't bring us here tomorrow! It will likely be a busy day anyway!!

-----------

Non-mod: Just a post to the discussion because I am exhausted and have no one else to talk to:




I have similar knowledge from my life (that I choose to not share) that I am relatively confident that the law, and I believe the US constitution "treats" (maybe by interpretation?) differently a "closed paper journal found on one's person" and "a cellular device."

Additionally I understand the quoted poster to be correct that one can be legally compelled to provide biometric data to access electronics, but one cannot, or can be differently (and more difficultly) compelled to provide a pin or a password.

If there's someone willing with some manner of professional opinion on the matter, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts!

Not a professional opinion, but it's an issue I thought about when fingerprint scans were first being introduced to mobile phones.

A password (letters, PIN) is something that must be stated/input according to the will of the password owner. Unless the owner actually tells/inputs the password, there is no way to get it out of the guy.

Whereas, fingerprints and retinal scan ID can be compelled despite the owner's objections (i.e. they physically put your finger on the scanner, they forcibly place the phone in front of your eyes).

I wondered whether there was a difference in law enforcement procedure for actually carrying it out in practice. Never got a satisfactory answer, though.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

If a judge issues a search warrant for a person's phone based on credible information then Law enforcement has every right to do whatever it takes to get into that phone if Apple refuses to cooperate. It's like if they had a search warrant for a house but said "oh the door is locked, I guess we can't search". No, you break in the door if you have to. Apple is pathetic, it's basically protecting pedophiles and terrorists.

Encryption is different, unless quantum computers scale(and there are those that believe they won't), it is an unbreakable lock, vault. It may be that reality says you will have to do things such as invade the person's brain, and electrically stimulate it, to compel access. Such a violation of bodily autonomy would be quite horrendous.

Fact: You can be compelled to incriminate yourself via unlocking your phone with face or touch ID or a swipe pattern on android.

You cannot however if you use a pin.

I have the Xs and use a pin.

Think in the U.S. this is so, but in places like the U.K I think you can be jailed if you forget your password and don't provide it.

In any case I think files can be independently encrypted with passwords on open source high security encryption software, such that even if they access the phone, they'll only see encrypted files. Any decent real criminal or terrorist will surely not rely solely on closed source encryption, but will use state of the art open source encryption that has been thoroughly vetted.

 

[michaelius]

Majority of criminals are stupid otherwise they wouldn't become criminals in first place so I doubt they spend time researching cryptology.

But you also get coutries like Wenezuela ot Turkey. People need to realise that what they see as protecting criminals is actually extremly important in some less lucky parts of the world.

 

[BANGS]

And I'm ok with the FBI hacking the phone to gain access. As someone said, if the police have a search warrant for your house and you refuse to open the door then they'll break it down. They won't be like "well it's locked so I guess there's nothing we can do and we should just go home"

While I agree with that, the question here is whether police can hold you at gunpoint and force you to unlock your door if they are unable to kick it down themselves... I personally don't think that's right or constitutional...

 

[Crystalkoen]

Here is a news story from earlier this year that highlights a Minnesota Supreme Court decision in favor of law enforcement in a similar case. IANAL, but I would imagine that could be used as precedent in other jurisdictions.

tl;dr: Biometrics don't get protection as they are not testimony requiring mental input. PINs and passwords, on the other hand, can be filed under 5th amendment protections.

 

[Wings 嫩翼翻せ]

Today, I present you with a newly placed New Zealand law now making it permissible for an offending individual to be issued a $5000 fine given refusal to provide device credentials to law enforcement upon request. Here it is. I suppose this clears up any concerns about the legality of cases like these as far as passwords [and access rights] are concerned.

 

[Zog]

Shouldn't it be treated exactly like your house, a search warrant is needed?

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

Today, I present you with a newly placed New Zealand law now making it permissible for an offending individual to be issued a $5000 fine given refusal to provide device credentials to law enforcement upon request. Here it is. I suppose this clears up any concerns about the legality of cases like these as far as passwords [and access rights] are concerned.

So ridicuous this stuff and the U.K.s, iirc, say someone, like a hacker or a troll, puts an encrypted file in your pc or mobile device. It may be hidden you may not know its there. Giving you a fine or sending you to jail for not disclosing a password you cannot possibly know is BS.