Jump to content

FBI struggles to unlock killer's phone

AlTech

I think that everything that needs to be said, has been said.

 

Yes, the manufacturer SHOULD be able to unlock the phone, if required to by a warrant from a judge, specifically ordering them to unlock that specific phone. No blanket warrants or built in back doors.

 

Get a search warrant, and have the provider unlock the phone. End of story.

Ketchup is better than mustard.

GUI is better than Command Line Interface.

Dubs are better than subs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Tataffe said:

I think that this is precisely how it should be. Just because someone is a suspect, you can't use every method you like just to get your investigation forward. Just like how you mustn't use torture against the suspect, although that is a different level.

Searching the property of a suspect is however a common method used by investigators in every country.

My Build:

Spoiler

CPU: i7 4770k GPU: GTX 780 Direct CUII Motherboard: Asus Maximus VI Hero SSD: 840 EVO 250GB HDD: 2xSeagate 2 TB PSU: EVGA Supernova G2 650W

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

I think that everything that needs to be said, has been said.

 

Yes, the manufacturer SHOULD be able to unlock the phone, if required to by a warrant from a judge, specifically ordering them to do so. No blanket warrants or build in back doors.

 

Get a search warrant, and have the provider unlock the phone. End of story.

I'm fairly certain they fall under the label "perpetrators" at this point in time. "Suspects" implies that we think they might have committed a crime. Whereas we know....they did it. They died doing it. So yeah, Perp's, not suspects at this point.

 

Still, search warrant for that specific phone, the manufacturer unlocks it, no blanket warrants, end of story.

Ketchup is better than mustard.

GUI is better than Command Line Interface.

Dubs are better than subs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Yeah, but your whole point in that post relies on "Well they can just decrypt it themselves". That's a half-truth at best, and you know it.

 

The phone isn't important enough for the US Government to spend literally tens of millions of dollars and resources decrypting it. That's correct. Pretty much nothing is important enough for that, unless we're talking actual direct threats against the country.

 

And that's even assuming the NSA COULD crack the encryption. The encryption used on the latest iOS is supposed to be extremely difficult to crack, even by modern standards.

I don't see why you think it's impossible for one agency to provide evidence to another agency for their resources in order to help progress an investigation.

I even said the cost would be the real problem.

Again, like i said, it's not as important as they want to lead people to believe.

 

If you're worried about whether or not it's easy enough for federal authorities to gain access to your data, then what would you be in favor of in the future? A backdoor? weaker encryption?

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Windspeed36 said:

I don't see an issue here - as people have said, the device is encrypted for a reason. If law enforcement can break that encryption then pretty much anyone can and then there'd be no point.

I have mixed feelings here. I think law enforcements should be able to get past stuff like this in scenarios like this, and the average joe should not, but of course there will be information publicly released on how to crack the encryption and stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

I think that everything that needs to be said, has been said.

 

Yes, the manufacturer SHOULD be able to unlock the phone, if required to by a warrant from a judge, specifically ordering them to unlock that specific phone. No blanket warrants or built in back doors.

 

Get a search warrant, and have the provider unlock the phone. End of story.

The problem is though that with for example Apple the system was built in such a way they can't actually unlock the phone anymore.

My Build:

Spoiler

CPU: i7 4770k GPU: GTX 780 Direct CUII Motherboard: Asus Maximus VI Hero SSD: 840 EVO 250GB HDD: 2xSeagate 2 TB PSU: EVGA Supernova G2 650W

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Centurius said:

The problem is though that with for example Apple the system was built in such a way they can't actually unlock the phone anymore.

They changed it to be like that, it wasn't always like that. It wasn't a problem for them to keep the keys, until the governments started acting like hoarders over data.

Ketchup is better than mustard.

GUI is better than Command Line Interface.

Dubs are better than subs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, iamdarkyoshi said:

I have mixed feelings here. I think law enforcements should be able to get past stuff like this in scenarios like this, and the average joe should not, but of course there will be information publicly released on how to crack the encryption and stuff.

That's the real problem.

We want law enforcement agencies to have access to data from criminals but that's hard to do without compromising the liberties of law-abiding individuals.

Like @Trik'stari said, having the manufacturer unlock the phone when someone is actually found guilty of a crime is not a bad solution. No blanket warrants.

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Memories4K said:

That's the real problem.

We want law enforcement agencies to have access to data from criminals but that's hard to do without compromising the liberties of law-abiding individuals.

Like @Trik'stari said, having the manufacturer unlock the phone when someone is actually found guilty of a crime is not a bad solution. No blanket warrants.

I agree. The manufacturer should have the keys for it, but nobody else. But no system is 100% secure, SOMEONE will find the keys

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, iamdarkyoshi said:

I agree. The manufacturer should have the keys for it, but nobody else. But no system is 100% secure, SOMEONE will find the keys

Indeed they will, which is why you keep an eye on them (the keys), and if/when that happens, change the locks and keys.

 

Just like you would if you lost the keys to your house/apartment when out and about. You would change the locks and as a result, get new keys.

Ketchup is better than mustard.

GUI is better than Command Line Interface.

Dubs are better than subs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Centurius said:

Searching the property of a suspect is however a common method used by investigators in every country.

True. On the other hand, I always have the right to remain silent (which of course is only applicable if I'm not dead, otherwise it's more of a duty than a right ...), and I feel like this encryption-thing is like an extended way to remain silent.

 

What if, for instance, there is evidence on my phone that would unburden me from the charges in question, but burden me with other ones instead? (is the term "burden/unburden" correct in this context? Sorry for the bad vocabulary here ...) Like photos that would give me an alibi against my murder allegations along with child porn in the same folder? I'd choose not to unlock the phone then ...

 

This is getting philosophical here ...

THIS SIGNATURE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tataffe said:

True. On the other hand, I always have the right to remain silent (which of course is only applicable if I'm not dead, otherwise it's more of a duty than a right ...), and I feel like this encryption-thing is like an extended way to remain silent.

 

What if, for instance, there is evidence on my phone that would unburden me from the charges in question, but burden me with other ones instead? (is the term "burden/unburden" correct in this context? Sorry for the bad vocabulary here ...) Like photos that would give me an alibi against my murder allegations along with child porn in the same folder? I'd choose not to unlock the phone then ...

 

This is getting philosophical here ...

That's an interesting theory, you do have a right not to incriminate yourself. In such a situation, a judge would need to sign a search warrant for the phone (because you refuse to unlock it)

Ketchup is better than mustard.

GUI is better than Command Line Interface.

Dubs are better than subs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 2/10/2016 at 0:13 PM, Trik'Stari said:

I think that everything that needs to be said, has been said.

 

Yes, the manufacturer SHOULD be able to unlock the phone, if required to by a warrant from a judge, specifically ordering them to unlock that specific phone. No blanket warrants or built in back doors.

 

Get a search warrant, and have the provider unlock the phone. End of story.

I agree - that system seems to have the least amount of flaws in it - the Manufacturer has an inherent incentive to protect the encryption keys, and not give anyone access without a warrant, since they want to protect their investment (the customer), and keep them coming back. If Samsung had encryption keys for customers, and just gave them out to whoever asked, people would stop using Samsung, and they would damage their business and reputation.

 

Giving an inherent backdoor to the Government just poses too many problems - corrupt officials, Jimmy who works for the FBI and has an ex-wife who's getting remarried and he decides to snoop on her, etc.

On 2/10/2016 at 0:19 PM, Memories4K said:

I don't see why you think it's impossible for one agency to provide evidence to another agency for their resources in order to help progress an investigation.

I even said the cost would be the real problem.

Again, like i said, it's not as important as they want to lead people to believe.

 

If you're worried about whether or not it's easy enough for federal authorities to gain access to your data, then what would you be in favor of in the future? A backdoor? weaker encryption?

It's impossible in practice, not in theory.

 

For example: Sherif of Little Village, Ohio, population 177, is investigating a murder, and needs access to a cellphone that is encrypted. He's not getting NSA mainframe access to crack the encryption on a phone. The NSA has more important things to do with their compute power.

 

Yes, some super high profile cases might get enough attention, and/or have enough political backing to force one of the big mainframes to donate compute time, but that's not practical, nor is it going to be a regular or reliable occurrence.

 

Honestly, I don't know if there is a perfect solution.

 

We need to balance:

1. The needs of law enforcement to get access to crucial details during an investigation

2. The rights and privacy of innocent citizens

3. Protection of citizen rights from Government encroaching

 

The manufacturer keeping encryption keys themselves, only to be released via Court Order, is possibly the best/most practical solution. But I think there also needs to be a law in place that will fine/penalize a manufacturer who willingly gives up encryption keys WITHOUT a court order. In other words, there needs to be a punishment to entice Apple, Samsung, etc, to only give out keys when authorities have a warrant.

 

On 2/10/2016 at 0:26 PM, iamdarkyoshi said:

I agree. The manufacturer should have the keys for it, but nobody else. But no system is 100% secure, SOMEONE will find the keys

One possible solution for this, is to have Apple, et al, to simply keep the keys OFFLINE in a physically isolated safe room. A computer or HDD with no data connection, no internet, no network access, no possible way to access the data except to physically walk up to it. Periodically dump encryption keys into this "safe room", and don't keep any active/in-use/valid keys on a network connected device.

 

Obviously its easy to say "do this", but to actually get them to comply, and for it to be practical, is a lot different.

For Sale: Meraki Bundle

 

iPhone Xr 128 GB Product Red - HP Spectre x360 13" (i5 - 8 GB RAM - 256 GB SSD) - HP ZBook 15v G5 15" (i7-8850H - 16 GB RAM - 512 GB SSD - NVIDIA Quadro P600)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I agree - that system seems to have the least amount of flaws in it - the Manufacturer has an inherent incentive to protect the encryption keys, and not give anyone access without a warrant, since they want to protect their investment (the customer), and keep them coming back. If Samsung had encryption keys for customers, and just gave them out to whoever asked, people would stop using Samsung, and they would damage their business and reputation.

 

Giving an inherent backdoor to the Government just poses too many problems - corrupt officials, Jimmy who works for the FBI and has an ex-wife who's getting remarried and he decides to snoop on her, etc.

It's impossible in practice, not in theory.

 

For example: Sherif of Little Village, Ohio, population 177, is investigating a murder, and needs access to a cellphone that is encrypted. He's not getting NSA mainframe access to crack the encryption on a phone. The NSA has more important things to do with their compute power.

 

Yes, some super high profile cases might get enough attention, and/or have enough political backing to force one of the big mainframes to donate compute time, but that's not practical, nor is it going to be a regular or reliable occurrence.

 

Honestly, I don't know if there is a perfect solution.

 

We need to balance:

1. The needs of law enforcement to get access to crucial details during an investigation

2. The rights and privacy of innocent citizens

3. Protection of citizen rights from Government encroaching

 

The manufacturer keeping encryption keys themselves, only to be released via Court Order, is possibly the best/most practical solution. But I think there also needs to be a law in place that will fine/penalize a manufacturer who willingly gives up encryption keys WITHOUT a court order. In other words, there needs to be a punishment to entice Apple, Samsung, etc, to only give out keys when authorities have a warrant.

This is basically the correct answer^

Ketchup is better than mustard.

GUI is better than Command Line Interface.

Dubs are better than subs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CommandMan7 said:

I hate it has to be this way, but there is a cost to freedom. If there was a way to unlock that phone, specifically, then of course I'd be for it. But when governments gain the capability to break any encryption, maintaining the integrity of encryption of millions comes first. If this phone remains locked, the implication is that there is just a bit less evidence for this one specific case, in which this guy will almost certainly get convicted anyways. But if the encryption can be broken by the government, then all encryption is broken, forever. Let's say that the ability to crack encryption is given to all law enforcement - what is stopping them from obtaining your location data to see if you were speeding? 

 

My point is the 4th always made sense in the past, because the only data the government could access was static records and such. Just paper. Nowadays, there is such a wealth of data, data has started to become part of who a person is. Data nowadays is now an actual part of a person's identity. As such, it needs stronger protection.

 

1 hour ago, Memories4K said:

I find this whole story to be bullshit.

Besides cost of resources, there's no reason they can't decrypt it themselves if this phone actually mattered that much.

This is a ploy to scare the public into going against encryption.

 

They do have the right, the phone is in their custody, but encryption should be respected regardless of what purpose it is used for. (What's behind the encryption)

That is the only way to ensure transparency and liberty.

You don't have to empathize with the killer to see why that is important to the way our country runs.

From what I've heard of the story, what they are arguing isn't gaining the ability (right) to break the encryption.

 

The main take-away was that government entities when in possession of a federal court want the right to go to phone companies to obtain what they need (not sure if this is possible yet). So the phone company can give access to the phone, leaving the encryption method (and way to crack it) safe.

 

Edit: Noticed this was brought up, didn't read all the other posts.

CPU i5-4690K(OC to 4.4Ghz) CPU Cooler NZXT Kraken x41 Motherboard MSI Z97 Gaming 5 Memory G.Skillz Ripjaws X 16gb 2133 Video Card MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X           Case NZXT H440 Power Supply XFX XTR 750W Modular Storage Samsung 840 EVO 250gb/Seagate Barracuda 2TB Monitor Acer XB270HU G-Sync http://pcpartpicker.com/b/3CkTwP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

It's impossible in practice, not in theory.

 

For example: Sherif of Little Village, Ohio, population 177, is investigating a murder, and needs access to a cellphone that is encrypted. He's not getting NSA mainframe access to crack the encryption on a phone. The NSA has more important things to do with their compute power.

 

Yes, some super high profile cases might get enough attention, and/or have enough political backing to force one of the big mainframes to donate compute time, but that's not practical, nor is it going to be a regular or reliable occurrence.

 

Honestly, I don't know if there is a perfect solution.

 

We need to balance:

1. The needs of law enforcement to get access to crucial details during an investigation

2. The rights and privacy of innocent citizens

3. Protection of citizen rights from Government encroaching

 

The manufacturer keeping encryption keys themselves, only to be released via Court Order, is possibly the best/most practical solution. But I think there also needs to be a law in place that will fine/penalize a manufacturer who willingly gives up encryption keys WITHOUT a court order. In other words, there needs to be a punishment to entice Apple, Samsung, etc, to only give out keys when authorities have a warrant.

It's probable, i'm not saying it's practical.

One person's phone would be a waste of money and time but i bring it up as possible because of exactly that.

It's a waste because that's the only real way, and the only way is too much so: where do we go from there?

That's what i'm trying to say.

 

They would absolutely take that phone and not think about a second what the cost and time would be were it to be suspected to hold real high-value information on future terrorist plots and matters to national security.

But the phone of a person who murdered only 12 people is not a priority to have access to those resources.

 

You have to ask yourself that if it's not hard enough for an average sheriff to gain access, then how easy would it be for anyone else?

 

I think that's currently the best solution i've heard so far, as well.

There's never going to be a law that penalizes a manufacturer who gives up keys without a court order, at least not until we first have strong and clear laws that deal with a citizen's rights involving encryption first.

 

Someone asked earlier about a possible case where someone's encrypted data might incriminate them; the problem is that with a few of the court cases i've seen so far involving encryption and the 5th amendment, the rulings have been that your data is not protected even from self-incrimination.

There is a disconnect on exactly what and when your data can be accessed and whether certain practices by agencies is actually ethical. Blank warrants would be the biggest problem, even with a solution like manufacturers being the only one to hold encryption keys.

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

encryption doing it's thing. Nothing to be shocked about

One day I will be able to play Monster Hunter Frontier in French/Italian/English on my PC, it's just a matter of time... 4 5 6 7 8 9 years later: It's finally coming!!!

Phones: iPhone 4S/SE | LG V10 | Lumia 920

Laptops: Macbook Pro 15" (mid-2012) | Compaq Presario V6000

 

<>EVs are bad, they kill the planet and remove freedoms too some/<>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

God. I hate politicans and cops! They think they're f*cking gods. But they're not.

Here you are again with the edgy opinions.

 

At least keep them out of tech news posts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Tataffe said:

I think that this is precisely how it should be. Just because someone is a suspect, you can't use every method you like just to get your investigation forward. Just like how you mustn't use torture against the suspect, although that is a different level.

They aren't water boarding anyone lol just accessing a phone. It's the same as searching a suspect's house or car. You got a warranty or probably cause, go right ahead (at least in the US).

----

I'm for encryption but there should be some kind of decryption available for cases like this. Apple (or w/e company) should have to unlock the phone in certain cases. Not some blanketed bs warrant that law enforcement always get away with using but something helpful.

 

What if it was the other way around and this phone could prove someone's innocence? Without the contents on that phone, someone could serve years in prison? Whelp guess that guy is sofl :/ 

"Solus" (2015) - CPU: i7-4790k | GPU: MSI GTX 970 | Mobo: Asus Z97-A | Ram: 16GB (2x8) G.Skill Ripjaws X Series | PSU: EVGA G2 750W 80+ Gold | CaseFractal Design Define R4

Next Build: "Tyrion" (TBA)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd really would like there to be a way for law enforcement to be able to decrypt the devices of people who are neck deep in charges and are more than likely guilty... 

 

It would be nice to have that  mutual trust... Don't get anyone involved who shouldn't be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tataffe said:

True. On the other hand, I always have the right to remain silent (which of course is only applicable if I'm not dead, otherwise it's more of a duty than a right ...), and I feel like this encryption-thing is like an extended way to remain silent.

 

What if, for instance, there is evidence on my phone that would unburden me from the charges in question, but burden me with other ones instead? (is the term "burden/unburden" correct in this context? Sorry for the bad vocabulary here ...) Like photos that would give me an alibi against my murder allegations along with child porn in the same folder? I'd choose not to unlock the phone then ...

 

This is getting philosophical here ...

Again. The Terrorists are DEAD, what are they going to do, self incriminate themselves more than they already have by going on an shooting spree? 

 

4 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Just decrypt the device? You realize that's kind of a ridiculous statement, right? If the device was easy to decrypt, no one would use said encryption. The NSA super-data centre might be able to brute force decrypt it, given all compute resources were put at that singular disposal, but that's not ever going to happen.

 

Even if the NSA could decrypt things as needed, local police, and even FBI, aren't getting NSA mainframe compute access for murder trials, when the NSA is busy decrypting ISIS communications and other threats it considers vastly more important.

You do realize that these were terrorists right? They claimed allegiance to ISIS and were in communications with other radicals. These aren't just some random murderers. They even had pipe bombs. Evidence shows they were originally planning an larger attack on an college and then they were going to go shooting people on an busy freeway during bumper-to-bumper traffic. They're actions were ISIS inspired.

 

So, yes, the NSA should be working on this. If they aren't already. Bruteforcing in nature takes time. They could very well be working on it.

▶ Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning. - Einstein◀

Please remember to mark a thread as solved if your issue has been fixed, it helps other who may stumble across the thread at a later point in time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Memories4K said:

It's probable, i'm not saying it's practical.

One person's phone would be a waste of money and time but i bring it up as possible because of exactly that.

It's a waste because that's the only real way, and the only way is too much so: where do we go from there?

That's what i'm trying to say.

 

They would absolutely take that phone and not think about a second what the cost and time would be were it to be suspected to hold real high-value information on future terrorist plots and matters to national security.

But the phone of a person who murdered only 12 people is not a priority to have access to those resources.

 

You have to ask yourself that if it's not hard enough for an average sheriff to gain access, then how easy would it be for anyone else?

 

I think that's currently the best solution i've heard so far, as well.

There's never going to be a law that penalizes a manufacturer who gives up keys without a court order, at least not until we first have strong and clear laws that deal with a citizen's rights involving encryption first.

 

Someone asked earlier about a possible case where someone's encrypted data might incriminate them; the problem is that with a few of the court cases i've seen so far involving encryption and the 5th amendment, the rulings have been that your data is not protected even from self-incrimination.

There is a disconnect on exactly what and when your data can be accessed and whether certain practices by agencies is actually ethical. Blank warrants would be the biggest problem, even with a solution like manufacturers being the only one to hold encryption keys.

Agreed - it's going to be a bumpy road before we as a society figure out the correct approach to balance the different aspects - if we ever get there, that is.

 

It's also going to vary by region, of course, because of variations in Law between the US and Canada, for example - but for now, let's continue to assume this is all dealing with US Law, since that's where the topic is dealing with.

 

I personally think blank or overly vague warrants should not be valid. You shouldn't be able to get a warrant that just says "You can search Jimmy's phone - whatever you find. Good luck!"

 

The warrant should be as specific as possible - Eg: "You can search Jimmy's phone for stolen nuclear launch codes. You need a separate warrant for other data you wish to search for."

 

If the authorities want to search for multiple things, the warrant needs to specify each thing they're searching for.

 

Of course, good luck getting a law passed for that in the US :P

For Sale: Meraki Bundle

 

iPhone Xr 128 GB Product Red - HP Spectre x360 13" (i5 - 8 GB RAM - 256 GB SSD) - HP ZBook 15v G5 15" (i7-8850H - 16 GB RAM - 512 GB SSD - NVIDIA Quadro P600)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

One possible solution for this, is to have Apple, et al, to simply keep the keys OFFLINE in a physically isolated safe room. A computer or HDD with no data connection, no internet, no network access, no possible way to access the data except to physically walk up to it. Periodically dump encryption keys into this "safe room", and don't keep any active/in-use/valid keys on a network connected device.

A safe room is the way to go, but I'd add one little thing to avoid keys being leaked :

 

Have a different master key for each phone (and by "phone" I don't mean model but each specific device) that is randomly generated when the phone is built.  If the authorities have the right paperwork, they take the phone to the manufacturer, who then takes it into the safe room to look up the key for that particular phone, enters the key and dumps the phone's now decrypted content onto a flash drive before locking the phone again and handing over the phone and the flash drive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Captain Chaos said:

A safe room is the way to go, but I'd add one little thing to avoid keys being leaked :

 

Have a different master key for each device (and by device I don't mean model but each specific phone) that is randomly generated when the device is built.  If the authorities have the right paperwork, they take the phone to the manufacturer, who then takes it into the safe room to look up the key for that particular phone, enters the key and dumps the phone's now decrypted content onto a flash drive before locking the phone again and handing over the phone and the flash drive.

That would probably be an adequate system with a good balance of security vs usability.

For Sale: Meraki Bundle

 

iPhone Xr 128 GB Product Red - HP Spectre x360 13" (i5 - 8 GB RAM - 256 GB SSD) - HP ZBook 15v G5 15" (i7-8850H - 16 GB RAM - 512 GB SSD - NVIDIA Quadro P600)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, GeekJump said:

What if it was the other way around and this phone could prove someone's innocence? Without the contents on that phone, someone could serve years in prison? Whelp guess that guy is sofl :/ 

Stuff that one has to consider when encrypting their phone/buying a phone with encryption.

 

19 hours ago, ionbasa said:

Again. The Terrorists are DEAD, what are they going to do, self incriminate themselves more than they already have by going on an shooting spree? 

You are absolutely correct. This time. But what if the suspect is, as I mentioned, not dead? ...

THIS SIGNATURE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×