FBI found nothing in the unlocked iPhone 5c, but it "helped them"

[Castdeath97]

 

So after all the mess it seems like the FBI wasn't able to find any link to terrorist organisation in the San Bernardino attacker iPhone.

 

Quote

CNN today reports that while the FBI did not find anything new on the San Bernardino iPhone 5c that it unlocked without Apple’s help, it has “produced data the FBI didn’t have before.” Essentially, not finding anything new on the device is what the FBI needed to know in order to answer some of its remaining questions regarding the case.

The FBI of course is trying to make it sound like they achieved something

 

Quote

Because of data on the iPhone 5c – or lack thereof – the FBI is now confident that terrorist Syed Farook did not make contact with any other plotters. Specifically, the FBI was concerned about an 18-minute gap that it had yet to fill in regarding Farook’s location after the attacks. Now, having gained access to the iPhone, the FBI is more confident that Farook and his wife acted alone in their actions.

 

So, technically they are considering the "lack of findings" a finding. So, after causing all this mess they weren't able to find anything (Just like many like Wozniak have already predicted), after all it was his work phone so I'm not even surprised.

 

source: http://9to5mac.com/2016/04/19/report-while-no-new-data-was-found-on-the-san-bernardino-iphone-it-still-helped-the-fbi/?pushup=1

 

[Syfes]

To be honest I kind of agree with the FBI here. Them not finding the incriminating evidence they were looking for doesn't change the situation. At all. That's like you looking for your keys around the house, opening a drawer and not finding them there. That doesn't mean it is pointless to look in that drawer, because in the end, you did learn that it's not there.

 

That doesn't mean I agree with some of the FBI's earlier demands, that's a completely different matter.

[Castdeath97]

1 minute ago, Syfes said:

To be honest I kind of agree with the FBI here. Them not finding the incriminating evidence they were looking for doesn't change the situation. At all. That's like you looking for your keys around the house, opening a drawer and not finding them there. That doesn't mean it is pointless to look in that drawer, because you do learn that it's not there.

 

That doesn't mean I agree with some of the FBI's demands, that's a completely different matter.

Well I would consider this a better analogy:

 

You try to look in your friends fridge for your keys, but your friends tells you there is no way it could be there. Regardless you do it and later find out you found nothing and messed up his fridge, so in the end you claim that you now know that isn't there even though it was very unlikely for it to be so and causing a big mess in the process.

[Syfes]

1 minute ago, Castdeath97 said:

Well I would consider this a better analogy:

 

You try to look in your friends fridge for your keys, but your friends tells you there is no way it could be there. Regardless you do it and later find out you found nothing and messed up his fridge, so in the end you claim that you now know that isn't there even though it was very unlikely for it to be so and causing a big mess in the process.

Perhaps, but I'm leaving the legitimacy of the phone search in the middle and I'm commenting on wether or not the information found is relevant.

 

Besides, you'd consider that guy a friend?

[Castdeath97]

1 minute ago, Syfes said:

Perhaps, but I'm leaving the legitimacy of the phone search in the middle and I'm commenting on wether or not the information found is relevant.

 

Besides, you'd consider that guy a friend?

No! This was an analogy.

[icey]

This thread has a disturbing lack of FREEDOM! -'murica

[alamox]

14 minutes ago, Syfes said:

To be honest I kind of agree with the FBI here. Them not finding the incriminating evidence they were looking for doesn't change the situation. At all. That's like you looking for your keys around the house, opening a drawer and not finding them there. That doesn't mean it is pointless to look in that drawer, because in the end, you did learn that it's not there.

 

That doesn't mean I agree with some of the FBI's earlier demands, that's a completely different matter.

ofc you agree with the FBI when your analogy is so badly thought, the point isn't fidning nothing in the drawer, the point is asking everyone to hand you a key to their drawer for you to look whenever you want without ppl knowing you are looking in their drawers, just so you can open that one drawer with 99% chance of finding nothing in the first place.

so no i do not agree with the fbi, because they were going to set a dangerous precedent, that would have led to far worse results, when everyone knew from the start that it was stupid to even consider they would find anything usefull on the guy's work phone, a guy who went knowing he is not coming out alive from this, is banking on the fact that the guy have an IQ of tomato, and that actualy shows the IQ of the investigators, you cannot ask something that destructive for sopething this thin unless you have al alterior motive, or out of desperation.

[steini1904]

Why are you assuming not finding any evidence is worth nothing?

 

Imagine being taken to court for murder, the FBI shows up and tells the judge, that there is absolutely no evidence that you are the perpetrator. Is that worthless? It's not even a dumb analogy, but exactly what happened here, just a bit more extreme.

 

Also:

 

Quote

One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter, there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small, that perhaps in the course of the hour one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges and through a relay releases a hammer that shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts.

It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a "blurred model" for representing reality. In itself, it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks.

 

As long as you don't observe, there is no way of knowing what is going on.

 

Nobody knew that there would be no evidence on the phone. How would you be able to? Remote access to the phone?

 

.

 

I think you don't get the fundamental problem here. If the FBI demanded a master key and they would have gotten it, the problem is not the FBI having a master key, but that the creation of said master key was possible in the first place. It doesn't matter if the FBI got it or not. All that matters is, that such a thing can exist.

 

You should thank the FBI for auditing iPhones for free. And that they're doing it with a criminal's phone. In the end all it took for accessing the phone was a bunch of highly specialized experts. From that we can learn some things:

• A bunch of highly specialized experts can unlock the iPhone. That includes possible groups with criminal intentions.
• The FBI isn't able to do so on their own, showing the severe lack of capabilities of the US government in terms of digital warfare.
• Large enough companies like Apple can openly resist law enforcement without facing any charges.
• The average US citizen has absolutely no idea how proper investigation is done.

 

Tell me:

What if there was an organization behind the attack? What if someone started placing bombs in public transportation, public places and cars? Unlikely for sure, but just have a look at Paris, Ankara, Brussels. And these attacks weren't carried out by an organisation.

 

Want to know what it looks like when there is an organisation at play? Have a look at the RAF. It took several years and half a million police men and specialists to track down about 70 people. Thousands were imprisoned, tens of thousands of houses and apartments searched, whole districts completely locked down. And that happened in West Germany, the country with the by far most effective police force of all countries above 10,000,000 citizens.

 

You don't just assume there is no evidence because someone believes so, if you suspect there might be an organization.

Edited April 20, 2016 by Blade of Grass
Fixed quote formatting to make it night theme compatible

[captain cactus]

Any competent person would know a terrorist wouldn't store anything related to his crimes on a phone given to him by the state (yes, it was a work phone, not a privately bought one). The FBI just wanted a way into every iPhone and they got denied so hard they backed up with their tail between their legs.

[vpavlicevic]

Maybe they lie again.

[steini1904]

3 minutes ago, lots of unexplainable lag said:

Any competent person would know a terrorist wouldn't store anything related to his crimes on a phone given to him by the state (yes, it was a work phone, not a privately bought one). The FBI just wanted a way into every iPhone and they got denied so hard they backed up with their tail between their legs.

That's BS and I think you know that yourself.

 

There are only very few psychopaths who deliberately create evidence.

 

It's about applications caching stuff in the background to files and general activity.

 

Let's make it simple:

 

Imagine he saw a cute cat on the street and took a picture. Using the lighting and environment, you can gain a lot of information when and often even where the picture was taken. In his mind nothing related to the crime, but for an investigator major evidence. 

[Castdeath97]

2 hours ago, steini1904 said:

Why are you assuming not finding any evidence is worth nothing?

 

Imagine being taken to court for murder, the FBI shows up and tells the judge, that there is absolutely no evidence that you are the perpetrator. Is that worthless? It's not even a dumb analogy, but exactly what happened here, just a bit more extreme.

 

Just a problem with your analogy, in your analogy there is a case for innocence.

 

Anyhow, I'm too busy right now I'm may make a counter argument later, but I'm not that interested in US politics and policing so I don't really have much to say.

[Trik'Stari]

Let's make this simple with a FOIA request.

 

What did you find FBI? How did it specifically help you in this case? What did you learn about the 2 dead people that you didn't know before?

[Blade of Grass]

3 hours ago, steini1904 said:

Why are you assuming not finding any evidence is worth nothing?

 

Imagine being taken to court for murder, the FBI shows up and tells the judge, that there is absolutely no evidence that you are the perpetrator. Is that worthless? It's not even a dumb analogy, but exactly what happened here, just a bit more extreme.

If the FBI showed up to court and told the judge that there is absolutely no evidence that you are the perpetrator, you would end up with one really annoyed judge, one person walking free, and one case being dismissed. I would say the analogy was bad, but to be honest it's actually good as it shows an important aspect of our legal system. If you have no evidence saying that I am guilty, you cannot act. You can't get a warrant to search my house, you can't get a warrant to search my phone, you can't get me arraigned on charges, this is by definition malicious prosecution. 

[steini1904]

15 minutes ago, Blade of Grass said:

If the FBI showed up to court and told the judge that there is absolutely no evidence that you are the perpetrator, you would end up with one really annoyed judge, one person walking free, and one case being dismissed. I would say the analogy was bad, but to be honest it's actually good as it shows an important aspect of our legal system. If you have no evidence saying that I am guilty, you cannot act. You can't get a warrant to search my house, you can't get a warrant to search my phone, you can't get me arraigned on charges, this is by definition malicious prosecution. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about "you" in terms of owner of the phone.

 

I'm referring to the organization. On the other hand, in reality "experience" is all the evidence you need for getting a warrant. At least here in Germany.

[RexinOridle]

You know when you have to smoke weed in the morning so you can take a shit. It helps.

[Castdeath97]

29 minutes ago, RexinOridle said:

You know when you have to smoke week in the morning so you can take a shit. It helps.

Wut?

[RexinOridle]

1 minute ago, Castdeath97 said:

Wut?

Weed I meant.

[Castdeath97]

Just now, RexinOridle said:

Weed I meant.

Still doesn't make sense.

[RexinOridle]

3 minutes ago, Castdeath97 said:

Still doesn't make sense.

Well, apparently some smoke weed because it helps help take a dump. That smoke smooth it out. I know it doesn't make sense, that's the point.

[Syfes]

9 hours ago, alamox said:

ofc you agree with the FBI when your analogy is so badly thought, the point isn't fidning nothing in the drawer, the point is asking everyone to hand you a key to their drawer for you to look whenever you want without ppl knowing you are looking in their drawers, just so you can open that one drawer with 99% chance of finding nothing in the first place.

so no i do not agree with the fbi, because they were going to set a dangerous precedent, that would have led to far worse results, when everyone knew from the start that it was stupid to even consider they would find anything usefull on the guy's work phone, a guy who went knowing he is not coming out alive from this, is banking on the fact that the guy have an IQ of tomato, and that actualy shows the IQ of the investigators, you cannot ask something that destructive for sopething this thin unless you have al alterior motive, or out of desperation.

True but that's not what this article was about? I consider the fact that they are wanting to set a dangerous precedent to be entirely separate from the statement that "finding nothing" = "waste of time and effort" in this case.

[Trik'Stari]

2 hours ago, Blade of Grass said:

If the FBI showed up to court and told the judge that there is absolutely no evidence that you are the perpetrator, you would end up with one really annoyed judge, one person walking free, and one case being dismissed. I would say the analogy was bad, but to be honest it's actually good as it shows an important aspect of our legal system. If you have no evidence saying that I am guilty, you cannot act. You can't get a warrant to search my house, you can't get a warrant to search my phone, you can't get me arraigned on charges, this is by definition malicious prosecution. 

They already admitted the whole thing was more about setting a precedent than it was about actually getting into the phone. If I remember correctly.

[Misanthrope]

I can't believe some of you: absence of evidence is NOT  evidence of absence.  It just means something as simple as the terrorist being smart enough to have multiple phones or ways to communicate. 

 

Meanwhile you're basically saying it was ok for the FBI to attempt to compel apple and to not disclose a vulnerability because they didn't find anything?  That's now how the fucking law should work: police shouldn't be able to break into your house without probable cause just to confirm you had nothing to do with a crime. They just want unrestricted access cause fuck your rights if it's digital they don't fucking matter. 

[Misanthrope]

N/M

Edited April 21, 2016 by Misanthrope
Inaccurate

[Misanthrope]

Edit: N/M