search warrant [UPDATE] Apple served with warrant to unlock the Texas shooter’s iPhone SE

[captain_to_fire]

Source: https://9to5mac.com/2017/11/19/unlock-texas-shooter-iphone-se/

 

Quote

As detailed in a report from Fast Company, the Texas Rangers served Apple with a warrant for access to David Kelley’s iPhone SE and his iCloud account, though it’s unclear if one exists at this point. Furthermore, the Rangers want access to a second phone used by Kelley, a cheap LG-made feature phone.

 

Apple stated earlier this month that it contacted law enforcement officials roughly 48 hours after the shooting to see if it could be of any help. During that first 48 hours, when Touch ID would have still been enabled, law enforcement made no efforts to ask Apple for help or to use Touch ID to unlock the phone. Instead, it shipped the device off to a crime lab in Quantico, Virginia.

 

As for the iCloud data, Apple generally helps law enforcement access that data, providing the iCloud data, as well as the tools needed to decrypt it. On the other hand, don’t expect Apple to create the tool necessary to unlock the iPhone SE used by Kelley.

But how long can Apple ignore a search warrant? Wouldn't that be obstruction of justice if Apple denied the request of the authorities? It's pretty much San Bernardino all over again. But then, why did the authorities back then just used the dead person's finger and unlocked the phone while the dead finger is still warm? Why ship it to Quantico? After they unlocked the iPhone using the finger, they can set the iPhone to not lock itself automatically. Are they afraid of a sliding a dead man's finger to his own iPhone while it's warm?

 

Settings>Display & Brightness>Auto-Lock>Never

 

I don't think Apple will comply but who knows? Maybe if the authorities have put enough pressure then Apple might unfortunately comply. When the FBI under former director James Comey hired a third party hacker to unlock the iPhone 5c of the San Bernardino shooter, they also found nothing. I have a feeling it will be the same case of "nothing" again. They may hire another hacker again to break the iPhone's protection but bear in mind that Apple is tightening the bolts of its security features for the every iOS iteration.

 

UPDATE (11/21/2017, 5:25 pm): Apple formally asked to release Texas shooter’s iCloud data

 

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/apple-formally-asked-to-release-texas-shooters-icloud-data/

Quote

According to court documents published for the first time by the San Antonio Express-News on Monday, Texas Rangers got a warrant approved to search the two devices on November 9. The newspaper also reported that four e-mail accounts are known to be associated with Kelley: thelifeofdevin@gmail.com, devinkelley1991@gmail.com, sevenup555@yahoo.com, and kelleydevin1991@gmail.com.

 

According to the new warrant, Kelley’s iPhone SE remains in FBI custody in Virginia. The 15-page warrant application seeking his iCloud data from Apple asks for data starting January 1, 2016 through November 9, 2017. The document contains lengthy boilerplate language, likely provided by Apple itself, seeking all kinds of data that might be stored on Kelley’s account.

Quote

 

#14 is kinda creepy.

Edited November 21, 2017 by hey_yo_

[79wjd]

I hope and expect Apple to the government the middle finger in regards to everything except iCloud data. But I'm curious to see their response. Honestly, I don't believe the government cares about what's on this phone nor wants  access to this specific phone, they want a backdoor. So nothing here is surprising.

 

On a conspiracy side of things, I can't help but think that the LG phone could be "fake" to make Apple look like the bad guys who won't help.

[FratStar]

Wait didn't they offer help already for the iCloud data?

 

Also I don't think it is as simple as taking his finger and placing it on while he's still warm. There's probably some legal red tape somewhere that stops them from doing that because AFAIK he had his phone on him. 

[Mooshi]

The San Bernardino incident all over again..that was a mess. While I typically back user privacy over government 9 out of 10 times, it's that 10th time that conflicts me.

 

How I see it, when you commit an atrocious crime, you sign away your rights. When the rights of a criminal supercede the justice of others, it's horribly wrong. 

[79wjd]

4 minutes ago, FratStar said:

Wait didn't they offer help already for the iCloud data?

 

Also I don't think it is as simple as taking his finger and placing it on while he's still warm. There's probably some legal red tape somewhere that stops them from doing that because AFAIK he had his phone on him. 

Yes they did. Apple will give them iCloud data, that's never been in question. The issue is about the data on the phone itself.

 

Right...... Because the government is completely above board. This is a power move plain and simple.

3 minutes ago, Mooshi said:

The San Bernardino incident all over again..that was a mess. While I typically back user privacy over government 9 out of 10 times, it's that 10th time that conflicts me.

 

How I see it, when you commit an atrocious crime, you sign away your rights. When the rights of a criminal supercede the justice of others, it's horribly wrong. 

The problem is that a backdoor affects ALL users, not just those who commit a heinous crime. The second problem is what is considered a heinous crime. Once you have a line drawn somewhere you start to have a problem as that line can move as the need arises.

[TidaLWaveZ]

22 hours ago, Mooshi said:

The San Bernardino incident all over again..that was a mess. While I typically back user privacy over government 9 out of 10 times, it's that 10th time that conflicts me.

 

How I see it, when you commit an atrocious crime, you sign away your rights. When the rights of a criminal supercede the justice of others, it's horribly wrong. 

You know another time when you sign away your rights?

 

When you die.

 

Is it still an invasion of privacy if the party no longer exists?

[Matu20]

Once they do cave, it sets a precedent that they will do it again. So hopefully Apple holds strong.

[AlwaysFSX]

3 minutes ago, Mooshi said:

The San Bernardino incident all over again..that was a mess. While I typically back user privacy over government 9 out of 10 times, it's that 10th time that conflicts me.

 

How I see it, when you commit an atrocious crime, you sign away your rights. When the rights of a criminal supercede the justice of others, it's horribly wrong. 

Agreed.

[AlwaysFSX]

2 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

The problem is that a backdoor affects ALL users, not just those who commit a heinous crime. The second problem is what is considered a heinous crime. Once you have a line drawn somewhere you start to have a problem as that line can move as the need arises.

Not against Apple complying with a data request, not a backdoor though.

 

I'm pretty sure we could start a list by felonies you've committed (e.g. manslaughter). That would be a start we could probably agree on.

[captain_to_fire]

1 minute ago, VegetableStu said:

is it considered tempering of evidence...? there's like no agreement which part of the OS is the door that needs busting and which part is the phone and data that's the evidence... (not that I heard of anyway)

What the cops could've done while the dead body is still warm is place his finger (likely the thumb) to unlock the Touch ID sensor and remove the screen time out so that it will not lock itself. From there they could already look into the shooter's contacts, texts/iMessages, call logs, emails, and camera roll. How is that tampering the evidence? Now the FBI wants Apple to unlock it for them in order to look into the iPhone. Apple contacted the FBI to unlock the iPhone within 48 hours with Touch ID but the police instead sent it to Quantico in Virginia. They don't even need to amputate the fingers.

 

5 minutes ago, Mooshi said:

The San Bernardino incident all over again..that was a mess. While I typically back user privacy over government 9 out of 10 times, it's that 10th time that conflicts me.

 

How I see it, when you commit an atrocious crime, you sign away your rights. When the rights of a criminal supercede the justice of others, it's horribly wrong. 

But how sure are we that it will only be used for criminal investigations and not further mass surveillance? If you remember, the FBI already had the tools to unlock the iPhone 5c back in 2014 with the help of a third party hacker but demanded Apple to create a new iOS version with security features disabled. Basically, it's just a false pretense of the FBI to grant them an encryption backdoor to unlock whatever iPhone they get their hands with.

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, AlwaysFSX said:

 

I'm pretty sure we could start a list by felonies you've committed (e.g. manslaughter). That would be a start we could probably agree on.

Yes, but the problem is that lines move over time as you have a case that almost qualifies but not quite, which ultimatley leads to court ruling that will set a precedent and move the line. After long enough that line can shift a meaningful amount. The thing is that the legal system really isn't black or white, there's a lot of gray areas.

[AlwaysFSX]

Just now, hey_yo_ said:

What the cops could've done while the dead body is still warm is place his finger (likely the thumb) to unlock the Touch ID sensor and remove the screen time out so that it will not lock itself

That's forced self incrimination and tampering with evidence.

[Rocko Modaro]

7 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Yes they did. Apple will give them iCloud data, that's never been in question. The issue is about the data on the phone itself.

 

Right...... Because the government is completely above board. This is a power move plain and simple.

The problem is that a backdoor affects ALL users, not just those who commit a heinous crime. The second problem is what is considered a heinous crime. Once you have a line drawn somewhere you start to have a problem as that line can move as the need arises.

I disagree. How is it a power move when the authorities want to simply use the phone's access to help find out the motive, etc? Possible links, or whatever?

[AlwaysFSX]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

Yes, but the problem is that lines move over time as you have a case that almost qualifies but not quite, which ultimatley leads to court ruling that will set a precedent and move the line. After long enough that line can shift a meaningful amount. The thing is that the legal system really isn't black or white, there's a lot of gray areas.

It is always possible to have a general guideline and leave the final decision up to the courts, which we do for a few things already (I just woke up, don't ask for one off the top of my head please). Some cases would be a bit "obvious" such as this one, others not so much. It all depends on the context of the case.

[Phentos]

2 minutes ago, hey_yo_ said:

What the cops could've done while the dead body is still warm is place his finger (likely the thumb) to unlock the Touch ID sensor and remove the screen time out so that it will not lock itself.

Any sensible judge would immediately throw out any and all evidence gathered that way. 

[Dissitesuxba11s]

Apple needs to stand up and not give in. Once they do, other OS manufacturers will be forced to follow suit if their products get used as evidence.

[captain_to_fire]

4 minutes ago, VegetableStu said:

I was thinking of the part when you change the iphone's settings to never autolock ._. Agree with your points there though

Someone pointed out to me that if the cops did that, it is considered tampering with evidence and forced incrimination. I'm certainly not cognizant of American criminal laws but it got me thinking is a dead criminal still entitled with his Miranda rights? They could've done that.

[FratStar]

3 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Right...... Because the government is completely above board. This is a power move plain and simple.

What...How did you extrapolate my statement to that........Never said they were, never said it wasn't we both know they want to be able to access any phone whenever they want, but as it currently stands from what the public knows they can't because if it could they wouldn't need to serve Apple warrants it would just go through the secret court.

There could have been legal red tape that stopped law enforcement from just sliding a dead man's finger on the phone while his body was still warm, a prosecutor would have a field day with something like that man.  Also the feds got involved local authorities may have had to wait for them to respond before analyzing the scene.

[captain_to_fire]

Just now, VegetableStu said:

I realise this isn't reddit, but do we have someone who's a US Criminal Lawyer in this forum? o_o

@jmart604 is an American lawyer.

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, hey_yo_ said:

What the cops could've done while the dead body is still warm is place his finger (likely the thumb) to unlock the Touch ID sensor and remove the screen time out so that it will not lock itself. From there they could already look into the shooter's contacts, texts/iMessages, call logs, emails, and camera roll. How is that tampering the evidence? Now the FBI wants Apple to unlock it for them in order to look into the iPhone. Apple contacted the FBI to unlock the iPhone within 48 hours with Touch ID but the police instead sent it to Quantico in Virginia. They don't even need to amputate the fingers.

 

But how sure are we that it will only be used for criminal investigations and not further mass surveillance? If you remember, the FBI already had the tools to unlock the iPhone 5c back in 2014 with the help of a third party hacker but demanded Apple to create a new iOS version with security features disabled. Basically, it's just a false pretense of the FBI to grant them an encryption backdoor to unlock whatever iPhone they get their hands with.

Well, any competent digital forensics agent will do a bit copy of the original drive (through a write blocker) and then never touch the original drive again. You basically never want to do anything with the original because it does lead to questions about the integrity of the results. But under certain circumstances there aren't alternatives. So it's not tampering, but it is bad practice (in general). Forensics agents also have to "tamper" with evidence to grab things off of RAM.

2 minutes ago, Rocko Modaro said:

I disagree. How is it a power move when the authorities want to simply use the phone's access to help find out the motive, etc? Possible links, or whatever?

Because they could have gotten in on their own earlier and there is very likely nothing on the phone. Not to even mention San Bernardino where the government had the ability to get into the phone but wanted a backdoor built into iOS from Apple.

2 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

It is always possible to have a general guideline and leave the final decision up to the courts, which we do for a few things already (I just woke up, don't ask for one off the top of my head please). Some cases would be a bit "obvious" such as this one, others not so much. It all depends on the context of the case.

In a perfect world, I would agree with you. But then again, in a perfect world attacks like this wouldn't happen in the first place.

1 minute ago, Phentos said:

Any sensible judge would immediately throw out any and all evidence gathered that way. 

You can be forced to unlock your phone with biometrics while you're alive as long as you have a court order. So being dead shouldn't change that.

1 minute ago, FratStar said:

What...How did you extrapolate my statement to that........Never said they were, never said it wasn't we both know they want to be able to access any phone whenever they want, but as it currently stands from what the public knows they can't because if it could they wouldn't need to serve Apple warrants it would just go through the secret court.

There could have been legal red tape that stopped law enforcement from just sliding a dead man's finger on the phone while his body was still warm, a prosecutor would have a field day with something like that man.  Also the feds got involved local authorities may have had to wait for them to respond before analyzing the scene.

If a court can force someone living to unlock a phone with biometrics, then being dead probably doesn't change that.

 

As for federal/local involvement, they knew he had a phone and they knew there are potential time sensitive issues at play regarding it. If the FBI can't manage to arrange the phone and dead body to be in the same place within 48 hours, then they also aren't capable of conducting an investigation in the first place.

[79wjd]

10 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

That's forced self incrimination and tampering with evidence.

Biometric unlocking isn't considered a form of self incrimination. As far as I know, all cases regarding biometric locks have ended with the person being obligated to unlock the device.

[Dissitesuxba11s]

4 minutes ago, VegetableStu said:

I realise this isn't reddit, but do we have someone who's a US Criminal Lawyer in this forum? o_o

I am no way a lawyer, but after a bit of Googling...

https://people.howstuffworks.com/lose-right-to-privacy-when-you-die1.htm

Quote

The Privacy Act is very clear -- it doesn't apply to dead people. Once you die, your information is no longer protected under that law. However, court precedents have shown that the privacy concerns of surviving family members also weigh on the decision to release information via FOIA (Freedom of Information Act). When these cases go to court, judges have ruled against FOIA requests in cases where the release of death-scene photos, autopsy photos or coroner's reports would cause anguish and harm to the deceased person's family. They may allow the information to be released if they feel the information itself is harmless or if many years have passed since the death in question.

Take this quote with a grain of salt and it is by no means fully encompassing the full limits of the law.

[captain_to_fire]

Just now, VegetableStu said:

Did James ever mention which part of law he studied/practised? o_o

It's not James. It's Jon Martin who is an American lawyer. I found his credentials on his LinkedIn profile https://www.linkedin.com/in/jon-martin-a9555045/

 

[Dissitesuxba11s]

14 minutes ago, Dissitesuxba11s said:

https://people.howstuffworks.com/lose-right-to-privacy-when-you-die1.htm

Take this quote with a grain of salt and it is by no means fully encompassing the full limits of the law.

Here is another tid bit from this above article...

Quote

If someone "hacks" the account of a dead person to gain access to it -- as a number of News International employees have been accused of doing recently -- they haven't necessarily violated any privacy laws (although they may have, depending on the jurisdiction and the specific circumstances). What they will almost certainly have violated are laws against unauthorized intrusion into electronic accounts. In that case, a crime has probably taken place, but the victim's death mitigates the crime somewhat. However, some may think it a more ghoulish and violating act because of the anguish it can inflict on the deceased person's family. In the end, it doesn't matter if someone is dead or alive – accessing his or her account without permission is illegal.

Please read the whole article as I only took out specific quotes for emphasis.

Edited November 20, 2017 by Dissitesuxba11s
Disclaimer

[Ryujin2003]

26 minutes ago, TidaLWaveZ said:

You know another time when you sign away your rights?

 

When you die.

 

Is it still an invasion of privacy if one the party no longer exists?

I though Facebook and Apple, as well as other tech companies own your information after you die... Thought this came up after some kid with cancer died and parents wanted access to the kids Facebook.

 

//Not in response to you but in general//

As far as the crazy conspiracy bullshit....

Until we have a fully flushed it and adapted legal system in regards to social and daily living aspects of technology, warrants and such NEED to happen. It's not the federal government strong arming Apple, and it isn't Apple being a jerk. It's about a repetitive situation that hasn't yet been 100% solidified in regards to legal standing. Both sides, federal law enforcement and the tech companies, need to keep pressing on this until the Supreme Court, Congress, and Senate can get off their lazy assess and make some decisions like they are paid to do.

 

Not conspiracy. I think it's action to prompt decision makers to make a damn decision.