US Government Says it May Not Need Apple's Help Unlocking Terrorist's iPhone

Steve the Pocket

New member
Mar 30, 2009
So in other words, either they tried to demand Apple create an all-purpose backdoor to iOS because they were just too lazy to figure out a better solution, or they already knew there was another solution and were hoping to trick Apple into providing said backdoor anyway.

Neither of these possibilities surprises me.


New member
May 14, 2010
MarsAtlas said:
Megalodon said:
Can't all that shit be subpoenaed with a court order already?
Yes, but what they want is a backdoor that they can access at any time. A backdoor which of course will leave the companies vulnerable. A literal backdoor to a bank vault, in some circumstances. The way they're doing things allows them to do it secretly (read: without accountability or supervision) and leaves businesses vulnerable. They're taking shortcuts chips away their accountability and puts businesses and all of the business' customers at risk. Its a hugely disproportionate use of government powers. We know for a fact that they're not going to stop with this one phone. They're moving this over to other crimes, like drug dealers. If you have the same bank as a drug dealer being investigated then your finances might get compromised. Your entire livelihood just the "cost of safety", though. The government is putting its citizens at more risk to criminals by doing this than the people they criminals they're trying to protect us from. Its like if some average joe thought that the best way to protect their family was to carry around a grenade with its pinned pulled. These safe measures put you at more risk than not having them at all.

The court order they got was specific to a single phone, required direct physical access to implement the changes they wanted, and Apple were under no obligation to hand the software over to the Feds,
No, the court order was to create a program. The order wasn't to crack one phone, it was an order to create a skeleton key to Apple phones. They could've simply asked just what you suggested but they didn't want just this one phone. Hell, Apple was participating with the FBI without any legal orders to do so, advising them of how they could unlock the phone and then the FBI botched Apple's instructions, and this is something the FBI admitted to just earlier this month.
What can I tell you, but you don't seem to know what the FBI is asking for. I've actually read a copy of the court order I found last month when all this kicked off (or if it's a fake, it's pretty convincing to a layman). They do not want a backdoor and it's speciufically not a 'skeleton key', they want to disable auto erase and passcode attempt delays to allow them to brute force the phone open. It's specific to the phone in question, even down to the serial number. There's no requirement in the order for the program to be handed over to the FBI. The entire process can take place at an Apple facility, provided the FBI can connect and perform its passocde recover analysis. I can't even see anything in the order to suggest it has to de done by any way other than direct, wired contact with the subject device. So I don't see what's the difference between this and subpoenaing someone's phone or credit card data. Both of which are allowed and aren't viewed as some travesty of civil liberties.

I don't even know where the banks come into this. This about being able to brute force a phone passcode without erasing it.

Dr. Thrax

New member
Dec 5, 2011
chocolate pickles said:
Well, I hope Apple's proud of the fact it stalled a terrorist investigation. Frankly, I'm disgusted with them.
Tell me.
What information do you think the FBI could possibly glean from this phone?

The phone is owned by San Bernardino county, as it was Farook's work phone. If any viable information were to be found on this phone, it would amount to levels of incompetence that should be criminal that someone would leave that kind of information on a government-owned device. At best, they'll get a contact list of people who aren't involved, a bunch of work e-mails, and Farook's high scores on Flappy Bird.

But, as I've heard many times over, "There are no rules when terrorism is involved."