While the claim about accessing the iPhone seems difficult to substantiate, the suggestion that the FBI have dropped the case seems likely. The fact that they can drop the case in this instance, when the wheels had started to come off, smacks of having their cake and eating. Let's hope the next case where they try to get the ball rolling towards the dangerous precedent they are looking to set yields a similar outcry as this one.
U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone
21–30 of 381 posts
Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone
#22This is possibly the worst outcome. The tide of public opinion was turning towards Apple and privacy, and away from the FBI; for it to enter the court under this pretence there was a strong argument to be made against the latter. With this announcement, for the many, this matter will now be "resolved". When it inevitably rears its ugly head again, the same pretence may no longer be true.
There are a huge number of side effects that would have to be dealt with, but this case has made me think that Apple should have the option to say, "changed your mind? Nooo, that ship (which you, the FBI, built and christened) has sailed, buddy, and you're on board. This is going before a judge, like it or not, and we're doing it now."
They would have to make a claim against the DoJ. A party (the DoJ) has the right to drop their claim.
Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone
#23This is a legally naive question, but how does this not run afoul of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act? Particularly, how isn't this some violation of section a2 ("intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access," the same thing that got Aaron Swartz indicted)? Is it basically, since the feds had a warrant, they can do whatever they want? (And if they don't have a warrant, is it st…
If no prosecutor would ever touch it, is it really illegal?
Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone
#24This is possibly the worst outcome. The tide of public opinion was turning towards Apple and privacy, and away from the FBI; for it to enter the court under this pretence there was a strong argument to be made against the latter. With this announcement, for the many, this matter will now be "resolved". When it inevitably rears its ugly head again, the same pretence may no longer be true.
There are a huge number of side effects that would have to be dealt with, but this case has made me think that Apple should have the option to say, "changed your mind? Nooo, that ship (which you, the FBI, built and christened) has sailed, buddy, and you're on board. This is going before a judge, like it or not, and we're doing it now."
Except that's not how courts work. Apple is the defendant, the government is the plaintiff. The plaintiff should always have the right to end a case/action. Allowing defendant's to continue cases allows for highly malicious actions to occur.
Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone
#25Reminder that the FBI used the deaths of 14 people to prop up their agenda of 'make the invoices we receive cheaper'.
They chose this case and not any of the dozens of similar investigations mentioned in articles that have come out since.
It's a disgrace to the victims, their families and friends.
It's also a disgrace to the public, trying to scare us into complacency.
Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone
#26This claim seems dubious at best. There's no proof that they got access, and it's in their best interest to claim they did. On one hand, I'm not totally sure we should assume that they're not capable of gaining access to iPhones willy-nilly. On the other hand, I'm re-evaluating my security posture...
Apple has, as part of the case, admitted that data access was obtained by the FBI.
Unless they're in on it too, of course.
Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone
#27This claim seems dubious at best. There's no proof that they got access, and it's in their best interest to claim they did. On one hand, I'm not totally sure we should assume that they're not capable of gaining access to iPhones willy-nilly. On the other hand, I'm re-evaluating my security posture...
Why would it be dubious? It's an older phone without a secure enclave - that's subject to the NAND mirroring trick.
Then again, why can't Apple sue Cellebrite under the DMCA for bypassing their security?
Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone
#28This is a legally naive question, but how does this not run afoul of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act? Particularly, how isn't this some violation of section a2 ("intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access," the same thing that got Aaron Swartz indicted)? Is it basically, since the feds had a warrant, they can do whatever they want? (And if they don't have a warrant, is it st…
There was an active warrant allowing it.
Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone
#29I feel like cases shouldn't be droppable unless both parties mutually agree, and the courts also must first agree.the courts should not agree if it's a case that could set a precedent that can have far reaching implications. What if next time, a smaller player than Apple was caught in this sort of case, and they can't fight back as easily? Then it'd be easier to setup a precedent favourable to one party. This seems l…
Cover Apple's legal fees maybe? Argument for damage to Apple's reputation, etc?
Pretty sure Apple doesn't want either of those things.
Re: U.S. Drops California Case Against Apple After Accessing iPhone
#30Can Apple counter sue for them to reveal how they accessed the phone? Surely, there must be a loophole in there somehow...
Nope. The government does not have to disclose investigative techniques. If Apple wanted to help the government, they could have, but they chose not to take that tact. Expecting the government to help Apple now is folly.