x PhoneArena is hiring! Reviewer in the USA
  • Hidden picShow menu
  • Home
  • News
  • Judge orders Apple to open San Bernardino shooter's Apple iPhone 5c

Judge orders Apple to open San Bernardino shooter's Apple iPhone 5c

Posted: , by Alan F.

Tags :

Judge orders Apple to open San Bernardino shooter's Apple iPhone 5c
Just the other day, we told you that Apple has been waiting for a judge to decide whether it needs to open up and reveal information stored inside an Apple iPhone 5s related to a narcotics conspiracy case. Today, a federal judge is forcing Apple to open up an iPhone owned by one of the San Bernardino shooters. 

On December 2nd last year, married couple Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik killed 14 individuals in a San Bernardino office building in what was later ruled a terrorist attack. A 40-page filing made by the U.S. Attorney's Office in L.A. says that the office needs Apple's help to find the password and open up an iPhone that belonged to Syed Farook. While the office has a valid search warrant for the device, the government cannot access the encrypted content on the phone. The filing notes that "Apple has the exclusive technical means which would assist the government in completing its search, but has declined to provide that assistance voluntarily."

The U.S. Attorney's Office calls the encrypted data inside the phone "relevant" and "critical." Law enforcement wants to use the information to see who the terrorists were in contact with, who helped them plan the attack, and where they traveled prior to the incident. The handset is an Apple iPhone 5c and was given to Syded Farook by his employer, the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health.

The ruling made by the judge today forces Apple to provide "reasonable technical assistance" including bypassing the auto-erase feature and allowing investigators to submit an unlimited number of passwords in an attempt to unlock the phone. Apple has five days to tell the court that complying with the order would be "unreasonably burdensome."


source: NBCNews

Story timeline

35 Comments
  • Options
    Close




posted on 16 Feb 2016, 21:30

1. joeytaylor (Posts: 443; Member since: 28 Feb 2015)


Being a company phone then yes if the company says so

posted on 16 Feb 2016, 21:34 2

2. tedkord (Posts: 11629; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)


Yeah, I was initially against this ruling, but I'd it's owned by the employer, then all that's needed is their OK. Why is this even an issue?

posted on 16 Feb 2016, 22:07 1

3. engineer-1701d (unregistered)


No matter what once given an order by a judge even if it was your phone they should still have to help open and bypass it especially when it comes down to terrorism find out who they were working with who they have contact where they are so that you can get the rest of the people

posted on 17 Feb 2016, 06:52 1

28. joeytaylor (Posts: 443; Member since: 28 Feb 2015)


Possibly with a search warrant. ...but still to force apple to do so is orwellian

posted on 17 Feb 2016, 13:05

33. marorun (Posts: 3572; Member since: 30 Mar 2015)


I dont like Apple to be truthful but if this is currently not possible to do for Apple because they really put a good security thats even employee from apple cannot access then in apple place i would never accept to create such backdoor.

If its already exist okay if not then nope.

posted on 16 Feb 2016, 22:12 4

4. RoboticEngi (Posts: 709; Member since: 03 Dec 2014)


They should just do it, no questions asked. Or they are terrorists themselves. ...

posted on 17 Feb 2016, 01:55

22. 47AlphaTango (Posts: 290; Member since: 27 Sep 2015)


If it's the order of the court. Then they shall do it. They cannot open it unless its ordered by the judge. Otherwise, it's a violation of privacy.

posted on 17 Feb 2016, 08:34

31. natypes (Posts: 1093; Member since: 02 Feb 2015)


The dead don't protest their 4th amendment being violated.

posted on 16 Feb 2016, 22:19 3

5. lyndon420 (Posts: 4372; Member since: 11 Jul 2012)


I hope PA does a follow up on the outcome of this case. If Apple opens it up for them this will likely end up being a precedent setting case that could ultimately turn bad not just for apple but for everyone.

posted on 16 Feb 2016, 22:35 6

6. TerryTerius (Posts: 1780; Member since: 10 Apr 2014)


I'm conflicted on this. It's one thing if we are talking about the privacy of citizens who have done nothing wrong. But should someone under criminal investigation really get the same rights? I feel as if we come to say that the feds under no circumstances are allowed to get into someone's devices, we make it much easier for criminals to hide anything they wish if they know their electronics are legally untouchable.

To me it's a really simple dividing line. Any citizen who has not committed a crime or is not being investigated for committing a crime shouldn't have their information spied on or accessed. There needs to be a clearly defined higher threshold for the NSA and other agencies to spy on individuals, as well as a more transparent process with greater oversight.

But I find it a lot harder to make the same argument for those under criminal investigation.

posted on 17 Feb 2016, 00:39

18. NoToFanboys (Posts: 1547; Member since: 03 Oct 2015)


Well said.

posted on 17 Feb 2016, 02:01 1

23. 47AlphaTango (Posts: 290; Member since: 27 Sep 2015)


Well, if its under criminal investigation. And that particular criminal used an iphone. Then, apple will have to wait for the order of the judge to open the iphone. NSA's way of approach is to spy all ios users. This means. Every credit card, Social Security number, Taxes, and all of the private information could be seen by all. And would place ios in a vulnerable position cause they've open the backdoor of their program.

posted on 17 Feb 2016, 13:07 1

34. marorun (Posts: 3572; Member since: 30 Mar 2015)


In the best of world i would agree but sadly in todays world governement could also use such backdoor to push stuff inside your phone and then acuse you based on what they put there themself.

Thats the issue...

posted on 16 Feb 2016, 22:36 3

7. Napalm_3nema (Posts: 2183; Member since: 14 Jun 2013)


Exactly. Give a tool to the government for a legitimate reason, and watch them use it for all sorts of illegitimate reasons.

posted on 16 Feb 2016, 22:53

10. TerryTerius (Posts: 1780; Member since: 10 Apr 2014)


So we should make it so that under no circumstances can law-enforcement ever retrieve information from private devices? Even in the case of a criminal investigation? Especially with terrorism or other violent crime? I think that sounds better on paper than it would play out in reality. I'm definitely NOT calling for unfettered access without standards and oversight, but no access whatsoever seems equally unwise.

In this case, I'm not even sure that applies because the person didn't even own the phone in question.

posted on 17 Feb 2016, 13:10

35. marorun (Posts: 3572; Member since: 30 Mar 2015)


There is no real way to have oversight on ppl accessing those informations because there will always be lie to cover up thing.

Been able to access information is a double way and make it possible to write new informations..

So if some Gov agency dont like you for what you say on the web ( even if its nothing terrorist or hate ect ) they could easily discredit you and put you in prision.

So yeah its should never be possible to access it.

posted on 17 Feb 2016, 09:50

32. VZWuser76 (Posts: 4186; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)


Every person has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, once you are convicted of committing a crime, you lose those rights. None of our rights are absolute. The best way I can describe it is how my teacher for government class explained it. "You have unlimited rights, UNTIL it affects another person." And in actuality that isn't completely true since no one is allowed to kill themselves without law enforcement trying to stop them.

I agree that this could bite the general public, but if we don't have some way to do this legally when a genuine and legitimate court order is issued, then all anyone needs to do is keep any record of criminal or terrorist acts on their phone. Considering that nothing else is absolutely out of bounds, mail, home, car, etc., then why should the phone be any different? Criminals and terrorists already have plenty of advantages on law enforcement, we don't need to give them anymore.

posted on 17 Feb 2016, 13:12

36. marorun (Posts: 3572; Member since: 30 Mar 2015)


Depend on the country some country permit suicide..

posted on 17 Feb 2016, 08:01

29. JumpinJackROMFlash (Posts: 450; Member since: 10 Dec 2014)


And according to Apple their encryption is so "secure" that they can't open it themselves. If it turns out they actually have their own backdoor then as usual Apple's tech is complete s**te as it's not real encryption.

posted on 16 Feb 2016, 22:43 1

8. cncrim (Posts: 823; Member since: 15 Aug 2011)


Citizens have 7th amendment protect government from abuse however when a citizens break the boundary like this one then all rights need to be revoked.

posted on 16 Feb 2016, 22:50

9. TerryTerius (Posts: 1780; Member since: 10 Apr 2014)


That's my standpoint. I don't really think it's reasonable to have criminals or those other criminal investigation be completely protected from the authorities having the ability to enter their devices. I do think we need to form some sort of intermediary so that law-enforcement cannot do so on a whim, but blanket protection under all circumstances doesn't seem smart to me.

posted on 16 Feb 2016, 23:52 4

13. willard12 (Posts: 1677; Member since: 04 Jul 2012)


To cncrim's point, the 7th amendment is the right to a jury trial in a civil court, not criminal. So, I'm not exactly sure how it applies to this discussion.

In this case and all others since the days of warrantless wire taps done under a secret executive order, the intermediary is a judge, who grants a search warrant or court order based on evidence presented by law enforcement.

With a warrant from a judge, Jared (Fogle) from Subway was caught and pleaded guilty to charges involving child porn and illicit sexual contact with a minor after years of secretly wiretapping him, monitoring his text messages, a raid of his home, and confiscating his DVDs. And there are probably some on this site who think all of these actions are a violation of his civil rights in a massive case of government over-reach.

In the case of this article, where a crime has already been committed and the criminal is identified, it is easy to say that law enforcement should have the tools it needs. The difficulty comes when law enforcement is trying to prevent future crimes or terrorist acts, not wait until after people are already dead. The fact is, the US Constitution has no "right to privacy" listed anywhere. It was given in a Supreme Court decision based on an emanation from what they believed the framers intended. And, the right to privacy given by the courts was never absolute, only a "reasonable expectation" of privacy. And with a warrant, it can be taken away. The problem comes when it is done without a warrant. But when people keep saying that "it is a violation of the constitution"........not true.

posted on 16 Feb 2016, 23:14

11. htcisthebest (Posts: 196; Member since: 15 Nov 2011)


Whereas the terrorists have some crazy frenetic followers, Apple has some serious iSheep cults.

posted on 17 Feb 2016, 02:03 1

24. 47AlphaTango (Posts: 290; Member since: 27 Sep 2015)


Like androids don't have the same followers.

posted on 16 Feb 2016, 23:52

14. darealist (Posts: 107; Member since: 25 Feb 2015)


So many poor use of grammars in the comment section doe.

posted on 17 Feb 2016, 02:04 4

25. RebelwithoutaClue (Posts: 2890; Member since: 05 Apr 2013)


so much poor use of grammar in the comment section though

So yes, I agree

posted on 17 Feb 2016, 00:24

15. Intrepid_wiz (Posts: 28; Member since: 30 Dec 2015)


WTH Alan F. I thought it was an iPhone 5S?

"..whether it needs to open up and reveal information stored inside an Apple iPhone 5s..."

posted on 17 Feb 2016, 00:51

19. Subie (Posts: 738; Member since: 01 Aug 2015)


The 5s refers to a different case from another day.

posted on 17 Feb 2016, 00:29

16. Carl3000 (Posts: 162; Member since: 11 Oct 2014)


The only reason Apple can still open it was because this dudes phone wasn't updated to IOS 8 yet so Apple could still get in it. According to Apple, all its firmwares of IOS 8 and later is uncrackable, even for them, because of the new security features include. Well, not exactly uncrackable, but best case scenario they can break it in 2 months if they try one password, every second, for every day. Worst case scenario, over 900 years.

posted on 17 Feb 2016, 00:34 1

17. HugoBarraCyanogenmod (limited) (Posts: 1133; Member since: 06 Jul 2014)


"Cops shoot unarmed black in bla bla bla"

Everyday American news headlines

posted on 17 Feb 2016, 00:54 3

20. Bernoulli (Posts: 3983; Member since: 01 Sep 2012)


And this is relevant to the article because.......?

posted on 17 Feb 2016, 02:47

26. Inotamira (Posts: 173; Member since: 06 Feb 2016)


Cheese!

posted on 17 Feb 2016, 01:26

21. Mfa901 (Posts: 280; Member since: 14 Jul 2012)


This happens when you use an iphone...

posted on 17 Feb 2016, 04:04 3

27. Trakker (Posts: 283; Member since: 11 Feb 2016)


This is just another step in the complete lack of privacy as the government always start off by giving justification to do something like this but then ultimately the authority to unlock iPhones will trickle down from federal to state level, and then down to every police officer having the right to do whatever they like.

posted on 17 Feb 2016, 08:31

30. Derekjeter (Posts: 889; Member since: 27 Oct 2011)


+1

You said Trakker.

The US government will always use scare tactics to get the simple minded people on their side. For example some of the idiots that commented above. Next they will be asking lawyers to snitch and turn in their clients.

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories