x PhoneArena is hiring! Reviewer in the USA
  • Hidden picShow menu
  • Home
  • News
  • FBI finds another way to get into Farook's Apple iPhone 5c; Tuesday's court hearing is vacated

FBI finds another way to get into Farook's Apple iPhone 5c; Tuesday's court hearing is vacated

Posted: , by Alan F.

Tags :

FBI finds another way to get into Farook's Apple iPhone 5c; Tuesday's court hearing is vacated
A court hearing scheduled for tomorrow between Apple and the Department of Justice has been cancelled. The DOJ was seeking to have Apple comply with a court order that required it to open the Apple iPhone 5c belonging to deceased terrorist Syed Farook. Apple has been saying that the only way to unlock the device and give the government the information it wants, is to build a new version of its OS which it dubs Govt.OS. But there is plenty of risk in doing that. If the code gets into the wrong hands, every iPhone user on earth will no longer be able to count on the device being a secure place to store personal information.

The DOJ believes that Farook's phone could contain the name of a possible accomplice, or other targets that Farook and his wife were looking at. The couple killed 14 people in an office building in San Bernardino, and were themselves killed hours later by a hail of police bullets during a shoot out with cops.

The cancellation of the hearing came about after the DOJ announced that it had discovered a way into the iPhone 5c without requiring Apple engineers to build a new OS. This afternoon, a court filing made by the DOJ revealed that an outside party showed the FBI how it could unlock Farook's iPhone. Testing is still required to make sure that this method doesn't compromise the data on the device, and Apple wants to chat with this third party to find out how he is able to unlock the device. Apple is no longer under any obligation to help the DOJ obtain the information inside the phone.

:"On Sunday, March 20, 2016, an outside party demonstrated to the FBI a possible method for unlocking Farook’s iPhone. Testing is required to determine whether it is a viable method that will not compromise data on Farook’s iPhone. If the method is viable, it should eliminate the need for the assistance from Apple Inc. ("Apple”" set forth in the All Writs Act Order in this case.-DOJ court filing

Keep in mind that if true, this is not a victory for the DOJ and a loss for Apple. It is a win-win as the government gets the data it was looking for, and Apple doesn't have to put the security of its customers at risk. Apple never said that it wouldn't turn over information involving this case; indeed, the company had already turned over information to the DOJ involving Farook. The company was fighting to keep its customers' information safe.

source: BGR

  • Options

posted on 21 Mar 2016, 21:31

1. combatmedic870 (Posts: 933; Member since: 02 Sep 2015)

Well that's something I guess.

posted on 21 Mar 2016, 22:50 5

19. lyndon420 (Posts: 5017; Member since: 11 Jul 2012)

Hopefully it was apple who 'arranged' this sudden hacker. If they didn't, then this must be somewhat alarming for apple...and their users. The feds probably won't find anything on this 'work iPhone' anyway, because common sense would dictate burner phones as their only source of communication.

posted on 21 Mar 2016, 23:54 3

22. guest (Posts: 338; Member since: 13 Jun 2012)

Uh Apple lost big everyone thought their software was bulletproof and now some random person going to show fbi how to unlock. Lol

posted on 22 Mar 2016, 04:33 6

44. darkkjedii (Posts: 25058; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)

You're really that stupid, and naive to believe that.

posted on 22 Mar 2016, 06:56

48. S-R-K (banned) (Posts: 304; Member since: 15 Mar 2016)

Apple you must listen to Fbi and the government. This time you rotten fruit Obama will not save you like last time.
Get ready Apple you will be butt kicked and Apple plummeting.

posted on 22 Mar 2016, 07:34 3

52. izim1 (Posts: 1265; Member since: 04 Feb 2013)

Having someone be able to pick your lock is not even close to being the same thing as the government forcing you to make a key for it... Apple won.

posted on 22 Mar 2016, 07:34 1

51. JunitoNH (Posts: 1934; Member since: 15 Feb 2012)

Thank you, as if we are stupid. Also, the FBI has known all along how to access the phone; this was simply a ploy by the Feds to set a president, to have unlimited access to all phone. Kudos to Apple's and its CEO for not caving under pressure, that's when you know you have real leadership. Had it being the young CEO of a certain book company, the Feds would had had all the data, including pix.

posted on 22 Mar 2016, 11:12

58. willard12 (unregistered)

With a search warrant (which the FBI already had) and the fact that Farook's employer who actually owned the phone was already complying, they already had access and didn't need any "president" set. The precedent was set with the 4th amendment to the constitution. So, based on actual facts and not wild speculation, I'm going to say that encryption was truly the issue. And as terrorists groups continue use encryption to thwart authorities, I'm sure their minds are at ease knowing there are plenty of terrorist sympathizers giving kudos to those who support their ability to blow up trains and airports in an unhindered manner.

posted on 21 Mar 2016, 21:33 12

2. Luuthian (Posts: 297; Member since: 09 Sep 2011)

Sounds like the FBI felt like they were losing footing and didn't want to risk a massive court circus with a potential ruling that would close down their efforts to open up corporate encryption methods for a good long while.

They'll wait for the next opportunity to justify similar actions against no doubt, but for now they'll bow out and both sides will simmer for a bit as things go on as they have.

posted on 21 Mar 2016, 21:37 8

3. TerryTerius (unregistered)

I'm not convinced of that. Public polling was on the FBI's side going into this.

posted on 21 Mar 2016, 21:48 6

6. izim1 (Posts: 1265; Member since: 04 Feb 2013)

What? Public polling is not how laws work...

posted on 21 Mar 2016, 21:52 8

8. TerryTerius (unregistered)

I'm well aware of that. We have no idea what the legal hea winds were, just that public support was on their side. I'm saying they weren't losing footing among the populace. I didn't say anything about their legal position. They also had a fair amount of the Congress and Senate on their side.

posted on 21 Mar 2016, 21:58 5

12. izim1 (Posts: 1265; Member since: 04 Feb 2013)

That's.... Also not how laws work. The case was stacked against them. Public support, or even POTUS support, or not, had they lost they would have also lost a ton of footing in future attempts to open up encryptions. It was in their best interest to let this one go. Lose the battle win the war type of mentality. So unless I misread the original comment you replied to, I'm not sure why it is that you replied what you did.

posted on 21 Mar 2016, 22:00 8

14. TerryTerius (unregistered)

You don't get what I'm saying. I didn't say anything about the legal positioning or our judicial process.. I was not talking about whether or not they would win the legal battle. Just that they weren't lose public support. That's all I said. You're arguing a point I didn't even make.

posted on 22 Mar 2016, 11:15

59. willard12 (unregistered)

Well, whatever it is you are trying to say is incorrect. Once again, instead of using facts, speculation seems to be even more popular than the FBI's tactics.


posted on 21 Mar 2016, 22:00 5

13. izim1 (Posts: 1265; Member since: 04 Feb 2013)

They said they maybe felt they were losing footing in the case and that's why they dropped it then you came out of left field with something about public support...

posted on 21 Mar 2016, 22:03 7

15. TerryTerius (unregistered)

Not exactly out of left field. This case had three aspects to it. The public perception of the government's position, the public's lack of understanding about encryption and why they need it, and the actual legal battle. I brought up the public perception specifically, because it's a intangible aspect that has consequences.

And of course, it's come up multiple times in the past both In articles and discussions. So maybe I'm wrong for resurrecting that, butt it certainly wasn't out of an ignorance of the issue at hand.

posted on 21 Mar 2016, 22:21 5

16. izim1 (Posts: 1265; Member since: 04 Feb 2013)

It was out of left field in that it had nothing to do with the guys comment. Public perception is/was irrelevant to the FBIs footing in this case. Had no bearing on it. You mentioned you didn't agree with their assessment then gave a reason that didn't refute anything they said.

posted on 21 Mar 2016, 22:28 6

17. TerryTerius (unregistered)

Cool. Let's just agree to disagree because I have things to do, and I really don't feel like having a drawn-out discussion. Enjoy your night, and I hope your week goes well for you stranger.

posted on 22 Mar 2016, 01:15 1

30. roscuthiii (Posts: 2246; Member since: 18 Jul 2010)

What footing would they had lost as they hadn't even gotten past the filing of briefs stage up to this point. There was no footing on either side as there was never a hearing.

It really makes no difference how hard or soft corporate encryption is as the government already retains the authority to compel a proprietor to unlock a property if it's specifically warranted. The key being whether a situation warrants the access.

posted on 21 Mar 2016, 21:40 1

4. Unordinary (unregistered)

Doubt it. The only reason they most likely called off the hearing was so they could wait for another emotionally devastating terrorist attack, and use it against Apples amazing encryption.

BTW https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/4bchj2/paris_terrorists_used_burner_phones_not/?

posted on 21 Mar 2016, 22:52 3

20. talon95 (Posts: 753; Member since: 31 Jul 2012)

By the time this come up again Apple, Android, Win10, etc will have locked themselves out in new ways making the current request even more impossible. And I don't believe the FBI could ever justify it in court anyways. They knew they'd lose horribly and risk exposing more of their unlawful actions to the public.

posted on 21 Mar 2016, 21:47 1

5. VZWuser76 (Posts: 4786; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)

So, up until now, the only way to get to the information was to build a new version of iOS, according to Apple. But now some third party has a way to do it? So doesn't that mean that their security is compromised? They'd be wise to get with this third party and shore up their software if this is true.

posted on 21 Mar 2016, 21:58 5

11. Arch_Fiend (Posts: 3371; Member since: 03 Oct 2015)

The security of iOS isn't compromised because there is no backdoor being made. Anything can be hacked(or whatever else you want to call extracting data from a locked device) it just takes time, what the FBI wanted from Apple would allow anyone who got their hands on the Gov OS to instantly break into any iPhone they wanted.

posted on 22 Mar 2016, 00:21 1

24. RoboticEngi (Posts: 1066; Member since: 03 Dec 2014)

So someone able to go past all the security locks in ios, isn't being compromised?

posted on 22 Mar 2016, 00:25 2

25. RoboticEngi (Posts: 1066; Member since: 03 Dec 2014)

Why is that apple absolutely needed to write this special OS to open up every Idevice on the planet? Could one not imagine it would be locked to one single device? And btw, how many times have Apple got they source code for ios stolen? How many times have they got their development versions stolen? How many times have hackers been able to push out falls versions of ios to all the iphones in the world?

posted on 22 Mar 2016, 00:37

27. Arch_Fiend (Posts: 3371; Member since: 03 Oct 2015)

Maybe they needed to write the special OS because nobody at Apple is smart enough to hack their way past their own encryption. Because if there was such a person at Apple they could have just done that the first time around when they gave the FBI what info they could from the 5c.

posted on 22 Mar 2016, 01:19

31. Adreno (banned) (Posts: 755; Member since: 12 Mar 2016)

No. Since iOS 8, Apple intentionally built it's encryption security in a way that Apple itself will not be able to crack it, even under a judiciary or court order.

posted on 22 Mar 2016, 01:35

37. Arch_Fiend (Posts: 3371; Member since: 03 Oct 2015)

Why say that to me? I said no one at Apple was smart enough to crack their own encryption that's basically the same thing that you just said.

posted on 22 Mar 2016, 01:30

34. Adreno (banned) (Posts: 755; Member since: 12 Mar 2016)

Here is proof of what I'm saying


Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories