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

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

Related phones

iPhone 5c
  • Display 4.0" 640 x 1136 pixels
  • Camera 8 MP / 1.2 MP front
  • Processor Apple A6, Dual-core, 1300 MHz
  • Storage 32 GB
  • Battery 1507 mAh(10h 3G talk time)



1. joeytaylor

Posts: 957; Member since: Feb 28, 2015

Being a company phone then yes if the company says so

2. tedkord

Posts: 17463; Member since: Jun 17, 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?

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

28. joeytaylor

Posts: 957; Member since: Feb 28, 2015

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

33. marorun

Posts: 5029; Member since: Mar 30, 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.

4. RoboticEngi

Posts: 1251; Member since: Dec 03, 2014

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

22. 47AlphaTango

Posts: 739; Member since: Sep 27, 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.

31. natypes

Posts: 1110; Member since: Feb 02, 2015

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

8. cncrim

Posts: 1590; Member since: Aug 15, 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.

9. TerryTerius unregistered

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.

13. willard12 unregistered

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.

11. htcisthebest

Posts: 438; Member since: Nov 15, 2011

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

24. 47AlphaTango

Posts: 739; Member since: Sep 27, 2015

Like androids don't have the same followers.

14. darealist

Posts: 107; Member since: Feb 25, 2015

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

25. RebelwithoutaClue unregistered

so much poor use of grammar in the comment section though So yes, I agree

15. Intrepid_wiz

Posts: 28; Member since: Dec 30, 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..."

19. Subie

Posts: 2424; Member since: Aug 01, 2015

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

16. Carl3000

Posts: 240; Member since: Oct 11, 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.

17. HugoBarraCyanogenmod

Posts: 1412; Member since: Jul 06, 2014

"Cops shoot unarmed black in bla bla bla" Everyday American news headlines

20. Bernoulli

Posts: 4362; Member since: Sep 01, 2012

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

26. Inotamira

Posts: 173; Member since: Feb 06, 2016


21. Mfa901

Posts: 291; Member since: Jul 14, 2012

This happens when you use an iphone...

27. Trakker

Posts: 283; Member since: Feb 11, 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.

30. Derekjeter

Posts: 1555; Member since: Oct 27, 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.

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at https://www.parsintl.com/phonearena or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit https://www.parsintl.com/ for samples and additional information.