Bingo.

As it turns out, apple did offer a simple and one off solution to the problem, but the government screwed it up (by my reading).

IF the phone had been allowed to backup to the icloud, apple would have happily turned over the data from the backup. But someone in the government (I'm not sure if it was the suspects employers or someone from the Justice Department) altered the phones login properties, preventing it from backing up.

So, yes Apple did have a simple solution that would have complied with the court order, but the government screwed it up.

It was the terrorist's employer, the County of San Bernardino, who fouled up; there was an add-on to the telecom package allowing the County to access employees' cell phones and contents, if needed, but, while the County did purchase the add-on (by some local news accounts, about six months prior to the attack),it never activated the program. The Feds had and have nothing to do with the loss of access...


<O>

Nope, that's a different story, but with similar results.

So it looks like the government had 2 chances to gain access to the phone, and it fouled both up.

problem with that scenario is called "chain of Custody". Unless it's done under federal supervision any "evidence" found will be tainted.

More troubling is if the feds get their way and force Apple to comply, it sets a dangerous precedent for the Gov. to force the same type of compliance from anyone for pretty much anything.

This brings up an interesting question.

The police can force a person to have their fingerprints taken.

Can the police force someone to swipe their finger on their cell phone to unlock it?

They still need probable cause.

Why didn't the police just use the dead mans finger to make the swipe? I don't think those print readers care what temperature the finger is.:)

It's my understanding the phone either didn't have that option or it wasn't set up. Nor was " mobile device management" software (that the county paid for but didn't install), set up on the device.

In Germany, by the law the owner of an encrypted computer-device cannot be ruled to hand out the code to decrypt it.

^ You do not need the encrypted data anymore.

Your guiltiness is being "proven" by your metadata alone, no written evidence needed anymore. If you become a suspect (like if you switch your mobile phone off now and then, be in locations statistically relevant, and might have met certain other suspects), your location and traveling paths are enough.

They call it "advanced-cloud-based-behavior-analytics method":
https://theintercept.com/document/20...ior-analytics/
They already kill autonomously, based on algorythms and statistical data.
They did and do it in Pakistan, and it is called .. Skynet
(bring on the terminators :yeah:)
in german:
http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/47/47449/1.html

:nope:

That's another interesting question. If a dead suspect has a finger print enabled phone, can the police use the cadaver to unlock the phone. I guess they could if they had a search warrant. But if the suspect were still alive? :hmmm::hmmm:

They tried, but it was password locked instead.

I've one of those but you have to verify via a pass code on a regular basis (about once a month) so simply wait it out but then you're obviously back to the pass code problem.

Well, Appple has filed an appeal based on the first and fifth amendments. I think that everybody (not just here lol) needs to wait for the upper courts to decide this. I'm sure Apple will comply with whatever ruling is eventually handed out.

To me, this is a landmark case, and will decide personal security issues for many many years to come.