Apple closes law enforcement loophole for the iPhone
Apple is about to make it much harder for law enforcement agencies to gain access to information on iPhones.
The company will include a new feature, called USB Restricted Mode, in a future update of its iOS software, which runs on iPhones and iPads.
The feature disables data transfer through the Lightning port one hour after a phone was last locked, preventing popular third-party hacking tools used by law enforcement from accessing the device. The port can still be used for charging.
[...] Reuters and The New York Times first reported that Apple (AAPL) had confirmed the new feature. Vice's Motherboard previously reported that Apple was testing the change.
Law enforcement officers have already been quoted opposing the security upgrade:
"If we go back to the situation where we again don't have access, now we know directly all the evidence we've lost and all the kids we can't put into a position of safety," said Chuck Cohen, who leads an Indiana State Police task force on internet crimes against children. The Indiana State Police said it unlocked 96 iPhones for various cases this year, each time with a warrant, using a $15,000 device it bought in March from a company called Grayshift.
[...] Hillar Moore, the district attorney in Baton Rouge, La., said his office had paid Cellebrite thousands of dollars to unlock iPhones in five cases since 2017, including an investigation into the hazing-related death of a fraternity pledge at Louisiana State University. He said the phones had yielded crucial information, and he was upset that Apple planned to close such a useful investigative avenue. "They are blatantly protecting criminal activity, and only under the guise of privacy for their clients," he said.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by pipedwho on Friday June 15 2018, @01:08AM (2 children)
Straight out bullshitter. Doesn't even waste a sentence before he invokes 'will something think of the children'.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday June 15 2018, @01:39AM (1 child)
I'm sure he'll be fine when the next country he travels to asks for his phone at the border, and uses one of the USB hacks to dump all his personal info into a maybe-secure database.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15 2018, @09:23AM
Finds porn AND pictures of him eating pig products so just throw him in a cell for 10 years with no visits outside except for a weekly beating and genital electrical zapping
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15 2018, @01:21AM (1 child)
All forms of security and freedom 'blatantly protect criminals'. Due process protects criminals. Warrant requirements protect criminals. Freedom of speech protects criminals. We should outlaw all forms of security, privacy, and freedom in order to catch those nasty criminals. The problem is, all of those things also protect good people, and protecting good people from governments and criminals is far more important than catching bad guys. It's similar to how our legal system is supposed to be based on the notion that it's better for countless bad guys to go free than for one innocent to be convicted. You know a government is corrupt and authoritarian if it does not hold this principle to be true, regardless of what excuses it uses.
Of course, there's also the problem that many good people are in fact criminals, since many laws are unjust. Edward Snowden is such an example, according to various governments.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Sourcery42 on Friday June 15 2018, @01:39PM
You're already +5, so I guess I'll have to leave it at, well said AC.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Friday June 15 2018, @01:41AM
The problem is too many law enforcement agencies are playing fast and loose with the 4th amendment. If those who play by the rules don't want to be locked out, they need to be willing to condemn the bad apples in no uncertain terms. This is their tacit approval coming back to bite their asses.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Gaaark on Friday June 15 2018, @01:46AM
Does this guy lock his doors? Cos even with a warrant a locked door could slow down or stop law enforcers. Make him UNLOCK his doors! Think of his children!
He locks his car? Terrorist!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 5, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Friday June 15 2018, @02:20AM (1 child)
If they don't like doing police work maybe they shouldn't be cops. Being a cop doesn't mean sitting in an air conditioned room, pushing buttons. It means getting out into the real world, and doing detective work. An "investigation" doesn't mean that the suspect supplies you with all of the evidence needed to convict.
Put the donut down, put your hat on, and go do real police stuff!
(Score: 3, Informative) by darkfeline on Monday June 18 2018, @06:37AM
With all the money they spend on their cool toys and tanks, they are probably too short staffed to actually do investigative work for many crimes that could occur on the Internet and fall under their jurisdiction. The IQ ceiling they place on prospective hires doesn't help either; they reject any applicants smart enough to do investigations.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15 2018, @02:26AM
Too fucking bad you pig piece of shit. Go read the fucking Constitution and try again.
(Score: -1, Troll) by jmorris on Friday June 15 2018, @02:57AM (9 children)
If Apple were actually giving the customer full control of the device, and that was resulting in total privacy, then it would be OK. But of course they do no such thing, they retain 100% possession of every product sold and are simply telling law enforcement to stick their warrant where the Sun doesn't shine because they have "Fuck You" money.
If Apple wants to remain an American Corporation, continue to receive the benefits of operating here, selling products here, etc. then they are going to have to obey our laws. If they disagree with them, the ruling in Citizens United says they can even petition their government. But if served with a court order and a locked device they are going to have to be made to unlock it. Because THEY CAN, as they have the key; it is their hardware. Remember that part of the EULA about licensed and not sold? With the DRM it applies to the hardware as well as the software. Or they can actually sell products by giving the customer the keys and lose the technical ability to wield absolute power over every device they have ever sold. But force them to choose one or the other instead of the current situation where they can "Quantum Jew" everybody, be both and neither, picking aspects of both as it suits their need of the moment.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15 2018, @08:59AM (7 children)
You mean like that pesky Fourth Amendment?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15 2018, @09:11AM
Yeah, but he thinks warrants give the government the power to enslave people and then force them to sabotage their own security schemes, rather than merely allowing the government to try to break the security themselves.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday June 15 2018, @02:25PM (2 children)
'course he doesn't. After all, like Dubya said, it's "just a goddamn piece of paper." No, this is a coded dogwhistle: what he means is "they are going to have to obey our *law enforcement.*" There is a subtle but extremely important difference, like the difference between patriotism and partisanship. Lost on him, of course.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Informative) by PinkyGigglebrain on Friday June 15 2018, @05:01PM (1 child)
As much as I love bashing Bush Jr. I am getting a little tired of that quote being thrown around when it is most likely false. The only news outlet that reported Bush Jr. making this statement has a long history of use fake sources and retracting stories shortly after publishing them, and this story was retracted as well. The story has never been substantiated by any other news source, even unreliable ones.
I'm sure Bush Jr. thought those words many, many times, but he never actually said them in public. Not that it would have made any difference even if he had said them on CNN right before his re-election.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday June 15 2018, @06:08PM
Even if he didn't say it, he sure as hell acted it, which is even worse. Of course, so did Barack "drone-jam" Obama. Makes me think every president we've had since and including Nixon, with the possible exception of Carter, was a traitor...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday June 16 2018, @12:50AM (2 children)
You might try reading the 4th Amendment sometime because it doesn't say what you apparently think it does.
What part of that precludes a search warrant to look at the contents of a seized phone? What part of that precludes forcing the keyholder to use their key to open the phone? Remember, giving Apple money does not transfer ownership rights to their products, they remain the property of Apple, Inc. and they retain the keys that can open em up. Ordering them to use those keys is no different from ordering a bank to open a safe deposit box or a hotel manager or landlord to use their master key to open a unit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 16 2018, @04:46AM (1 child)
Nothing, and that's a straw man. They can try to access the contents of a seized phone using their own manpower and resources; they cannot enslave someone and compel them to try to defeat the security scheme or create exploits for it.
The police can do those things, but they should never be able to compel someone else to do them. If they want to open those boxes or units, they should have to find the keys and use them themselves.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday June 16 2018, @06:44AM
You keep, willfully it appears, forgetting that Apple is the owner of the device containing information under a valid court order. If I were the judge in one of these cases I'd give em 24 hours to pick from:
1. Unlock the device and deliver the contents.
2. Watch me appoint a Special Master with court authority to do it for them after they surrender (under an NDA of course) the full buildable source for the OS, Secure Enclave, boot loader and all encryption keys required. The unlock tool created would remain in the custody of the Court for future use, freeing Apple of all future obligations until such time as they change their technology to render it unusable. Reasonable care would of course be used to keep the information secure, but the government does leak like a sieve and Sovereign Immunity is a thing so they might really want to reconsider that first option.
You seem to be operating under some Libertarian delusion that tech companies aren't subject to laws. Try looking up Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act [infogalactic.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15 2018, @04:33PM
Burn in hell fascist
(Score: 5, Interesting) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday June 15 2018, @02:58AM (1 child)
And I don't want the government to snoop on my phone.
I've been avoiding firmware upgrades because I've had reason to believe those upgrades are quite buggy
But when apple ships a build that defeats USB hacking I'll install it right away
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by srobert on Friday June 15 2018, @02:36PM
part of the rebel alliance! Your resistance shall be crushed under the heal of the empire.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15 2018, @03:22AM (1 child)
You vote for this shit every election.
Please, save your breath on the blame passing.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15 2018, @10:23AM
Yes... I vote for shit every election... I get my choice... donkey shit or elephant shit.
Last election I voted for anything that was not one of the two primary flavors of shit listed on the poll... but I seriously doubt my disgust is going to make much of a hit.
I am just so fed up with my representatives whoring themselves to the elite, much as I would get fed up with a wife who did the same.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 15 2018, @08:38AM (1 child)
Soon law enforcement will begin carrying whatever tools they need to dump the data in the field. That will cover most iPhones since many will likely still be within the 1-hour window of locked-but-not-really mode. For the ones that are fully locked there will be some other workaround to deal with the majority of them such as other unknown exploits/tools or having the owner make their "one phone call" from the device in question so that it re-enters the 1-hour window. Even if the owner uses a station phone for their call they will still likely need to use their address book, which of course resets the window. There will still be cases in which the owner refuses to cooperate because they know about the 1-hour window or because they're dead or the device is damaged but the number of phones in that category will be well below 0.1% and depending on how severe the case is, agencies can subpoena records and use the case to politically push their back-doored encryption agenda.
I'm not an Apple fanboy but I'm also not a hater (typing this on my MacBook). That said, I'm disappointed with their response to this issue and their overall track record...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by terrab0t on Friday June 15 2018, @11:37AM
I was thinking the same thing. Unless I unlock it my Android phone will not activate USB access, only charge. It will remain connected after it locks, but the moment I disconnect it it disables USB access again until I unlock it.
This seems to be the ideal way to do it. Unless the police arrest me while my phone is connected to a PC and use that PC to sack it, they have no access unless I unlock it for them.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by anubi on Friday June 15 2018, @12:33PM
Already cracked? [bgr.com]
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Friday June 15 2018, @08:08PM
"Well yeah they're protecting criminal activity. I mean, that's what we would do in the same situation. Did you ever watch The Big Easy [imdb.com]? Seriously, how different can California be from Louisiana when it comes to 'civil rights', anyway?"