SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
BBC technology correspondent Rory Cellan-Jones has met with representatives of the Israeli company Cellebrite, which helps police forces gain access to the data on the mobile phones of suspected criminals. They were rumoured to have aided the FBI in gaining access to the iPhone used by the San Bernardino shooter (though some reports contradict this). From the article:
It's an Israeli company that helps police forces gain access to data on the mobile phones of suspected criminals.
Cellebrite was in the headlines earlier this year when it was rumoured to have helped the FBI to crack an iPhone used by the San Bernardino shooter.
Now the company has told the BBC that it can get through the defences of just about any modern smartphone. But the firm refuses to say whether it supplies its technology to the police forces of repressive regimes.
[...] Mr Ben-Moshe claimed that his firm could access data on "the largest number of devices that are out there in the industry".
Even Apple's new iPhone 7?
"We can definitely extract data from an iPhone 7 as well - the question is what data."
He said that Cellebrite had the biggest research and development team in the sector, constantly working to catch up with the new technology.
He was cagey about how much data could be extracted from services such as WhatsApp - "It's not a black/white yes/no answer" - but indicated that criminals might be fooling themselves if they thought any form of mobile communication was totally secure.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 27 2016, @05:51PM
I don't agree.
Cellebrite is providing a tool/service- breaking the encryption on a cell phone. It is the responsibility of the people contracting this service to assure that it is being used effectively.
For the most part Canada has some pretty good privacy protection laws (though it seems that every time I blink there are new proposals on the books to erode those protections or some department that is outright ignoring those protections). Being held on suspicion is not enough to justify the breaking of any locks, having a search warrant that specifically covers the breaking of locks (which normally requires enough evidence to convict for a crime already but police want to determine the extent of the crime- which is important because we don't have compounding sentences) can only turn over evidence related to THAT crime (at least in theory- see my point about departments ignoring protections).
Essentially how this should play out is- There is a counterfeiter operating between 1993-2003 the criminal passed 5 billion in false bills, police have enough evidence to convinct the individual of counterfeiting to the tune of about 6000, but there is no 'multiple counts' in canadian court, so if they charge the individual with counterfeiting between 1993-2003 and he only gets a sentence of 5 years. However if they can find evidence during their discovery of the extent of the crime of the full 5 billion he will serve 9 years. A warrant is issued that includes the breaking of digital locks and they break his cellphone encryption, find the 5 billion, and the counterfeiter goes to prison for 9 years.
With those factors in place I am ok with there being organizations which can assist with the legal execution of a warrant which has been written to include the circumvention of locks or security measures.