The FBI’s campaign against Apple has been called its biggest PR disaster in history, but were its efforts to hack the San Bernardino iPhone worth it? In the FBI’s own words, it’s still too soon to tell.
According to a senior FBI official, the organization won’t reveal what — if anything — it’s learned until it’s finished examining all the data on the handset.
“We’re now doing an analysis of that data, as we would in any other type of criminal terrorism investigation,’’ said James Baker, the FBI’s general counsel, on Tuesday. “That means we would follow logical leads.” As a result, he says it’s “simply too early” to know whether the iPhone at the heart of the San Bernardino investigation is going to be useful.
If the iPhone belonging to San Bernardino shooter Syed Rizwan Farook doesn’t contain any evidence, it won’t come as a total surprise. While the standoff between Apple and the FBI was still raging, San Bernardino police chief Jarrod Burguan — who was part of the investigation last December — said that, “I think that there is a reasonably good chance that there is nothing of any value on the phone.”
The husband of a San Bernardino survivor — whose wife almost lost her life during the attack — additionally voiced his doubts that there is useful information on the confiscated handset; saying that his spouse, “also had an iPhone issued by the County [which] she did not use it for any personal communication.”
Of course, regardless of which side of this issue you come down on, the larger point is not about whether there happens to be evidence on the iPhone — but what it says about the government’s right to access this data.
If anything will be the legacy of this story (which, for the record, is certainly not over), it is that it marked another inflection point at which previously obscure topics like smartphone encryption and backdoors became public discussion fodder.
As the FBI’s James Baker said yesterday: “[This case] raises a whole range of issues in terms of how we’re going to handle it going forward. Normally we don’t have such detailed real-time public discussions of precise surveillance tools … There’s a significant amount of novelty to us.”
Hopefully it won’t stay a novelty after this.
Source: WSJ
Luke Dormehl is a U.K.-based journalist and author, with a background working in documentary film for Channel 4 and the BBC. He is the author of The Apple Revolution and The Formula: How Algorithms Solve All Our Problems … and Create More, both published by Penguin/Random House. His tech writing has also appeared in Wired, Fast Company, Techmeme and other publications.
10 responses to “FBI: It’s ‘too early’ to tell if gunman’s iPhone contains useful evidence”
“FBI: It’s ‘too early’ to tell if gunman’s iPhone contains useful evidence”
Too early? After a week? With all the resources of the FBI? Riiiiiiight.
For me, the more alarming part of the story is the concern which greets the idea that these may be issues the public want to chime in on.
Lately, it seems as though the only reactions from politicians and the public—about almost everything—are knee-jerk reactions. No time or interest in considering the issues, only the need to react to them without care for the consequences. For example, the disinterested, almost cavalier attitude the American public takes to serious issues all around the world, while worrying itself to distraction over protection from this-and-that, brings to mind the now seldom used term “Ugly American.” Not that “this-and-that” aren’t sometimes serious (San Bernardino), but usually blown •way• out of proportion (San Bernardino.)
Some of my favorite lyrics by Frank Zappa in his song Trouble Every Day are these: “Hey, you know something people? I’m not black, but there’s a whole lots a times I wish I could say I’m not white.” Sometimes, I feel that way, substituting black and white for whatever seems appropriate on the particular day.
Translation: “FBI: We [claim to] have broken into it, and [even though it’s blank] now we’re analyzing it because we already look like idiots!!!!111 Stay tuned!!!11!!1!”
Any self respecting hacker would have had that thing opened up inside a DAY.
Just like McAfee explained in his entertaining vid.
Something that bothers me, and something I talked about while the case was ongoing, is how quickly this exploit moved from “Because they’re terrorists!!” to “We’ll help any law enforcement agency unlock”. So, in the San case, there was a terrorist who was unquestioningly guilty. Now we want to move into areas where the person in question MAY be a criminal who has yet to be proven guilty. It’s not unreasonable for the next step to be requesting live monitoring of data for people who may be suspected.
You know, if the FBI wanted to REALLY score a Public Relations coup against Apple, the smartest thing for them to have done is say, publicly, to all other agencies “Sorry, but we promised Apple and the American Public that this was a one-time only thing. We will not help you to unlock other phones.”
I don’t wanna be that guy but our government has a history of lying to get what it wants.
Well, all governments (and organizations) do.
What makes this different is how public and direct it is (and how quickly it’s revealed!).
Clearly Apple’s argument was right. “This isn’t just one phone…”.
Added to this is the implicit idea that almost immediately after Apple snubbed them, the FBI now claims to have attained what they needed anyway…
Translation: The FBI wasn’t actually looking for ‘help’. Not even close.
They were looking for a *precedent*. Good on Apple for giving them the finger.
The FBI should have called their commie butt buddies in the NSA to give them the phone transcripts; after all the NSA records EVERY SINGLE DAMN CALL MADE IN THE US but still can’t quite get around to actually STOPPING TERRORISTS.
That’s why the government can read all your emails and spy on the sexy pictures of your significant other, but they sat on their thumbs and let the Boston Bombings go through. They would rather check on your wife’s underwear than check on the terrorists…