top | item 11128248

(no title)

asgfoi | 10 years ago

Do you think they choose to ask Apple to do this in such a public way, because they are very confident the phone will contain information that will help with the investigation, which will make a positive precedent about this method for future requests, and also provide 'lobbying power' when new laws will be considered?

discuss

order

dmix|10 years ago

The iPhone in question was his (government) work phone and they already found a bunch of their other 'burner' phones in a trash bin, which they got access to. I find it unlikely he used his work phone for planning when they purposefully ditched other devices. Additionally, I doubt he knew the iPhone encryption would block investigators from accessing the data, so the fact they can't access it is most likely just coincidental that the device's battery was dead.

But this is just speculation...

I'm definitely in the camp that believes this is a legal stunt by the FBI to set a precedent using a highly publicized terrorism case which the public will support. A previous All Writs Act claim in 2014 by the FBI for a credit card fraud case involving an encrypted iPhone didn't change Apple's position on the matter, so they are trying again with a higher stakes case.

asgfoi|10 years ago

Yes I agree. I can't be a coincidence. They deliberately picked the best weapon in this debate, biased public opinion.

travoc|10 years ago

They can be confident because they are free to assert whatever they want about the contents of the phone. Nobody will have access to information that contradicts their assertions.

sosuke|10 years ago

The phone might not even have to contain anything useful for it to be said to have been helpful by the elimination of that avenue of research. "Apple helped by showing the phone had no information on the attack and we've moved on to other investigative avenues."

One could twist things all day long to fit a goal.