FBI To Apple: We Cracked iPhone Without Your Help

The FBI quit demanding Apple do their jobs for them, and in a disturbing announcement said that they could now crack the previously secure iPhone 6 recovered from the San Bernadino killers.

Apple boldly announced their opposition to a court order to unlock the phone themselves.

Supposedly, cracking one iPhone would compromise security for the entire product line.

And it all happened because the [__FBI botched__](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/feds-fire-back-on-san-bernardino-iphone-noting-that-apple-has-accommodated-china/) handling the phone.

Whoops!

Now the Federal Bureau of Investigation says in a court filing, that they’ve lawfully broken into the phone of the murderous, deceased government employee, for which they used a proper search warrant and some help from an undisclosed private company, according to the [__Wall Street Journal__](http://www.wsj.com/articles/fbi-unlocks-terrorists-iphone-without-apples-help-1459202353?shareToken=st5eaf7f01c49d4845b9a93b30e06389f3&mod=e2tw):

> The filing doesn’t indicate what method the FBI used to access the data on the phone, nor does it say what, if any, evidence related to the attack was found on it. A government official said the method to unlock the phone wasn’t developed by a government agency, but by a private entity. Officials declined to say whether the same method could be used to open other versions of the iPhone using other operating systems.

Notably, the FBI never tried the Patriot Act or USA Freedom Act to force Apple to unlock their phone, preferring the All Writs Act of 1789 as PINAC News broke last month.

So Apple decided to [__fight the order__](http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2016/02/17/apple-turns-down-fbi-demand-for-encryption-key-made-under-1789-law-defends-4th-amendment/).

Apple CEO Tim Cook began the fight going straight to the court of public opinion in rare, but widely circulated [__customer letter__](http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/)saying:

> We are challenging the FBI’s demands with the deepest respect for American democracy and a love of our country. We believe it would be in the best interest of everyone to step back and consider the implications.
> While we believe the FBI’s intentions are good, it would be wrong for the government to force us to build a backdoor into our products. And ultimately, we fear that this demand would undermine the very freedoms and liberty our government is meant to protect.

The world’s most valuable public company seemed poised to dig in for a long fight, the [__Apple engineers even threatening the ultimate act of civil disobedience__](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/technology/apple-encryption-engineers-if-ordered-to-unlock-iphone-might-resist.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news), an almost Ayn Rand-esque threat to depart the company, rather than break their own product on behalf of the government.

But now the cracked iPhone is in the FBI’s hands and we the people don’t know if they’ve concocted an all devices solution or a one time solution, or truly if they did get into the phone at all until evidence of entry is admitted in open court or a FOIA request.

Likely, Apple lawyers will seek a dismissal, because the case is now moot.

Why did the FBI go to such extremes to get Apple’s cooperation, if they had the technical means to crack the iPhone all along?

The FBI quit demanding Apple do their jobs for them, and in a disturbing announcement said that they could now crack the previously secure iPhone 6 recovered from the San Bernadino killers.

Apple boldly announced their opposition to a court order to unlock the phone themselves.

Supposedly, cracking one iPhone would compromise security for the entire product line.

And it all happened because the [__FBI botched__](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/feds-fire-back-on-san-bernardino-iphone-noting-that-apple-has-accommodated-china/) handling the phone.

Whoops!

Now the Federal Bureau of Investigation says in a court filing, that they’ve lawfully broken into the phone of the murderous, deceased government employee, for which they used a proper search warrant and some help from an undisclosed private company, according to the [__Wall Street Journal__](http://www.wsj.com/articles/fbi-unlocks-terrorists-iphone-without-apples-help-1459202353?shareToken=st5eaf7f01c49d4845b9a93b30e06389f3&mod=e2tw):

> The filing doesn’t indicate what method the FBI used to access the data on the phone, nor does it say what, if any, evidence related to the attack was found on it. A government official said the method to unlock the phone wasn’t developed by a government agency, but by a private entity. Officials declined to say whether the same method could be used to open other versions of the iPhone using other operating systems.

Notably, the FBI never tried the Patriot Act or USA Freedom Act to force Apple to unlock their phone, preferring the All Writs Act of 1789 as PINAC News broke last month.

So Apple decided to [__fight the order__](http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2016/02/17/apple-turns-down-fbi-demand-for-encryption-key-made-under-1789-law-defends-4th-amendment/).

Apple CEO Tim Cook began the fight going straight to the court of public opinion in rare, but widely circulated [__customer letter__](http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/)saying:

> We are challenging the FBI’s demands with the deepest respect for American democracy and a love of our country. We believe it would be in the best interest of everyone to step back and consider the implications.
> While we believe the FBI’s intentions are good, it would be wrong for the government to force us to build a backdoor into our products. And ultimately, we fear that this demand would undermine the very freedoms and liberty our government is meant to protect.

The world’s most valuable public company seemed poised to dig in for a long fight, the [__Apple engineers even threatening the ultimate act of civil disobedience__](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/technology/apple-encryption-engineers-if-ordered-to-unlock-iphone-might-resist.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news), an almost Ayn Rand-esque threat to depart the company, rather than break their own product on behalf of the government.

But now the cracked iPhone is in the FBI’s hands and we the people don’t know if they’ve concocted an all devices solution or a one time solution, or truly if they did get into the phone at all until evidence of entry is admitted in open court or a FOIA request.

Likely, Apple lawyers will seek a dismissal, because the case is now moot.

Why did the FBI go to such extremes to get Apple’s cooperation, if they had the technical means to crack the iPhone all along?

- Advertisement -

Support our Mission

Help us build a database of bad cops

For almost 15 years, PINAC News has remained active despite continuous efforts by the government and Big Tech to shut us down by either arresting us for lawful activity or by restricting access to our readers under the pretense that we write about “social issues.”

Since we are forbidden from discussing social issues on social media, we have created forums on our site to allow us to fulfill our mission with as little restriction as possible. We welcome our readers to join our forums and support our mission by either donating, volunteering or both.

Our plan is to build a national database of bad cops obtained from public records maintained by local prosecutors. The goal is to teach our readers how to obtain these lists to ensure we cover every city, county and state in the country.

After all, the government has made it clear it will not police the police so the role falls upon us.

It will be our most ambitious project yet but it can only be done with your help.

But if we succeed, we will be able to keep innocent people out of prison.

Please make a donation below or click on side tab to learn more about our mission.

Subscribe to PINAC

Bypass Big Tech censorship.

Leave a Reply

- Advertisement -

Latest articles