US Attorney General claims a 'few weeks' needed to harvest data from rioters' locked iPhon...

Posted:
in iPhone
The U.S. Attorney General coordinating the prosecution of 214 of the demonstrators arrested during the inauguration has declared that the cell phones, including iPhones, obtained during the arrests will be unlocked in the next few weeks.




On the day of the arrests, a court filing made on Wednesday claims that more than "more than 100 indicted defendants" had their cell phones seized. The filing notes that all of the cell phones obtained were locked, and require "more time-sensitive efforts" to try to obtain the data.

The government specifically says in the filing that all of the phones were locked, and also declares that it "expects to be in a position to produce all of the data from the searched Rioter Cell Phones in the next several weeks."

it is not clear how many of the "more than 100" phones in the government's hands were iPhones, but AppleInsider has learned that "some" are iPhones. However, assuming that the government is counting all the phones they obtained, and not just the ones they know that they have exploits for, around 60 are likely Apple devices.

Guidance issued to protestors before the event suggested that attendees turn off biometric identification like Touch ID, as that can be legally compelled in Washington D.C. However, at this time, forcing an arrestee to divulge a password in the district is still a violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution -- but nationally, that tide may be turning given some recent Apple hardware related appeals court rulings.

Apple can, and does, provide unencrypted iCloud data to law enforcement, and wireless carriers do as well -- which may be what the court filing is referring to. Beyond subpoenas to Apple and wireless carriers, what exploits law enforcement is planning to use, or has used already to circumvent device locks is not clear.

The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigations reportedly paid around $1 million to penetrate the San Bernardino shooters' iPhone 5c without secure enclave, in a one-time deal. Presumably, some of the phones seized from inauguration day protesters are the three-year-old iPhone 5s or newer with the feature.

All of the gathered data will be placed in a server with each defendant getting a folder with their name on it. It appears that all of the data will be available to all of the attorneys working on the case.

As such, the remainder of the filing directs attorneys working for the defense to not gather any other irrelevant data from other phones, and addresses that "irrelevant personal information" not be disseminated.

AppleInsider has made contact with the Washington D.C. Superior Court regarding this matter, and will update accordingly, should we get any significant details.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 49

    What's the legal justification for searching their phones at all?  If I punch you in the face, can the police get a search warrant to search my house?  What does rioting and destruction of property have to do with your personal information and communications?  Searching the phone sounds like an unreasonable search and taking it in the first place seems like an unreasonable seizure.  They caught these guys red handed and have all the evidence they need to get convictions.  That should be enough.

    Presumably the argument will be that they are trying to find evidence for someone "inciting a riot" but they should be able to solve that part of the case with old fashioned interrogation and deal-making with the hundreds of people they arrested.

    retrogustospice-boyedredbuzdotsmac_dogr00fus1lostkiwibadmonkRoyfbwatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 49
    peteopeteo Posts: 365member
    Welcome to the fascist state
    randominternetpersonmac_doglostkiwibadmonkleehammGeorgeBMac
  • Reply 3 of 49
    peteopeteo Posts: 365member

    What's the legal justification for searching their phones at all?  

    If I'm there peacefully protesting and some morons decide to burn a car and the sweep me up because I was around the area do they get to read my phone too? Search my house? check my bank accounts? Harass people at my work.

    This is where it starts. We wont tell you not to protest. But we are going to make you and any one else think twice. Just stay at home and post on some random apple blog how everything sucks so we can do what we want with little disruption. 
    retrogustorandominternetpersonMacsplosioneightzeroapple jockeyr00fus1lostkiwibadmonkRoyfbwatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 49

    What's the legal justification for searching their phones at all?  If I punch you in the face, can the police get a search warrant to search my house?  What does rioting and destruction of property have to do with your personal information and communications?  Searching the phone sounds like an unreasonable search and taking it in the first place seems like an unreasonable seizure.  They caught these guys red handed and have all the evidence they need to get convictions.  That should be enough.

    Presumably the argument will be that they are trying to find evidence for someone "inciting a riot" but they should be able to solve that part of the case with old fashioned interrogation and deal-making with the hundreds of people they arrested.

    Yes. It is called hard evidence. If you punch someone in face you go to jail. You are lucky that you just go to jail.... some of us are licensed to carry in many states and that may end-up quite differently including search of phones. So let's stop at that.
    longpathgtr
  • Reply 5 of 49
    mike1mike1 Posts: 1,895member

    What's the legal justification for searching their phones at all?  If I punch you in the face, can the police get a search warrant to search my house?  What does rioting and destruction of property have to do with your personal information and communications?  Searching the phone sounds like an unreasonable search and taking it in the first place seems like an unreasonable seizure.  They caught these guys red handed and have all the evidence they need to get convictions.  That should be enough.

    Presumably the argument will be that they are trying to find evidence for someone "inciting a riot" but they should be able to solve that part of the case with old fashioned interrogation and deal-making with the hundreds of people they arrested.

    In these cases, the prosecution may be trying to show there were communications showing that the defendants conspired to riot and/or that the offenses were premeditated.
    longpathanton zuykovbaconstangzoetmbwatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 49
    bulk001bulk001 Posts: 479member

    What's the legal justification for searching their phones at all?  If I punch you in the face, can the police get a search warrant to search my house?  What does rioting and destruction of property have to do with your personal information and communications?  Searching the phone sounds like an unreasonable search and taking it in the first place seems like an unreasonable seizure.  They caught these guys red handed and have all the evidence they need to get convictions.  That should be enough.

    Presumably the argument will be that they are trying to find evidence for someone "inciting a riot" but they should be able to solve that part of the case with old fashioned interrogation and deal-making with the hundreds of people they arrested.

    Yes. It is called hard evidence. If you punch someone in face you go to jail. You are lucky that you just go to jail.... some of us are licensed to carry in many states and that may end-up quite differently including search of phones. So let's stop at that.
    Yes. A death sentence for throwing a punch. Red America. And red in more ways than one. 
    mac_dogbaconstangapple jockeyr00fus1jony0montrosemacswatto_cobraGeorgeBMacjdw
  • Reply 7 of 49
    longpathlongpath Posts: 225member

    What's the legal justification for searching their phones at all?  If I punch you in the face, can the police get a search warrant to search my house?  What does rioting and destruction of property have to do with your personal information and communications?  Searching the phone sounds like an unreasonable search and taking it in the first place seems like an unreasonable seizure.  They caught these guys red handed and have all the evidence they need to get convictions.  That should be enough.

    Presumably the argument will be that they are trying to find evidence for someone "inciting a riot" but they should be able to solve that part of the case with old fashioned interrogation and deal-making with the hundreds of people they arrested.

    My best guess is that they are looking for evidence of collusion, and whether there are any identifiable unindicted co-conspirators. If there turns out to be evidence of collusion, then additional charges would be forthcoming.

    Let's say you punch me in the face and are immediately arrested. Then law enforcement search your home and it turns out that you planned to first disorient me with the punch and then push me in front of a bus or train that you knew the schedule of. Then they would add assault with intent and attempted murder to the charges. If they merely arrested you and prosecuted you for simple assault and battery, then the larger crime would go unprosecuted.

    As for whether police can get a search warranty to search your home if you commit assault and battery outside your home, the answer is yes, they can, as they have probable cause to believe you committed a crime, and there might be evidence that you planned the assault and battery, rather than it being a "crime of passion".

    The legal justification in this case is that there is probable cause to believe the arrested parties committed a crime, and that is all the legal justification required for a search warrant. Whether that level of justification is reasonable or not in a broader context than merely legal justification is something up for debate; but you asked about legal justification, and it simply comes down to whether or not there is probable cause.
    anton zuykovbaconstangzoetmbmaciekskontakt
  • Reply 8 of 49
    anton zuykovanton zuykov Posts: 1,039member

    What's the legal justification for searching their phones at all?  If I punch you in the face, can the police get a search warrant to search my house?  What does rioting and destruction of property have to do with your personal information and communications?  Searching the phone sounds like an unreasonable search and taking it in the first place seems like an unreasonable seizure.  They caught these guys red handed and have all the evidence they need to get convictions.  That should be enough.

    Presumably the argument will be that they are trying to find evidence for someone "inciting a riot" but they should be able to solve that part of the case with old fashioned interrogation and deal-making with the hundreds of people they arrested.

    They are searching if riots were planned in advance. Which they were. Black block folks is a fine bunch. Methods they use are akin to what terrorists use against normal people.
    I would like a prosecutor to put these guys behind bars for using violence to further their own political agenda, which is unacceptable.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 49
    kent909kent909 Posts: 709member
    I think it is interesting that all the BS around the San Bernardino phone and wanting Apple to unlock it for them. Now all they need is a week or so to unlock hundreds of phones. Nice to see that they are getting better at technology. This is just your government out of control. Because after all who is going to stop them.
    apple jockeywatto_cobraGeorgeBMac
  • Reply 10 of 49
    kent909kent909 Posts: 709member

    What's the legal justification for searching their phones at all?  If I punch you in the face, can the police get a search warrant to search my house?  What does rioting and destruction of property have to do with your personal information and communications?  Searching the phone sounds like an unreasonable search and taking it in the first place seems like an unreasonable seizure.  They caught these guys red handed and have all the evidence they need to get convictions.  That should be enough.

    Presumably the argument will be that they are trying to find evidence for someone "inciting a riot" but they should be able to solve that part of the case with old fashioned interrogation and deal-making with the hundreds of people they arrested.

    Yes. It is called hard evidence. If you punch someone in face you go to jail. You are lucky that you just go to jail.... some of us are licensed to carry in many states and that may end-up quite differently including search of phones. So let's stop at that.
    So it sounds like if you punch maciekskontakt in the nose you will get shot. Good to know. Interesting to know that he/she considers a nose punch equal force to blowing your brains out with a hand gun. No problem in this country we all love each other and care about each other. Just don't cross me or you will regret it with your life.

    randominternetpersonr00fus1bulk001
  • Reply 11 of 49
    anton zuykovanton zuykov Posts: 1,039member
    bulk001 said:

    What's the legal justification for searching their phones at all?  If I punch you in the face, can the police get a search warrant to search my house?  What does rioting and destruction of property have to do with your personal information and communications?  Searching the phone sounds like an unreasonable search and taking it in the first place seems like an unreasonable seizure.  They caught these guys red handed and have all the evidence they need to get convictions.  That should be enough.

    Presumably the argument will be that they are trying to find evidence for someone "inciting a riot" but they should be able to solve that part of the case with old fashioned interrogation and deal-making with the hundreds of people they arrested.

    Yes. It is called hard evidence. If you punch someone in face you go to jail. You are lucky that you just go to jail.... some of us are licensed to carry in many states and that may end-up quite differently including search of phones. So let's stop at that.
    Yes. A death sentence for throwing a punch. Red America. And red in more ways than one. 
    That is a strawman. If a person throws a punch at you, how do you know what his intentions will be AFTER that punch? Does he wanna throw some more punches and then finish you with a knife, or would one punch be enough? You dont know, but he has already attacked you, so it is reasonable to assume that person wants you dead or injured.
    When you throw a punch at a person, you have just given that person a right to use deadly force, if he can prove later, that it was reasonable for him to think he was in danger. I like that every person has the right to defend himself. Sure, responding with a gun to a fist fight might be an overkill ( no pun intended) but a person with a gun was not the one who had the option of choosing if he wants to start the violence or not. 

    Besides, if you don't wanna get killed for throwing a punch, DONT THROW PUNCHES without a good reason. That might help to pass throw Darwin filter, you know. Just saying....
    edited March 2017 buzdotswatto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 49

    What's the legal justification for searching their phones at all?  If I punch you in the face, can the police get a search warrant to search my house?  What does rioting and destruction of property have to do with your personal information and communications?  Searching the phone sounds like an unreasonable search and taking it in the first place seems like an unreasonable seizure.  They caught these guys red handed and have all the evidence they need to get convictions.  That should be enough.

    Presumably the argument will be that they are trying to find evidence for someone "inciting a riot" but they should be able to solve that part of the case with old fashioned interrogation and deal-making with the hundreds of people they arrested.

    Yes. It is called hard evidence. If you punch someone in face you go to jail. You are lucky that you just go to jail.... some of us are licensed to carry in many states and that may end-up quite differently including search of phones. So let's stop at that.

    Ok, let's just say you missed the point of my comment.  Read Longpath's reply to understand the issue I was raising.
    baconstang
  • Reply 13 of 49
    longpath said:

    What's the legal justification for searching their phones at all?  If I punch you in the face, can the police get a search warrant to search my house?  What does rioting and destruction of property have to do with your personal information and communications?  Searching the phone sounds like an unreasonable search and taking it in the first place seems like an unreasonable seizure.  They caught these guys red handed and have all the evidence they need to get convictions.  That should be enough.

    Presumably the argument will be that they are trying to find evidence for someone "inciting a riot" but they should be able to solve that part of the case with old fashioned interrogation and deal-making with the hundreds of people they arrested.

    My best guess is that they are looking for evidence of collusion, and whether there are any identifiable unindicted co-conspirators. If there turns out to be evidence of collusion, then additional charges would be forthcoming.

    Let's say you punch me in the face and are immediately arrested. Then law enforcement search your home and it turns out that you planned to first disorient me with the punch and then push me in front of a bus or train that you knew the schedule of. Then they would add assault with intent and attempted murder to the charges. If they merely arrested you and prosecuted you for simple assault and battery, then the larger crime would go unprosecuted.

    As for whether police can get a search warranty to search your home if you commit assault and battery outside your home, the answer is yes, they can, as they have probable cause to believe you committed a crime, and there might be evidence that you planned the assault and battery, rather than it being a "crime of passion".

    The legal justification in this case is that there is probable cause to believe the arrested parties committed a crime, and that is all the legal justification required for a search warrant. Whether that level of justification is reasonable or not in a broader context than merely legal justification is something up for debate; but you asked about legal justification, and it simply comes down to whether or not there is probable cause.

    Thanks for the informed response.  I assume (hope) that the context around the hypothetical face punch determines whether a home search is reasonable.  Presumably it would depend on the judge as well.  I would hope that if you and I got into a scuffle at, say, a concert and blows were exchanged, the police wouldn't get warrants to search our homes and phones, but who knows.  Fortunately police are undoubtedly too busy to do home searches in frivolous cases, but checking phones is quick and easy (and just as invasive).
  • Reply 14 of 49
    bulk001 said:

    What's the legal justification for searching their phones at all?  If I punch you in the face, can the police get a search warrant to search my house?  What does rioting and destruction of property have to do with your personal information and communications?  Searching the phone sounds like an unreasonable search and taking it in the first place seems like an unreasonable seizure.  They caught these guys red handed and have all the evidence they need to get convictions.  That should be enough.

    Presumably the argument will be that they are trying to find evidence for someone "inciting a riot" but they should be able to solve that part of the case with old fashioned interrogation and deal-making with the hundreds of people they arrested.

    Yes. It is called hard evidence. If you punch someone in face you go to jail. You are lucky that you just go to jail.... some of us are licensed to carry in many states and that may end-up quite differently including search of phones. So let's stop at that.
    Yes. A death sentence for throwing a punch. Red America. And red in more ways than one. 
    That is a strawman. If a person throws a punch at you, how do you know what his intentions will be AFTER that punch? Does he wanna throw some more punches and then finish you with a knife, or would one punch be enough? You dont know, but he has already attacked you, so it is reasonable to assume that person wants you dead or injured.
    When you throw a punch at a person, you have just given that person a right to use deadly force, if he can prove later, that it was reasonable for him to think he was in danger. I like that every person has the right to defend himself. Sure, responding with a gun to a fist fight might be an overkill ( no pun intended) but a person with a gun was not the one who had the option of choosing if he wants to start the violence or not. 

    Besides, if you don't wanna get killed for throwing a punch, DONT THROW PUNCHES without a good reason. That might help to pass throw Darwin filter, you know. Just saying....
    Exactly right. Not only that, but look at the inordinate amount of youtube videos showing the 'knockout game' where someone coms up to you and intentionally punches you in the head in an attempt to knock you out. There have been cases where such a 'knock out punch' has killed the victim, either by the punch itself or the victim then striking a hard object during the unconscious fall. Some of those videos show the attacker standing over the semi-conscious victim apparently waiting to strike again should the person get up. If that was me on the ground, I'd stay there, draw my Sig and shoot the MF in his grinning face!
    anton zuykovbuzdotsmobirdjony0
  • Reply 15 of 49
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,180member
    peteo said:
    Welcome to the fascist state
    LOL. Lest ye forget, 'twas the previous administration that was revealed as having massive illegal wiretapping and data collection operations in place.
    gtrmac_dog
  • Reply 16 of 49
    spice-boyspice-boy Posts: 832member
    longpath said:

    What's the legal justification for searching their phones at all?  If I punch you in the face, can the police get a search warrant to search my house?  What does rioting and destruction of property have to do with your personal information and communications?  Searching the phone sounds like an unreasonable search and taking it in the first place seems like an unreasonable seizure.  They caught these guys red handed and have all the evidence they need to get convictions.  That should be enough.

    Presumably the argument will be that they are trying to find evidence for someone "inciting a riot" but they should be able to solve that part of the case with old fashioned interrogation and deal-making with the hundreds of people they arrested.

    My best guess is that they are looking for evidence of collusion, and whether there are any identifiable unindicted co-conspirators. If there turns out to be evidence of collusion, then additional charges would be forthcoming.

    Let's say you punch me in the face and are immediately arrested. Then law enforcement search your home and it turns out that you planned to first disorient me with the punch and then push me in front of a bus or train that you knew the schedule of. Then they would add assault with intent and attempted murder to the charges. If they merely arrested you and prosecuted you for simple assault and battery, then the larger crime would go unprosecuted.

    As for whether police can get a search warranty to search your home if you commit assault and battery outside your home, the answer is yes, they can, as they have probable cause to believe you committed a crime, and there might be evidence that you planned the assault and battery, rather than it being a "crime of passion".

    The legal justification in this case is that there is probable cause to believe the arrested parties committed a crime, and that is all the legal justification required for a search warrant. Whether that level of justification is reasonable or not in a broader context than merely legal justification is something up for debate; but you asked about legal justification, and it simply comes down to whether or not there is probable cause.
    What law enforcerment is hoping to achieve here it to label these "violent" protesters as a terror group. This is the first step in curbing our right as citizens to gather in public and protest. I am in no way a supporter of vandalism or "punching someone in the face" even if that person is a neo-nazi however If these illegal searches become the rule going forward then kiss you right to privacy goodbye along with your rights against illegal searches. 
    edited March 2017 randominternetpersonmac_dogapple jockeyzoetmbGeorgeBMac
  • Reply 17 of 49
    kent909kent909 Posts: 709member
    peteo said:
    Welcome to the fascist state
    LOL. Lest ye forget, 'twas the previous administration that was revealed as having massive illegal wiretapping and data collection operations in place.

    That's right! I do remember hearing that on Fox News. Thank you for reminding us of this. Now we can all question and doubt anything that is said thanks to the con man in the WH. There is no truth to anything because we call what is unquestionably the truth a lie. Anything goes. The truth is a thing of the past. Welcome to the Trump Amerika.
    mac_dogmontrosemacsGeorgeBMac
  • Reply 18 of 49
    bulk001 said:

    What's the legal justification for searching their phones at all?  If I punch you in the face, can the police get a search warrant to search my house?  What does rioting and destruction of property have to do with your personal information and communications?  Searching the phone sounds like an unreasonable search and taking it in the first place seems like an unreasonable seizure.  They caught these guys red handed and have all the evidence they need to get convictions.  That should be enough.

    Presumably the argument will be that they are trying to find evidence for someone "inciting a riot" but they should be able to solve that part of the case with old fashioned interrogation and deal-making with the hundreds of people they arrested.

    Yes. It is called hard evidence. If you punch someone in face you go to jail. You are lucky that you just go to jail.... some of us are licensed to carry in many states and that may end-up quite differently including search of phones. So let's stop at that.
    Yes. A death sentence for throwing a punch. Red America. And red in more ways than one. 
    That is a strawman. If a person throws a punch at you, how do you know what his intentions will be AFTER that punch? Does he wanna throw some more punches and then finish you with a knife, or would one punch be enough? You dont know, but he has already attacked you, so it is reasonable to assume that person wants you dead or injured.
    When you throw a punch at a person, you have just given that person a right to use deadly force, if he can prove later, that it was reasonable for him to think he was in danger. I like that every person has the right to defend himself. Sure, responding with a gun to a fist fight might be an overkill ( no pun intended) but a person with a gun was not the one who had the option of choosing if he wants to start the violence or not. 

    Besides, if you don't wanna get killed for throwing a punch, DONT THROW PUNCHES without a good reason. That might help to pass throw Darwin filter, you know. Just saying....


    A major common law case on this issue provides the following rule: ""When a person has reasonable grounds for believing, and does in fact actually believe, that danger of his being killed, or of receiving great bodily harm, is immanent, he may act on such appearances and defend himself, even to the extent of taking human life when necessary, although it may turn out that the appearances were false, or although he may have been mistaken as to the extent of the real actual danger." (emphasis mine)

    This is very different from "if you're scared you can kill someone."  Yes, if some ominous stranger attacks you with a weapon and you're otherwise defenseless, then whipping our your IMI Desert Eagle and blowing his head off would (very likely) be considered justified self-defense.  But without further factors justifying deadly force, your example is not sufficient ("When you throw a punch at a person, you have just given that person a right to use deadly force, if he can prove later, that it was reasonable for him to think he was in danger.").  For example, if you have 10 friends with you and some wimpy dude slaps you, you would be hard pressed to prove that it was necessary to kill him rather than avail yourself of some less drastic form of self defense.


    redraider11
  • Reply 19 of 49
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,180member
    kent909 said:
    peteo said:
    Welcome to the fascist state
    LOL. Lest ye forget, 'twas the previous administration that was revealed as having massive illegal wiretapping and data collection operations in place.

    That's right! I do remember hearing that on Fox News. Thank you for reminding us of this. Now we can all question and doubt anything that is said thanks to the con man in the WH. There is no truth to anything because we call what is unquestionably the truth a lie. Anything goes. The truth is a thing of the past. Welcome to the Trump Amerika.
    You didn't hear it from Fox News, you heard it from Ed Snowden and Wikileaks, buddy.
    mobirdwaterrockets
  • Reply 20 of 49
    anton zuykovanton zuykov Posts: 1,039member
    bulk001 said:

    What's the legal justification for searching their phones at all?  If I punch you in the face, can the police get a search warrant to search my house?  What does rioting and destruction of property have to do with your personal information and communications?  Searching the phone sounds like an unreasonable search and taking it in the first place seems like an unreasonable seizure.  They caught these guys red handed and have all the evidence they need to get convictions.  That should be enough.

    Presumably the argument will be that they are trying to find evidence for someone "inciting a riot" but they should be able to solve that part of the case with old fashioned interrogation and deal-making with the hundreds of people they arrested.

    Yes. It is called hard evidence. If you punch someone in face you go to jail. You are lucky that you just go to jail.... some of us are licensed to carry in many states and that may end-up quite differently including search of phones. So let's stop at that.
    Yes. A death sentence for throwing a punch. Red America. And red in more ways than one. 
    That is a strawman. If a person throws a punch at you, how do you know what his intentions will be AFTER that punch? Does he wanna throw some more punches and then finish you with a knife, or would one punch be enough? You dont know, but he has already attacked you, so it is reasonable to assume that person wants you dead or injured.
    When you throw a punch at a person, you have just given that person a right to use deadly force, if he can prove later, that it was reasonable for him to think he was in danger. I like that every person has the right to defend himself. Sure, responding with a gun to a fist fight might be an overkill ( no pun intended) but a person with a gun was not the one who had the option of choosing if he wants to start the violence or not. 

    Besides, if you don't wanna get killed for throwing a punch, DONT THROW PUNCHES without a good reason. That might help to pass throw Darwin filter, you know. Just saying....


    A major common law case on this issue provides the following rule: "When a person has reasonable grounds for believing, and does in fact actually believe", that danger of his being killed, or of receiving great bodily harm, is immanent, he may act on such appearances and defend himself, even to the extent of taking human life when necessary, although it may turn out that the appearances were false, or although he may have been mistaken as to the extent of the real actual danger." (emphasis mine)

    "

    Another strawman.
    That person is scared for his life. That is what "When a person has reasonable grounds for believing, and does in fact actually believe" actually means.
Sign In or Register to comment.