Rudy Giuliani says warrant illegal since agents already had data 'from the iCloud'

AppleInsider

Rudy Giuliani said a raid on his home Wednesday was unconstitutional because federal agencies had already obtained his data "from the iCloud."

Credit: NY1

The former New York mayor and attorney for Donald Trump said that FBI agents arrived at this house early Wednesday morning with a warrant for electronic devices. On Thursday evening, Giuliani appeared on Fox News Thursday to explain his side of the story.

Giuliani said that the federal agents took "seven or eight electronic items of mine," according to Mediaite. After they declined to take two or three hard drives, Giuliani says that he urged them to reconsider, claiming that they belonged to Hunter Biden.

Giuliani claimed that the warrant was "completely illegal," stating that the only way for law enforcement to get a search warrant is to "show that there is evidence that the person is going to destroy the evidence, or is going to run away with the evidence." Giuliani's interpretation of the use of search warrants and why they are issued does not appear consistent with New York or Federal law, as it pertains to digital media and devices.

Additionally, Giuliani claimed that the warrant wasn't necessary because the Department of Justice had already gathered data from Apple's cloud services.

"And they also got it from the iCloud," Giuliani told Fox News, gesturing up at the sky. "So there was no -- there was no justification for that warrant. It is an illegal, unconstitutional warrant."

Giuliani: They also got it from the icloud *gestures upwards* pic.twitter.com/meN4c0zG3D

-- Acyn (@Acyn)

April 30, 2021

A lawyer for Giuliani on also said that federal agents had penetrated his iCloud account long before the search warrant was executed on Wednesday, The Daily Beast reported Thursday. It isn't clear what "penetrated" means as presented by Giuliani's lawyer, but Apple has an entire division that responds to search warrants served on the company.

Apple does not casually provide iCloud data to law enforcement agencies. It will hand over information stored in the cloud if served with a subpoena or warrant.

Among other data, iCloud accounts can store information such as photos, text messages, emails, app data, and App Store purchase history. It also isn't specifically clear what Giuliani was referring to, when he said that the Department of Justice had all his data from iCloud.

The Cupertino tech giant publishes a report twice a year detailing both government and private requests for user data. According to the latest report, data requests were down from the prior six-month period.

crowley

What a clown 

tnet-primary

There is literally no reason for this to be an article on AI.  Because he used the term “iCloud” in his argument?   And the last three paragraphs of the article - general commentary on Apple’s work with government requests - have been covered, ad nauseam, in other pieces.  

Stay out of politics, please.

jbock

tnet-primary said:

There is literally no reason for this to be an article on AI.  Because he used the term “iCloud” in his argument?   And the last three paragraphs of the article - general commentary on Apple’s work with government requests - have been covered, ad nauseam, in other pieces.  

Stay out of politics, please.

Staying out of politics is not a reasonable request. a few examples worth covering:
Apple's compliance with a range of government requests for data, censorship, alterations to device security, etc.
Tax incentives / other programs in US and overseas that impact the company

rob53

tnet-primary said:

There is literally no reason for this to be an article on AI.  Because he used the term “iCloud” in his argument?   And the last three paragraphs of the article - general commentary on Apple’s work with government requests - have been covered, ad nauseam, in other pieces.  

Stay out of politics, please.

Since when has AI stayed out of politics. They usually just turn comments off. I would like to have seen AI go into more depth on what's actually stored on iCloud vs what's only on the iPhone. This would have been the perfect article for AI to present regardless of who owned the iPhone. 

Speaking of Rudy, if he knows so much about an iPhone and iCloud, he should have taken precautions and not stored his backup and, maybe photos, on iCloud. Store them only on your Mac/PC and make sure they're encrypted. 

Mike Wuerthele

tnet-primary said:

There is literally no reason for this to be an article on AI.  Because he used the term “iCloud” in his argument?   And the last three paragraphs of the article - general commentary on Apple’s work with government requests - have been covered, ad nauseam, in other pieces.  

Stay out of politics, please.

We have very frequently been requested to increase our coverage of Apple as it relates to political matters. In fact, those requests greatly outnumber the times that we have been asked to stop doing so. And, I'm not sure why you're calling this "political" because our coverage on this is not that in any way.

You'll probably find that the other coverage of this particular matter in other venues exclude "general commentary on Apple’s work with government requests" -- which is the entire point of the matter.

crowley

tnet-primary said:

There is literally no reason for this to be an article on AI.  Because he used the term “iCloud” in his argument?   And the last three paragraphs of the article - general commentary on Apple’s work with government requests - have been covered, ad nauseam, in other pieces.  

Stay out of politics, please.

You read it.  If you don't like content like this then don't read it in future.  Some times the simplest solutions are the best ones.

Mike Wuerthele

rob53 said:

tnet-primary said:

There is literally no reason for this to be an article on AI.  Because he used the term “iCloud” in his argument?   And the last three paragraphs of the article - general commentary on Apple’s work with government requests - have been covered, ad nauseam, in other pieces.  

Stay out of politics, please.

Since when has AI stayed out of politics. They usually just turn comments off. I would like to have seen AI go into more depth on what's actually stored on iCloud vs what's only on the iPhone. This would have been the perfect article for AI to present regardless of who owned the iPhone. 

Speaking of Rudy, if he knows so much about an iPhone and iCloud, he should have taken precautions and not stored his backup and, maybe photos, on iCloud. Store them only on your Mac/PC and make sure they're encrypted. 

They very nearly always start open, but when forum-goer behavior makes them no longer cost-effective to moderate, they get closed.

In regards to what's stored in iCloud, versus what's only on the iPhone -- there is a list in the piece. As it pertains to "app data" - this depends on the app in question, and there is no real way to list what's stored there by every individual app. As a general rule, if there is an "iCloud sync" option in the app, Apple holds that data and will provide it upon subpoena.

mac_dog

None of this really matters. Since there’s no accountability for the elite, it’s like pissing in the wind. And, when I think about it, a complete waste of taxpayer dollars. But if it gets him closer to an embolism or stroke, then it will have been worth it. 

harry wild

"Giuliani said that the federal agents took "seven or eight electronic items of mine," according to Mediaite. After they declined to take two or three hard drives, Giuliani says that he urged them to reconsider, claiming that they belonged to Hunter Biden."

FBI was told ahead of time to dig into Rudy Giuliani but to leave Hunter Biden's stuff alone!  FBI and Justice Department appearingly not interested in investigating Hunter Biden at all, only Giuliani and Trump!

AppleZulu

Mike Wuerthele said:

tnet-primary said:

There is literally no reason for this to be an article on AI.  Because he used the term “iCloud” in his argument?   And the last three paragraphs of the article - general commentary on Apple’s work with government requests - have been covered, ad nauseam, in other pieces.  

Stay out of politics, please.

We have very frequently been requested to increase our coverage of Apple as it relates to political matters. In fact, those requests greatly outnumber the times that we have been asked to stop doing so. And, I'm not sure why you're calling this "political" because our coverage on this is not that in any way.

You'll probably find that the other coverage of this particular matter in other venues exclude "general commentary on Apple’s work with government requests" -- which is the entire point of the matter.

Indeed, the description of Apple’s approach to government requests for user data is pointedly relevant to Giuliani’s claims about how that info was obtained. Specifically, Giuliani claims the data was obtained illegally, but yet Apple’s policy is to not release anything without legal warrants. This would suggest that Giuliani’s claims are perhaps not truthful. Despite suggestions otherwise, providing factual information is not political. Taking sides with the truth only becomes political to a political “side” that chooses not to stick with the truth. 

mac_dog

harry wild said:

FBI was told ahead of time to dig into Rudy Giuliani stuff but to leave Hunter Biden's stuff alone!  FBI and Justice Department not interested in investigating Hunter Biden, only Giuliani and Trump matters.

If true, I would agree. But can you provide a link to substantiate? I’m not being disagreeable, just thorough. 

thedba

harry wild said:

FBI was told ahead of time to dig into Rudy Giuliani stuff but to leave Hunter Biden's stuff alone!  FBI and Justice Department not interested in investigating Hunter Biden, only Giuliani and Trump matters.

Oh boy! Here we go.  

dominikhoffmann

tnet-primary said:

There is literally no reason for this to be an article on AI.  Because he used the term “iCloud” in his argument?   And the last three paragraphs of the article - general commentary on Apple’s work with government requests - have been covered, ad nauseam, in other pieces.  

Stay out of politics, please.

I have to side with tnet-primary on this. Even the wording of the headline indicates an intent to ridicule the man for the inclusion of the definite article. For perspective, the man is in his mid-70s and could be some of you guys’ great-grandfather. For most of his career he probably had a secretary handling the technology of communication, like typewriters, faxes, telex and such. Not being as savvy technologically doesn’t make him a clown nor dumb.

He could probably run rings around any of you in matters of the law, especially criminal law.

retrogusto

harry wild said:

"Giuliani said that the federal agents took "seven or eight electronic items of mine," according to Mediaite. After they declined to take two or three hard drives, Giuliani says that he urged them to reconsider, claiming that they belonged to Hunter Biden."

FBI was told ahead of time to dig into Rudy Giuliani but to leave Hunter Biden's stuff alone!  FBI and Justice Department appearingly not interested in investigating Hunter Biden at all, only Giuliani and Trump!

I don’t see how this makes sense. If Giuliani had Hunter Biden’s property, why would he admit it, and why wouldn’t the agents follow up on his confession to possession of stolen property? That would be a serious crime by itself, especially if it was part of an attempt to influence the election. And if they are seizing phones, computers, etc., do you think they would take Giuliani’s word for who owned the drives and what was on them, and just ignore any potential evidence that Giuliani told them was irrelevant to their interests? Do you suppose certain drives in his possession said “Property of Hunter Biden” on them, so the agents knew what to safely ignore? Otherwise, it’s pretty hard to guess what’s in a hard drive just by looking at it from the outside. The whole idea is preposterous, and I don’t see how anybody could believe it.

Mike Wuerthele

dominikhoffmann said:

tnet-primary said:

There is literally no reason for this to be an article on AI.  Because he used the term “iCloud” in his argument?   And the last three paragraphs of the article - general commentary on Apple’s work with government requests - have been covered, ad nauseam, in other pieces.  

Stay out of politics, please.

I have to side with tnet-primary on this. Even the wording of the headline indicates an intent to ridicule the man for the inclusion of the definite article. For perspective, the man is in his mid-70s and could be some of you guys’ great-grandfather. For most of his career he probably had a secretary handling the technology of communication, like typewriters, faxes, telex and such. Not being as savvy technologically doesn’t make him a clown nor dumb.

He could probably run rings around any of you in matters of the law, especially criminal law.

What I've bolded in the quote of your post is an incredibly bad interpretation of the headline.

If we wanted to mock him, we'd have left no doubt that was the intent.

In regards to "matters of the law" - maybe. But 1) we aren't Criminal Law Insider, and 2) You'd think he'd know that the criteria for a search warrant for digital devices isn't limited to folks that might destroy the info, and isn't blocked because you have incomplete digital data (like what's stored in iCloud) gathered by law enforcement elsewhere.

AppleZulu

dominikhoffmann said:

tnet-primary said:

There is literally no reason for this to be an article on AI.  Because he used the term “iCloud” in his argument?   And the last three paragraphs of the article - general commentary on Apple’s work with government requests - have been covered, ad nauseam, in other pieces.  

Stay out of politics, please.

I have to side with tnet-primary on this. Even the wording of the headline indicates an intent to ridicule the man for the inclusion of the definite article. For perspective, the man is in his mid-70s and could be some of you guys’ great-grandfather. For most of his career he probably had a secretary handling the technology of communication, like typewriters, faxes, telex and such. Not being as savvy technologically doesn’t make him a clown nor dumb.

He could probably run rings around any of you in matters of the law, especially criminal law.

You might have had a point there if only Giuliani hadn’t been appointed by the previous President as Cyber Security Advisor, and he accepted that appointment. This would suggest both he and the President believed he has qualifications and technical knowledge that go beyond a great-grampa who always had a secretary to handle the new-fangled technical stuff for him. If, on the other hand, he took such an appointment without even a basic understanding of such things, perhaps that lack of knowledge and qualifications is a proper subject for criticism. 

rotateleftbyte

It might be that the search warrant served on Mr Running Hair Dye, specifically excluded any hard drives that didn't belong to him. If those drives did belong to Hunter Biden then if they were seized then that could be grounds to invalidate the whole warrant.

All speculation naturally. We don't know if there was a separate warrant served on Apple for the iCloud stuff.

There is a lot more to come out in this case.

genovelle

harry wild said:

"Giuliani said that the federal agents took "seven or eight electronic items of mine," according to Mediaite. After they declined to take two or three hard drives, Giuliani says that he urged them to reconsider, claiming that they belonged to Hunter Biden."

FBI was told ahead of time to dig into Rudy Giuliani but to leave Hunter Biden's stuff alone!  FBI and Justice Department appearingly not interested in investigating Hunter Biden at all, only Giuliani and Trump!

If there is a warrant it request specific items and only those items. He is just trying to create a smoke screen for his dirty deeds. Why would he have actual hard drives from Hunter Biden in his possession when his boss was still President for months even before the election. If this was not total BS Trump’s Justice department would have had these in October at the latest. That’s over 6 months ago and 3 months before the new administration took over. Clearly even the loyal DOJ inserts were unwilling to participate in these false cases and end up in prison along side this one. 

dysamoria

AppleZulu said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

tnet-primary said:

There is literally no reason for this to be an article on AI.  Because he used the term “iCloud” in his argument?   And the last three paragraphs of the article - general commentary on Apple’s work with government requests - have been covered, ad nauseam, in other pieces.  

Stay out of politics, please.

We have very frequently been requested to increase our coverage of Apple as it relates to political matters. In fact, those requests greatly outnumber the times that we have been asked to stop doing so. And, I'm not sure why you're calling this "political" because our coverage on this is not that in any way.

You'll probably find that the other coverage of this particular matter in other venues exclude "general commentary on Apple’s work with government requests" -- which is the entire point of the matter.

Indeed, the description of Apple’s approach to government requests for user data is pointedly relevant to Giuliani’s claims about how that info was obtained. Specifically, Giuliani claims the data was obtained illegally, but yet Apple’s policy is to not release anything without legal warrants. This would suggest that Giuliani’s claims are perhaps not truthful. Despite suggestions otherwise, providing factual information is not political. Taking sides with the truth only becomes political to a political “side” that chooses not to stick with the truth. 

Thank you for this comment.

longfang

harry wild said:

"Giuliani said that the federal agents took "seven or eight electronic items of mine," according to Mediaite. After they declined to take two or three hard drives, Giuliani says that he urged them to reconsider, claiming that they belonged to Hunter Biden."

FBI was told ahead of time to dig into Rudy Giuliani but to leave Hunter Biden's stuff alone!  FBI and Justice Department appearingly not interested in investigating Hunter Biden at all, only Giuliani and Trump!

Well then old Rudy should have told them the phones belong to Hunter as well.