Drive-by shooting suspect remotely wipes iPhone X, catches extra charges

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 35
    hodarhodar Posts: 338member
    genovelle said:
    There was is another possibility. iPhones can be set to automatically remote wipe after 10 failed attempts to open it. That may or may not include Face ID attempts. 

    There would be a datafile showing that the wipe was initiated by an iCloud event.  The IP address would be in this datafile, as well as the time the request was made.  Pretty much an open/shut case.  And all of it recoverable by the police with a subpeona - as she just gave the judge ample reason to have this data subpeonaed.  All the police have to do is request a iCloud backup prior to her wipe.
    Pretty basic stuff.
    lostkiwi
  • Reply 22 of 35
    hodarhodar Posts: 338member
    kent909 said:
    She had to wipe the phone because there was a video of the drive by that would prove she was the one /S. It is quite a jump to automatically assume that there would be something on the phone that would incriminate her. If you are talking about text messages or phone calls he NSA already has those so what is the problem.  :p
    Well, factually speaking - idiots have been known to do exactly that - record themselves doing something like this - like raping a young girl.

    But the phone also has proximity information, such as the route you took previously, or message datestamps (which are then triangulated by looking at the towers that were involved).  And, if the phone was in the area, at the time of the drive-by - well, you now have data that the suspect was in the proximity at the time and place of the event.
  • Reply 23 of 35
    You would think in general that once something was seized by the police for evidence it should be kept detaached from the network.  Even without criminal intent, software updates and iCloud syncing updates could effectively alter evidence contained within an active cell phone.
    bonobobarlomedia
  • Reply 24 of 35
    hodar said:
    kent909 said:
    She had to wipe the phone because there was a video of the drive by that would prove she was the one /S. It is quite a jump to automatically assume that there would be something on the phone that would incriminate her. If you are talking about text messages or phone calls he NSA already has those so what is the problem.  :p
    Well, factually speaking - idiots have been known to do exactly that - record themselves doing something like this - like raping a young girl.

    But the phone also has proximity information, such as the route you took previously, or message datestamps (which are then triangulated by looking at the towers that were involved).  And, if the phone was in the area, at the time of the drive-by - well, you now have data that the suspect was in the proximity at the time and place of the event.
    It's getting tougher and tougher to a criminal nowadays.  Imagine trying to be a hitman hitperson and balancing the desire to have all the latest tech to facilitate receiving and completing assignments with the crippling digital paper trail that leaves behind.  
  • Reply 25 of 35
    hodar said:
    kent909 said:
    She had to wipe the phone because there was a video of the drive by that would prove she was the one /S. It is quite a jump to automatically assume that there would be something on the phone that would incriminate her. If you are talking about text messages or phone calls he NSA already has those so what is the problem.  :p
    Well, factually speaking - idiots have been known to do exactly that - record themselves doing something like this - like raping a young girl.

    But the phone also has proximity information, such as the route you took previously, or message datestamps (which are then triangulated by looking at the towers that were involved).  And, if the phone was in the area, at the time of the drive-by - well, you now have data that the suspect was in the proximity at the time and place of the event.
    Delete all the data you want, and the cellular provider will still know exactly what cell towers have been used by the phone during the period in question. These data can be subpoenaed.
  • Reply 26 of 35
    This is a NO BRAINER and really nothing to debate.
    It is Black and White

    Yes, Destroy the papers with a self destruct button !
    Yes, Remotely wipe away the finger prints off, from a crime scene !
    Yes, Delete all the info from your iPhone, however possible !
    Yes, Pray the police loose your iPhone (or Any evidence), over having that damaging evidence used against you !

    and YES, let the Judicial System throw the book at her, for whatever crimes she is found guilty, to the Nth degree, deservingly !!!

    BUT
    Attempted Murder vs Obstruction of Justice ??
    Please let me know Which of you, would want to be sentenced for
    Attempted Murder, vs Obstruction of Justice ??      ….No Matter What ?!?!?
    edited November 2018
  • Reply 27 of 35
    Soli said:
    genovelle said:
    There was is another possibility. iPhones can be set to automatically remote wipe after 10 failed attempts to open it. That may or may not include Face ID attempts. 
    They could be lying and their other lack of modern protocols does lean toward them triggering the wipe themselves as a possibility, but the article seems very clear that the police are claiming "that she triggered a remote wipe,' which would be easy for her lawyer to prove.
    Apple can prove that either way very easily. Logs from the servers receiving the wipe request would be easy to obtain. And I am pretty sure Apple would gladly provide that info to the LE and/or to her lawyer.
  • Reply 28 of 35
    sandorsandor Posts: 598member
    payeco said:
    They’re having drive by shootings in Schenectady now?

    Schenectady's crime rate has consistently been near or at the top of the list in New York state.

  • Reply 29 of 35
    macguimacgui Posts: 2,071member
    Local law enforcement is just coming around to fully understanding technology and keeping up with it.

    The X may have had the '10 attempts' feature enabled. If police looked at the phone 10 times, that would be enough to wipe the phone. Lately, various police departments have been warning staff not to look at phones when seizing them. Still, old habits die hard. As stated, it will be easy to determine when and how the wipe took place. Who, maybe not as easy. '10 people have my Apple ID.'  If enabled, would 2FA be needed for a wipe? 

    Once the phone is seized as evidence, a warrant is needed to breach it (if possible). The affidavit for warrant needs to convince a judge (some are more easily convinced than others) that there is relevant information on the phone such as Reminders— 'Sat 10:00PM Drive car for drive-by to kill Freddy dead'. Sometimes it's a logical leap to examine a phone, sometimes it's a fishing exhibition.

    Some supplier(s) will start making good money as law enforcement starts buying 'Faraday' level isolation bags, just like latex gloves, fingerprint tape, booties, etc. Crime scene techs will have them, but first responder cops will need them. Police academies will teach cellphone-seizing techniques.

    'Hey, you guys have the gun I shot Freddy with, in his alleged murder. Could I see it for a minute? I just want to wrap it in this microfiber cloth so it doesn't rust while I'm waiting to go to trial. It'll just be a minute...'
  • Reply 30 of 35
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,029member
    Soli said:
    I can definitely see how she can be charged with impeding an investigation (assuming it can be reasonably proven that she did the remote wipe), but I wonder if there is legal precedence that this would also be tampering with police evidence since it's digital data and there was no direct contact with the device. It is 2018 so I'd expect there is by now, but I've never read about it.

    The Gazette is right about the police not properly protecting their evidence. If the courts ultimately throw out the iPhone as evidence it's on them and I hope they learn from their mistakes so that future criminals can be charged and convicted accordingly.
    Well, if I was her lawyer the approach I would take, the police would have to prove it was evidence and there was evidence on the phone. It like you shredding your paper work yin your file drawers, and it is just old utilities bills and had nothing to do with the crime than you can be charged with tampering with evidences. The Government has the burned of proof to show it was evidence.

    I will say this much, if she did in fact remote whipped, she smarter than the average criminal. 
    viclauyyc
  • Reply 31 of 35
    There is another disturbing possible precedent on this. If remote wiping a phone can be considered "tampering with evidence" or "hindering an investigation" how long before the "click five times to disable FaceID" is *also* considered "hindering an investigation"? Or, for that matter, purposefully putting a wrong finger onto the TouchID sensor or keeping your eyes closed to force your phone to default to a password? I forsee a long and profitable future for tech-savvy attorneys in the next several years.
  • Reply 32 of 35
    rob53 said:
    It's her phone. She can do anything she wants with it. How can this be evidence tampering when the 5th amendment protects you? I don't condone illegal things but she has every right to protect her personal things. When a criminal wipes their fingerprints from a crime scene is that tampering with evidence?

    I'm sure this will be used by government officials to demand that Apple disable this privacy and security feature. 
    Much the same as shredding documents is a normal office activity until you're told that there's an investigation and that you must stop. I've worked at companies where we've gotten emails that the company was being sued and that we should stop deleting documents because there was an investigation going on.
  • Reply 33 of 35
    rob53 said:
    It's her phone. She can do anything she wants with it. How can this be evidence tampering when the 5th amendment protects you? I don't condone illegal things but she has every right to protect her personal things. When a criminal wipes their fingerprints from a crime scene is that tampering with evidence?

    I'm sure this will be used by government officials to demand that Apple disable this privacy and security feature. 
    What you think the law should be is not the same as what the law (and precedent) actually says.
    edited November 2018 Soli
  • Reply 34 of 35
    Normally the tool is intended for people with lost or stolen devices.

    No it's intended for people who want to remotely wipe their phone.
    Soli
  • Reply 35 of 35
    macguimacgui Posts: 2,071member
    maestro64 said:
    Well, if I was her lawyer the approach I would take, the police would have to prove it was evidence and there was evidence on the phone. It like you shredding your paper work yin your file drawers, and it is just old utilities bills and had nothing to do with the crime than you can be charged with tampering with evidences. The Government has the burned of proof to show it was evidence.

    I will say this much, if she did in fact remote whipped, she smarter than the average criminal. 
    Well, you obviously have had zero experience with dealing with evidence, and even less knowledge of what evidence is.

    Your analogy of 'shredding paper work' in your home or office is not the same as tampering with something seized as evidence by police and in police custody.

    Certainly police have to prove their case. But items in their custody are evidence. Whether or not it is admissible is where lawyering comes in.

    Regardless of evidentiary value, tampering with it while in police custody would be a crime itself. If acquitted of the shooting participation, the tampering of evidence, often charged as obstruction of justice,  could be dropped 'in the interest of justice'.
Sign In or Register to comment.