Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Google Your Rights Online

FBI Tries To Force Google To Unlock User's Android Phone 385

Posted by samzenpus
from the open-says-me dept.
Trailrunner7 writes "Those multi-gesture passcode locks on Android phones that give users (and their spouses) fits apparently present quite a challenge for the FBI as well. Frustrated by a swipe passcode on the seized phone of an alleged gang leader, FBI officials have requested a search warrant that would force Google to 'provide law enforcement with any and all means of gaining access, including login and password information, password reset, and/or manufacturer default code ("PUK"), in order to obtain the complete contents of the memory of cellular telephone.' The request is part of a case involving an alleged gang leader and human trafficker named Dante Dears in California. Dears served several years in prison for his role in founding a gang in California called PhD, and upon his release he went back to his activities with the gang, according to the FBI's affidavit."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FBI Tries To Force Google To Unlock User's Android Phone

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14, 2012 @07:06PM (#39359347)

    is becoming ever more important. In fact, it will soon replace the constitution as the thing you can always depend upon.

    H.

  • Ars Technica Lnk (Score:5, Informative)

    by DarkHelmet (120004) <.mark. .at. .seventhcycle.net.> on Wednesday March 14, 2012 @07:07PM (#39359355) Homepage

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/03/fbi-stumped-by-pimps-androids-pattern-lock-serves-warrant-on-google.ars [arstechnica.com]

    The one thing I found amusing about the whole thing is that PhD supposedly stood for "Pimpin' Hoes Daily". Then I read this:

    Her $500 a night went straight to Dears, though, who "took care of her" in his own special way. As San Diego's Union Tribune reported, Dears found out the woman had spoken to a man who wanted to help her get off the streets. So Dears "beat her up in the back seat of his Cadillac and then forced her to get into the car's trunk, she testified. While in the trunk, she was driven from East Main Street in El Cajon to Hotel Circle in Mission Valley, she testified."

    Major league asshole. I hope he gets the book thrown at him.

    • Re:Ars Technica Lnk (Score:5, Interesting)

      by yurtinus (1590157) on Wednesday March 14, 2012 @07:15PM (#39359437)
      I wonder how much rage we'll see in the discussion on this article... Now, not that I'm a lawyer or anything, but it looks like a properly served warrant for access to a specific device. Pretty much exactly what I would expect (and want!!) law enforcement to do while investigating a crime. I suppose it remains to be seen if the information they get allows them to unlock an arbitrary Android device or just this one.
      • Re:Ars Technica Lnk (Score:5, Informative)

        by oakgrove (845019) on Wednesday March 14, 2012 @07:22PM (#39359493)
        When you try and fail to unlock an Android device enough times and fail it just asks for your gmail password. I doubt Google will do anything more than give them that which would be pretty worthless against any other Android phone.
        • Re:Ars Technica Lnk (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14, 2012 @07:33PM (#39359577)
          I would hope that Google doesn't know my gmail password. I hope they use some security system that is similar to a salted one way hash. For example with Windows, the password is not known by the domain controller and it cannot be retrieved (short of doing dictionary hacks against the hashing function). I'd expect Google to be even more secure there and not have access to my password. Now, they could absolutely RESET my password. That's a different ball game than being able to produce my existing password on demand. One is scary. The other is just inevitable.
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward

            Resetting the gmail password won't help if the phone is locked. The phone still needs the old password to unlock it.

          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward

            To use google (ldap) directory sync with google apps, you need to use unsalted SHA1, or cleartext passwords in the directory you wish to sync.

            So, maybe? maybe not.

            BTW, windows does _not_ use salted passwords, that is why it is so fast/easy to crack windows passwords-- since you _can_ use precomputed hashes in a rainbow table, unlike pretty much any other OS.

            Also, windows has an option to use reversible passwords in AD.

            • Re:Ars Technica Lnk (Score:5, Informative)

              by swillden (191260) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Wednesday March 14, 2012 @10:44PM (#39360747) Homepage Journal

              To use google (ldap) directory sync with google apps, you need to use unsalted SHA1, or cleartext passwords in the directory you wish to sync.

              That doesn't mean Google stores unsalted hashes or cleartext, it just means that whatever Google stores is computable from those.

              (Disclaimer: I work for Google, on security stuff, but I don't know anything about how user passwords are stored. I will say that storing unsalted hashes or cleartext would be very out of character for Google. Google tends towards great caution when it comes to security, and employs a lot of serious security experts and cryptographers.)

      • by russotto (537200) on Wednesday March 14, 2012 @07:23PM (#39359499) Journal

        Now, not that I'm a lawyer or anything, but it looks like a properly served warrant for access to a specific device.

        Well, first of all, it's a rubber stamped warrant. Literally.

        Second, Google is unlikely to have some of the information requested; the PUK of the SIM would be known by the SIM manufacturer, not the maker of the phone's operating system. Same goes for text messaging; it goes through the carrier, not Google.

        Third, the records are unlikely to be physically at Google Legal Investigations Support.

        Fourth, some of the "items requested" amount to a fishing expedition -- so much for "particular" descriptions of the places to be searched or items seized.

        • Re:Ars Technica Lnk (Score:5, Informative)

          by EdIII (1114411) on Wednesday March 14, 2012 @07:30PM (#39359561)

          It should not be that much of a problem for Google then.

          There lawyers could just have fun with it. A nice lunch with some IT guys and a hour or so later you have a well written response with supporting documentation on why the FBI are complete technology retards.

          They could have a few pages on how PUK and SIM actually work, and even being helpful, list contact information for the manufacturers.

          Judge would just love reading that the FBI was wasting the courts time because they could not even figure out who to serve a warrant to. :)

        • Re:Ars Technica Lnk (Score:5, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14, 2012 @07:49PM (#39359693)

          The PUK is also unnecessary since it's only used to unlock the phone's SIM card (and hence it's contacts.) If you fail too many times it self-destructs.

          The Wireless provider knows the PUK as it's based on the serial number of the sim card, so Google certainly wouldn't have it.

          Text messages are bit of a "maybe yes", while they are transmitted through the carrier, for billing purposes, the carrier has no way of reading them unless they've been stored. Having worked for AT&T, their customer service software, and all the support software doesn't let you read text messages, but it does let you send text messages anonymously to phones. If you're a technical staffer who can manually provision phones, you may have access to the SMS in-transit, but I don't think they're stored unless the FBI has been requiring it.

          The actual storage of SMS messages are on the phone/SIM if not deleted. It largely depends on what the phone's software is setup to do. On early Motorola and Nokia phones, all the contacts were stored on the SIM card, but on later models (post 2005) they are stored in the phone memory by default.

          So there's no need to get the SIM card PUK, It's just the easiest way to bypass the PIN password. If you remove the sim card and replace it with another one without a PIN, it will give you access to the phone and all it's data anyway. Depending on the device, you may have better luck simply syncing the device to a computer.

          As for what you can do with a stolen/lost phone, not a hell of a lot. If you're looking to wipe it so you can keep it, it's much easier to do that, than to use it for identity theft. As a golden rule, I never "save my password" on any device. I'd rather a lost device be wiped than someone using the data for nefarious purposes.

          • by sg_oneill (159032)

            Its a bit more complicated than that with SMS. SMS isn't a point-to-point protocol, if the reciever isn't available, it stores somewhere and waits its turn. Its then up to the implementation as to whether its filed away in some database or deleted. SMS's are tiny little messages so its not certain that it would be delted. On the other hand theres no overwhelming reason not to delete either , unless some sort of data retention mandate is in place.

            I do not believe any of the current generation of smart-phones

        • by msobkow (48369)

          The defendant will always claim a warrant was "rubber stamped."

          But at least it's some sort of oversight on the process, and beats the heck out of the "security first" fanatics who keep wanting to remove the "obstruction" of a warrant completely.

        • by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland AT yahoo DOT com> on Wednesday March 14, 2012 @10:00PM (#39360535) Homepage Journal

          I can not believe you are modded up.

          A) They have cause. AS in peple testifing against him, accusing him.

          B) They know he did business on his phone

          D) It's not a fishing hunt. It is a normal, reasonable and valid request.

          The only question is 'Do they need permission for a wiretap'?

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by elbonia (2452474)
          What is "rubber stamped" on the warrant since it was when he was caught lying to his parole officer and violating parole? "Dears had denied to his parole officer that he owned a mobile phone, and in January the parole officer went to Dears's apartment and seized the phone."
          • Re:Ars Technica Lnk (Score:4, Informative)

            by darkmeridian (119044) <william@chuang.gmail@com> on Thursday March 15, 2012 @09:45AM (#39363981) Homepage

            Also, note that under the Constitution, parolees are afforded less civil liberties in return for early release. Parole officers can do a lot of stuff that would normally require a warrant. Certainly, prisoners don't have a right against search and seizure of their cells. Therefore, parolees aren't protected against illegal search and seizure of their personal property. In this case, the government has all sorts of strong corroborating evidence in support of their warrant.

            Thus, I'm not too worried about this. It isn't a warrantless search against some innocent guy. It's a well-supported motion against a guy who is on parole for doing lots of shitty things, which means that he was jailed, then released conditionally on him not continuing his asshat activities, and it seems that he has violated the terms of his parole.

      • by amiga3D (567632) on Wednesday March 14, 2012 @07:29PM (#39359543)

        Exactly! This is how law enforcement is supposed to act. They have a suspect, they provide reasons to a judge, get a warrant and Google opens the device. If you're involved in crime don't keep anything incriminating on your phone. I mean really, these are the kinds of assholes law enforcement should be locking up.

        • "Asshole"? Really? My limited understanding is that he is an innocent person until found otherwise, no?

          It is all too easy to cast allegations around. At this stage he is not an "asshole" but instead a wholly innocent person accused of serious crimes.

          • Re:Ars Technica Lnk (Score:4, Informative)

            by Obfuscant (592200) on Wednesday March 14, 2012 @08:36PM (#39360025)

            "Asshole"? Really? My limited understanding is that he is an innocent person until found otherwise, no?

            No. He's either guilty or not. He cannot be innocent today and then guilty tomorrow for something he did last week.

            The legal system is required to treat him as not until proven otherwise. That, however, does NOT mean that the legal system cannot get a search warrant to obtain evidence that can be used in a court to allow the court to make that determination, so even the claim "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply here.

            As for how the rest of the world treats him, we have no limits on calling him guilty because we aren't the legal system.

            • by wrook (134116) on Thursday March 15, 2012 @01:41AM (#39361507) Homepage

              You certainly do have limits in most countries. Calling someone guilty of a crime in public may very well be libel or slander. If the person is declared innocent in a trial your assertion that they are guilty could land you in hot water.

              I haven't even RTFA so I have absolutely no clue one way or another. But it isn't unheard of for the press to take a juicy story and run with it, leaving just enough unsaid to protect them from a lawsuit (sometimes they don't even do that). Judging people based solely on reports in the newspaper is quite unfair and legally dangerous.

              Of course, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

          • by plover (150551) * on Thursday March 15, 2012 @12:03AM (#39361125) Homepage Journal

            He's already guilty of the crimes he committed before, and he has not yet completed his sentence for those crimes. He's on parole after being released early from prison. Actually, he's on parole for a second time, after having violated the terms of his parole earlier and going back to prison for an additional year and a hafl.

            One of the terms of his parole is that he must not have a mobile phone. Another one of the terms is that any passwords, encryption, to any information whatsoever that he has, he will immediately provide the means to access that data upon demand of his parole officer. He denied to his parole officer that he had a mobile phone, but his parole officer found it and seized it. The parole officer had every right to do so under the terms of his parole. He's also refused to provide the account and password information to access it, even though he agreed to provide it as a condition of his early release. So he's already in violation of two of the terms of his parole, and for that alone he gets to go back to prison. There is no additional trial needed -- he has already been found guilty of his original crimes. The terms of parole have nothing to do with "innocent until proven guilty." That bit of justice ended with his verdict. He is guilty.

            As far as these new allegations and crimes go, he needs to stand trial for them. But he's already a convicted felon who was let loose from prison too early, twice. "Wholly innocent" is not a factual statement one uses to describe this felon.

          • by MarkGriz (520778)

            "Asshole"? Really? My limited understanding is that he is an innocent person until found otherwise, no?

            It is all too easy to cast allegations around. At this stage he is not an "asshole" but instead a wholly innocent person accused of serious crimes.

            Why can't he be both. Based on his history, he sure sounds like an asshole.
            Asshole is not a legal standing. Whether he is guilty or not guilty of the crimes he's accused of is another matter entirely.

        • I don't care. If the police's whole case stands or falls on a single cellphone password, then they're not doing their job properly. They should have several leads and avenues to explore, and they should not rely on getting special treatment.

          It's a slippery slope, regardless. We're encouraged to trust Google with our data, and yet it's "ok" if the government gets to walk all over that trust. It's sloppy thinking, and I don't like it.

        • on your phone, in your house, on your computer, on physical media, on your person, in your car, in your work place....damn it...where should we keep our incriminating stuff?

      • Re:Ars Technica Lnk (Score:5, Informative)

        by cpu6502 (1960974) on Wednesday March 14, 2012 @07:43PM (#39359655)

        It doesn't look like the warrant was issued yet. The judge may turn it down, or severely limit its scope (only require Google to provide the passgesture, if they have it).

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by billcopc (196330)

      Yes, but the problem I see is: they already had him behind bars. He was released, and he went back to being a parasitic sack of shit. This is a failure of the penal system to rehabilitate convicts, a failure of the legal system to legalize prostition, creating this black market where thugs thrive, and finally a failure of the economy for creating an environment where crime pays way better than any proper career this Dears twit could ever possibly sustain. Heck, $500 a night is more than I make as an I.T.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14, 2012 @07:29PM (#39359553)

        Silly me - here I was thinking it was a failure of Mr. Dears to behave in a socially responsible adult manner, instead of engaging in petty crime and preying on the weak.

        Society doesn't owe him a $500 a night job. Society doesn't owe him a cushy life free of any bad luck.

        • by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Wednesday March 14, 2012 @08:47PM (#39360105)

          Silly me - here I was thinking it was a failure of Mr. Dears to behave in a socially responsible adult manner, instead of engaging in petty crime and preying on the weak.

          Silly you indeed. We are society so we can change it. We are not Dears so we can't change him. That you equate fixing systemic problems with giving criminals "a cushy life" indicates that you don't really give a damn about society.

      • "Rehabilitation" isn't the goal.
        • by bmo (77928) on Wednesday March 14, 2012 @07:51PM (#39359711)

          It's not the goal because nobody ever thinks of the long term effects of the system we have versus the system we could have.

          And we, as a society, pay through the nose for it. If you think corrections costs too much, look in the mirror.

          --
          BMO

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Actually, yes, it is. The whole point of the prison system as it stands today is to rehabilitate criminals and release them back into society as free men. If that weren't the case, they'd never be released, and we would probably just kill them instead to save money.

          As for actually rehabilitating people, it's pretty obvious the system has failed miserably. But hey, that's just what the government does. War on drugs, war on terror, apparent war on the economy; total failure has never stopped them before and i

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Right - because if prostitution were legal, non thugs would be signing up all over the place to run brothels, just like strip clubs.

        I hear you on legalizing, but really, it would still be run by thugs. its prostitution. it's never going to be legitimate even if its not illegal.

        • by Golddess (1361003)
          Question, are Nevada's brothels run by thugs? I ask because, though I always thought they were run by non-thugs, I honestly don't know.
        • by Ethanol-fueled (1125189) on Wednesday March 14, 2012 @09:42PM (#39360431) Homepage Journal
          Bullshit. The middlemen (pimps) would be taken out of the equation entirely because prostitutes would be empowered to have total control over their enterprise, as they do on craigslist and other sites.

          Legalizing prostitution increases profits (not having to pay a pimp), allowing women or men to "vet" their dates in advance(the high-class prostitutes are frequently grad students who target single and successful dorks like you for $400 per session) and eliminates violence and urban blight by shifting the acts to private residences.

          But like the lazy, brutish, and entirely misguided crackdowns on Marijuana; legalized prostitution ain't gonna fly in Ammurika anytime soon, especially with loonies like Santorum seriously considered candidates for president.
          • Despite prostitution being legal in Amsterdam, this [wikipedia.org] indicates that they have a rather large problem with human trafficking.

            How do you explain this?

        • by mspohr (589790)

          Nevada (in the US) and many cities in Europe have legal prostitution run by "non-thugs". It is legitimate.

    • Re:Ars Technica Lnk (Score:4, Interesting)

      by interkin3tic (1469267) on Wednesday March 14, 2012 @07:48PM (#39359687)
      So not only does he deal in human sex slavery, he also is acting as a catalyst for the FBI to erode our right to privacy a little bit more.

      And both are eroding a little more of my faith in humanity.

      FBI, instead of trying to get a skeleton key to all our phones, including me who has never made a woman sell herself for money, how about you just pass a law that people convicted of pimping can't have phones? No objections from me on that one... anyone else?
      • Re:Ars Technica Lnk (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Wednesday March 14, 2012 @09:54PM (#39360503)

        So not only does he deal in human sex slavery, he also is acting as a catalyst for the FBI to erode our right to privacy a little bit more.

        Like they need an excuse.

        FBI, instead of trying to get a skeleton key to all our phones, including me who has never made a woman sell herself for money, how about you just pass a law that people convicted of pimping can't have phones? No objections from me on that one... anyone else?

        Yean I object. A phone is pretty much a requirement for anyone to find legitimate work. What you propose will make it just that much harder for criminals become former criminals - the only ones who would obey such a law are the very people you would want to have a phone.

  • by sandytaru (1158959) on Wednesday March 14, 2012 @07:08PM (#39359359) Journal
    If they have enough probable cause to suspect there's even more evidence on the phone and are going through the proper procedures of obtaining a warrant, then I don't have a problem with this. If they were not in the middle of a trial case, however, I'd think this would fall under "unreasonable searches and seizures."
    • by artfulshrapnel (1893096) on Wednesday March 14, 2012 @07:12PM (#39359419)

      Yeah, seems reasonable to me.

      Your cellphone is not some magical box of protected data. If you've been committing crimes, and you get arrested for it, everything you've ever recorded is going to get looked at during that case. That includes the contents of your cellphone, and the police have the legal right to force entry to just about anything once they have probable cause.

      I mean, it's not like they randomly pulled this guy out of line at an airport and demanded he unlock his phone. They've got witness testimony, previous convictions, and I'm assuming some more concrete evidence that he is a criminal. They're just trying to figure out if he's done anything ELSE, and corroborate their evidence wherever possible.

  • by amginenigma (1495491) on Wednesday March 14, 2012 @07:08PM (#39359369)
    Can you say whoops.... "The FBI special agent who wrote the affidavit also requested that Dears not be told about the information request, however the search warrant and affidavit were not sealed." Pretty sure the whole planet knows now dood...
  • Hashes (Score:4, Informative)

    by hilather (1079603) on Wednesday March 14, 2012 @07:13PM (#39359421)
    If his credentials are being properly stored as SHA2 hashes, I don't think Google could comply with this anyways. This is the whole point in using hashes over encryption.
    • Re:Hashes (Score:5, Interesting)

      by anilg (961244) on Wednesday March 14, 2012 @07:17PM (#39359451)

      If this is the 9-dot pattern they are talking about, even a hash would be easy to brute force,. the worst case being 9!, but the average case being 4-6! as these are the sizes commonly chosen for phones.

      However, the limitation could be the delay/lock after some unsuccessful tries. If they need to see that phone's memory, they need to maybe use a 0-day exploit that google knows of, but has not yet been fixed for that phone?

      • Re:Hashes (Score:4, Insightful)

        by kenshin33 (1694322) on Wednesday March 14, 2012 @07:24PM (#39359509)
        depending on phone it is easy, samsung usually have an unlocked bootloader ... you can flash whatever recovery image you want, if the phone is not encrypted ... well you get access to any data you want (using adb, CWM recovery has adb enabled with root access by default).
        if it is the nexus S there's an easy way to unlock the bootloader without wiping the device (found on xda). for the see previous paragraph.
      • Re:Hashes (Score:5, Informative)

        by Americano (920576) on Wednesday March 14, 2012 @07:34PM (#39359583)

        However, the limitation could be the delay/lock after some unsuccessful tries

        That's exactly what happened [arstechnica.com]:

        Technicians apparently mis-entered the pattern enough times to lock the phone, which could only be unlocked using the phone owner's Google account credentials.

  • Called Celebrite. I thought it was supposed to be able to read all data off of SIMS and such. http://ebongeek.com/2011/04/20/the-cellebrite-ufed-allows-law-enforcement-to-download-all-your-smart-phone-data/ [ebongeek.com] I would think that a search warrant covering the phone would be enough for the FBI to run such a program - am I missing something here? Or is this due to some possibly technology-ignorant FBI possible boomer crying that Google doesn't automatically hand them everything they want through the magical power of the interwebs?
  • Brute force? (Score:5, Informative)

    by subreality (157447) on Wednesday March 14, 2012 @07:28PM (#39359539)

    I'm surprised the FBI can't just dump the flash and brute force it. There are only about 100,000 possible patterns.

    • Re:Brute force? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Wednesday March 14, 2012 @07:33PM (#39359581)
      I am not even sure why they would need to brute force anything -- if they can dump the contents of the phone's memory, why not just inspect the contents? Unless I am mistaken, those lock screens are not being used to encrypt the contents of the phone.
      • Numeric lock codes can be used to encrypt; there's no reason the pattern locks couldn't be used that way as well, though I haven't tried it.

        If it's not encrypted, I'm REALLY surprised the FBI can't figure it out. Flash chips are very easy to dump.

      • by artor3 (1344997)

        My Android (a Motorola Droid X2) uses encryption based on the screen lock pattern. At least I assume it's based on the lock pattern, since you need to use a lock pattern for encryption to be enabled.

    • Not allways that easy, not all phones have jtag headers or even a way to get to the exposed leads. Chip lapping seems rather excessive.

  • Passwords are a stupid way of securing a device. The "password" on the device should be a passphrase for a key on the phone's encryption system. Both Apple and Google are making the same security mistake. iTunes could be a million times safer if they used public key authentication instead of their awful password system.

  • by hashish (62254) on Wednesday March 14, 2012 @08:15PM (#39359891)

    Why don't they ask Apple - they own swipe to unlock

  • It seems to be pretty weak investigative work if the stone of truth depends solely on a cell phone record. Sure the guy is a scum ball, but if its so evident then there has to be a way to prove it that doesn't involve hacking into a computer device. As smartphones become databanks of personal information here also comes the advent of lazy detective work which would rather usurp expected privacy as the norm instead of hitting the streets to get their gumshoes dirty.
  • by dacarr (562277) on Wednesday March 14, 2012 @08:58PM (#39360169) Homepage Journal
    Picking through the details, it's pretty simple. The FBI served Google a warrant for a user.

    What they will get out of it is any information on the perpetrator that Google has in their control - so Gmail, Picasa, anything on their servers. This is what a warrant does, and any content provider such as Google will have this in their TOS.

    What they *might* get is a replacement account password to access the phone. That's unclear to me. It's in that respect that I don't know how Google will proceed.

    What they will NOT get, however, are unlocks, text messages (unless he backs those up into his Gmail account), device passwords, device unlock patterns, or anything that would be used to unlock the device. That's all up to the mobile carrier or (possibly) the device manufacturer - not Google.

    And for those who think Google made the device, no, they didn't. Somebody else did. May have been Motorola, LG, HTC, or Samsung, just to name the big four phone makers who put out Android off the top of my head. Google's support ends at the operating system development level, and whatever they have on their network. Demanding of Google whatever's on the mobile network or the device unto itself is like demanding an Amtrak schedule of Pepsico.

  • by PopeRatzo (965947) on Wednesday March 14, 2012 @10:53PM (#39360791) Homepage Journal

    The request is part of a case involving an alleged gang leader and human trafficker named Dante Dears in California.

    If the only way they can bust a "human trafficker" is by getting into his cellular phone, maybe they need to do a little more police work.

    The criminal justice system allows a hell of a lot of latitude to law enforcement. Legal wire taps, surveillance, search warrants. Informants, RICO, DNA evidence, even tax evasion investigations.

    I've seen The Wire and The Shield, Kojak, Columbo and even Mannix. There are plenty of ways to take down a perp, and if all else fails, you put a couple in his noggin, drop a throw-down piece on him and say he drew down on you. Then you go home and sleep like a baby.

    But they tell us the only way they can lock up a gang leader involved in human trafficking is by checking his Angry Birds high score.

    Just sayin'...

  • by toadlife (301863) on Thursday March 15, 2012 @02:02AM (#39361575) Journal

    1) Flash a rooted kernel and CWM recovery with ODIN (all Samsung phones allow this)
    2) boot into recovery
    3) connect to the phone using ADB
    4) Using sqlite, update the settings database and disable security

    You're welcome.

If money can't buy happiness, I guess you'll just have to rent it.

Working...