The ACLU Is Suing For More Information About the FBI's Phone-Hacking Lab (theverge.com) 31
On Tuesday, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a new lawsuit demanding information about the FBI's Electronic Device Analysis Unit (EDAU) -- a forensic unit that the ACLU believes has been quietly breaking the iPhone's local encryption systems. The Verge reports: "The FBI is secretly breaking the encryption that secures our cell phones and laptops from identity thieves, hackers, and abusive governments," the ACLU said in a statement announcing the lawsuit, "and it refuses to even acknowledge that it has information about these efforts." The FBI has made few public statements about the EDAU, but the lawsuit cites a handful of cases in which prosecutors have submitted a "Mobile Device Unlock Request" and received data from a previously locked phone. The EDAU also put in public requests for the GrayKey devices that found success unlocking a previous version of iOS.
In June 2018, the ACLU filed a FOIA request for records relating to the EDAU, but the FBI has refused to confirm any records even exist. After a string of appeals within the FOIA process, the group is taking the issue to federal court, calling on the attorney general and FBI inspector general to directly intervene and make the records available. "We're demanding the government release records concerning any policies applicable to the EDAU, its technological capabilities to unlock or access electronic devices, and its requests for, purchases of, or uses of software that could enable it to bypass encryption," the ACLU said in a statement.
In June 2018, the ACLU filed a FOIA request for records relating to the EDAU, but the FBI has refused to confirm any records even exist. After a string of appeals within the FOIA process, the group is taking the issue to federal court, calling on the attorney general and FBI inspector general to directly intervene and make the records available. "We're demanding the government release records concerning any policies applicable to the EDAU, its technological capabilities to unlock or access electronic devices, and its requests for, purchases of, or uses of software that could enable it to bypass encryption," the ACLU said in a statement.
Re:Am I supposed to be outraged? (Score:5, Insightful)
Law enforcement agencies are supposed to gather evidence of crimes. Since criminals are using phones to facilitate or commit the crimes, of course the FBI would pursue this vector.
Again the ACLU is on the wrong side of logic and justice, favoring criminals over the public safety.
You know, fuck, of course it is tedious and tiresome for law enforcement officers to investigate crimes while having the uphold a higher standard of behavior than the criminals they investigate, yet the laws that protect the dirty criminal also protect me and mine, so I would be beholden to you if you could go to the additional effort.
Ok, Mr. Insightful, what laws is the FBI breaking? (Score:2)
Aside from FOIA?
Go ahead, answer. The ACLU even all but admits that they don't have any probable cause to believe the FBI is violating federal law, coercing vendors, etc. It s
Re: (Score:2)
The problem comes with information gathered that way. It has been shown in court that they have lied on the origin of information obtained.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
He didn't ask you. He asked rmdingler. Unless . . .
Re: (Score:2)
He actually appears to be asking the OP, Chris453... but thank you for the flattery.
Best Christmas ever!
Re: (Score:2)
Oh okay, yeah. That guy.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
If it hadn't already been obvious to me for over a decade that the FBI has gone completely rogue, I'd agree with you. Their top level agents are committing open treason, completely aside from this bullshit about hacking cellphones illegally. The entire operation needs to be shut down and quite a lot of them also need to be prosecuted for war crimes.
Re: (Score:1)
(Incidentally, the only proof I need of this is that my parents are still at large.)
Re: (Score:2)
It was an FBI team which investigated the massacre committed by Blackwater in Iraq [cnn.com]. Contrary to what the Blackwater criminals said, they were not fired upon. In fact, in an attempt to cover up their crimes, they repainted the very vehicles they claimed had been fired upon, including sanding down any marks which came from their own rounds ricocheting off civilian vehicles.
One of the first things we did once we were in Baghdad was to ask to see the Blackwater vehicles, which, we had been told, sustained firearms damage. This would be very important evidence of a reason for the shooting incident.
I know that as a career law enforcement professional, if I had been involved in a shooting, I would do everything in my power to protect the evidence of bullet impacts coming toward me and show that I was defending myself. If you know the FBI Evidence Response Team is on their way to review the vehicles in the shooting, lock them up, protect the evidence. It is not rocket science.
What happened next gave me more than pause. The four armored vehicles involved in the Nisour Square shooting were silver in color when they were observed on tape leaving the US Green zone against orders. The vehicles in front of us at the "Man Camp" were now desert sand color. The reported impact points -- we were told they the impacts were from bullet rounds -- on the side of the vehicle were no long there.
In their place were traces of a sanding wheel, which had been used to sand off any potential marks. In the up gun turret of the Bearcat was a rifle cartridge. Only half of the cartridge was spray-painted desert sand brown. The vehicles were painted so quickly that they did not even clean up the debris.
The only ones who should be prosecuted for war crimes are the Blackwater criminals, the same people the con artist just pardoned for the
Re: (Score:2)
Wait. War crimes? Which ones?
Re: (Score:2)
Law enforcement agencies are supposed to gather evidence of crimes. Since criminals are using phones to facilitate or commit the crimes, of course the FBI would pursue this vector.
Again the ACLU is on the wrong side of logic and justice, favoring criminals over the public safety.
Law enforcement agencies worldwide are supposed to investigate crimes to present evidence in court.
When presenting evidence in court, you are obliged to provide the court with the equipment (or at the very least its specifications) used to obtain the evidence. Any evidence obtained via equipment which cannot be verified by the court is null and void. Example: not even ONE of the photos paraded by Bellingcat as the "irrefutable proof of Russian guilt" could be used in the MH17 criminal trial at the Haague.
Hacking must be legal. (Score:2)
Note I did NOT say "for illegal purposes". Reverse-engineering and security analysis require understanding systems makers would prefer to wall off. Any Slashdotter and any government or private agency has the right to buy a device and explore it.
Be careful any proposed cure is not worse than the disease no matter how much you may rightly hate any or all government.
Re: (Score:2)
But what happens when you aren't hacking something you yourself own, but something somebody else owns? Reverse-engineering is all hunky-dory. That's not entirely what the FBI is doing here, is it?
One or two, here and there, or en masse? (Score:3)
In order for this action to go anywhere, ACLU will need to show some type of evidence that the FBI is breaking into people's phones without warrants or due process.
However, ACLU is not asserting that. Instead, ACLU appears to be arguing that FBI shouldn't be permitted to use technical means available to law enforcement to decrypt encrypted data on phones that it seized with a warrant.
Moreover, investigative techniques and methodologies are exempt FOIA requests. I'm sure ACLU knows this, so ACLU actions are unexpected.
Re: (Score:2)
ACLU actions are an attempt to arouse public ire, and that's all. If people start thinking the government is doing something wrong, then ACLU donations go up. And what could be worse than the government tapping people's iPhones?
Re: One or two, here and there, or en masse? (Score:3)
Very insightful commentary!
I suspect that you are 100% correct. ACLU took inconsistent free speech and privacy rights positions over the past 4 years for apparent political reasons and destroyed its reputation.
I used to be a big supporter. Not now or ever again.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: One or two, here and there, or en masse? (Score:2)
Re: One or two, here and there, or en masse? (Score:2)
Cool that DOJ followed up with you. I wouldn't have expected it.
Re: (Score:2)
They certainly seem to be implying that the FBI is breaking into people's phones without warrants or due process.
Re: One or two, here and there, or en masse? (Score:2)
You could be correct, but the following excerpt from the linked article makes me think otherwise.
Public court records also describe instances where the EDAU appeared capable of accessing encrypted information off of a locked iPhone. And beyond that, the EDAU even sought to hire an electronics engineer whose major responsibilities would include âoeperform[ing] forensic extractions and advanced data recovery on locked and damaged devices.â
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ACLU gone off the rails (Score:2)
The ACLU has gone off the rails, they aren't talking about remotely hacking cellphones, I would side with them on that. No, they are talking cellphones already in the FBI's possession. How the hell can it be illegal for the FBI to reprocess data that is already legally in their possession? If this were the case every organized crime syndicate would get off hook with a simple ROT13 substitution. I'd love to seem them explain to the court that a drug dealer should be set free because it's illegal for FBI to c
What About Private Actors? (Score:1)
I'm hard pressed to believe that Google and Apple don't have some sort of backdoor built into their phone encryption, or failing that that other private companies have already done what the government is accused of doing. While I understand ACLU's concern with government efforts and their possible abuse, there is a need to also be concerned about private abuses as well.
We already know that if the government really wants user data, just find a data reseller and buy it from them. They've been doing this for