Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Privacy United States

Cellebrite Asks Cops To Keep Its Phone Hacking Tech 'Hush Hush' (techcrunch.com) 50

An anonymous reader shares a report: For years, cops and other government authorities all over the world have been using phone hacking technology provided by Cellebrite to unlock phones and obtain the data within. And the company has been keen on keeping the use of its technology "hush hush." As part of the deal with government agencies, Cellebrite asks users to keep its tech -- and the fact that they used it -- secret, TechCrunch has learned. This request concerns legal experts who argue that powerful technology like the one Cellebrite builds and sells, and how it gets used by law enforcement agencies, ought to be public and scrutinized.

In a leaked training video for law enforcement customers that was obtained by TechCrunch, a senior Cellebrite employee tells customers that "ultimately, you've extracted the data, it's the data that solves the crime, how you got in, let's try to keep that as hush hush as possible." "We don't really want any techniques to leak in court through disclosure practices, or you know, ultimately in testimony, when you are sitting in the stand, producing all this evidence and discussing how you got into the phone," the employee, who we are not naming, says in the video.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cellebrite Asks Cops To Keep Its Phone Hacking Tech 'Hush Hush'

Comments Filter:
  • Yeah... sure! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by CAIMLAS ( 41445 ) on Monday August 21, 2023 @03:48PM (#63786324)

    Yeah, we wouldn't want your wanton disregard for civil liberties to negatively impact your stock value.

    As much contempt as people have for police, much more contempt is due for the corporate technology companies and federal agencies/funding which back them.

    While cops can at least present a pleasant face of "we're here to protect and serve" - and have the consensus of the public ire to be concerned with - the same is not true for these companies which give them technologies to violate liberties or tanks to tread on people with a knowing wink.

    • Re:Yeah... sure! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CAIMLAS ( 41445 ) on Monday August 21, 2023 @03:50PM (#63786332)

      To be more precise, this specifically is a civil liberties concern.

      Evidence has a chain of custody requirement. You have to demonstrate how and where you got it, or it can be considered inadmissible. (That all depends, of course, on scrupulous and competent courts...which, from experience, many are not.)

      What this company is asking is for the police to obfuscate the truth - either because the approaches used are illegal, or they simply want to protect their IP, or the desire to remain out of the limelight.

      • Re:Yeah... sure! (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Marful ( 861873 ) on Monday August 21, 2023 @04:15PM (#63786378)
        They ask the police to obfuscate the truth because the police use this tool for parallel construction.
      • by jonadab ( 583620 )
        > To be more precise, this specifically is a civil liberties concern.

        It's worse than that. This wording right here:
        > "We don't really want any techniques to leak in court through disclosure practices, or
        > you know, ultimately in testimony, when you are sitting in the stand..."

        That is quite damning: clearly, the person watching the video is specifically being asked to deliberately withhold information from the court, while under oath. This strikes at the very heart of how the criminal justice sys
  • by schwit1 ( 797399 ) on Monday August 21, 2023 @03:49PM (#63786328)

    https://www.techdirt.com/2018/... [techdirt.com]

    The FBI set the first (and second!) rules of Stingray Club [techdirt.com]: DO NOT TALK ABOUT STINGRAY CLUB. Law enforcement agencies seeking to acquire cell tower spoofing tech were forced to sign a nondisclosure agreement [techdirt.com] forbidding them from disclosing details on the devices to defendants, judges, the general public sometimes even prosecutors.

    • A very dubious Gestapo document does not protect them from perjury charges.

      If we actually prosecuted the kings men.

  • They'd find some of my contacts, not all, and little else. There are far too many good reasons to never use a phone for anything personal / confidential. I'm constantly amazed that people think phones are so safe and private.

    • Add some Furry porn.

      If they want to snoop, they should suffer.

    • Re:Phone data? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Moof123 ( 1292134 ) on Monday August 21, 2023 @04:10PM (#63786372)

      Part of the point of all of the surveillance is to cause folks to self-sensor, we know we have no privacy, so we don't do anything that even strays into the gray areas. Constant fear. Eventually you reach the point where NOT opening you phone for a cop becomes incriminating in itself, or even having too little on your phone when they do unlock it becomes suspect (like folks getting pulled over for driving suspiciously too well while high on melanin). With the tech being so "Hush-Hush" it becomes impossible to even know how much to trust the results. Is Cellebrite allowing injection of incriminating data, akin to drug dogs that trigger on demand?

      Part of the point of making wire taps hard to get is so that we CAN have private and confidential conversations. Both business and personal correspondence flowing freely is valuable to society. The more we operate in a society where you start expecting to have all your data freely accessed and leaked by both public and private parties the worse things get in every way.

  • by brunes69 ( 86786 ) <slashdot AT keirstead DOT org> on Monday August 21, 2023 @04:00PM (#63786346)

    Is this guy advising officers to perjure themselves?

    • My girlfriend is a member of the legal community. She and her colleagues often refer to the conduct of police officers under oath as "testi-lying".

    • by jonadab ( 583620 )
      I think the term "advising" would be more applicable if he were part of their legal counsel team. What he's doing is _asking_ them to perjure themselves, and furthermore to make a *habit* of perjuring themselves.

      I'm not sure what the exact charge is for this; maybe "conspiracy to commit gross perjury", or perhaps more along the lines of "witness tampering". But I do know that it's a rather serious charge, and the number of counts is going to scale with how many police officers watched that training video
  • by Marful ( 861873 ) on Monday August 21, 2023 @04:09PM (#63786360)
    Oh look. Police violating federal law and the constitution again...

    This is my surprised face emoji ---> (:|)

    18 U.S. Code 1030 - Fraud and related activity in connection with computers

    (a)Whoever—
    (2)intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains—
    (C)information from any protected computer;
    shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.

    There is only one reason to keep something like this quiet from the public and that is if it is used illicitly for parallel construction.

  • Note (Score:5, Informative)

    by LeeLynx ( 6219816 ) on Monday August 21, 2023 @04:09PM (#63786364)
    Suborning perjury is a felony.
    • by fleabay ( 876971 )
      Cellebrite spokesperson Victor Cooper is one that is possibly guilty of suborning perjury since he is an American and the one that allegedly made the incriminating statement(s).
    • by jonadab ( 583620 )
      Yes, and given that this is a crime against the justice system itself, I can easily imagine a judge with no sense of humor about perjury, ordering the sentences to all be served consecutively. I'm thinking the number of counts, is likely going to scale with the number of police officers who watched that training video, so that could potentially add up to a fairly substantial amount of time.
  • "We have a machine that says you're guilty. We can't tell you of the existence of this machine, nor how it works, but it says you're guilty."
    • by waspleg ( 316038 )

      soon to be greatly accelerated by "AI".

  • by HotNeedleOfInquiry ( 598897 ) on Monday August 21, 2023 @05:14PM (#63786510)
    When evidence produced by their product is introduced in court. Doesn't the accused have the right to question the accuracy and legality of the process?
    • by Marful ( 861873 ) on Monday August 21, 2023 @05:22PM (#63786530)
      Parallel construction [wikipedia.org]

      In the US, a particular form is evidence laundering, where one police officer obtains evidence via means that are in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and then passes it on to another officer, who builds on it and gets it accepted by the court under the good-faith exception as applied to the second officer.[2] This practice gained support after the Supreme Court's 2009 Herring v. United States decision.[2]

  • Remember that if you are ever on a jury, you're free to ask any relevant question. If in doubt, keep badgering until the judge warns you're in danger of being in contempt. Then invite your fellow jurors to find the defendant not guilty because the state is obviously trying to hide something.

    • by txsable ( 169665 )

      This is not quite true. A trial jury can only ask for clarification from presented evidence, and only as part of their deliberations, not in open court.
      Now, a grand jury has more latitude, but their deliberations and questions are secret, unless released by a judge.

  • Why are Israeli companies so adept at this type of software?
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Why are Israeli companies so adept at this type of software?

      They see themselves as under attack by enemies who have the expressed intent of eradicating their country, and they consider civil liberties to be unnecessary impediments to their goal of destroying these enemies by any means possible.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • You say "companies" as if there is a pattern of such companies. Would you care to elucidate, or are you simply indirectly calling Jews bad?

  • and with that, the US have the audacity, THE AUDACITY, of talking shit about China doing the same

    • by jonadab ( 583620 )
      In fact, they wouldn't bother with something like this in mainland China. The court system there has no concept of admissibility in the first place, nor of disclosure, and barely cares about evidence. If you have been arrested and charged, then ipso facto you are guilty. Your trial will be held once your confession is obtained (which is typically done by threatening your family).
  • Did they just advise law enforcement to withhold evidence from the defense?

  • As a juror, I will just assume the cops are lying on the stand.

There is no opinion so absurd that some philosopher will not express it. -- Marcus Tullius Cicero, "Ad familiares"

Working...