FBI Couldn't Get Into Reporter's iPhone Because It Had Lockdown Mode Enabled (404media.co)
- Reference: 0180734102
- News link: https://apple.slashdot.org/story/26/02/05/1229222/fbi-couldnt-get-into-reporters-iphone-because-it-had-lockdown-mode-enabled
- Source link: https://www.404media.co/fbi-couldnt-get-into-wapo-reporters-iphone-because-it-had-lockdown-mode-enabled/
> The court record shows what devices and data the FBI was able to ultimately access, and which devices it could not, after raiding the home of the reporter, Hannah Natanson, in January as part of an investigation into leaks of classified information. It also provides rare insight into the apparent effectiveness of Lockdown Mode, or at least how effective it might be before the FBI may try other techniques to access the device.
>
> "Because the iPhone was in Lockdown mode, CART could not extract that device," the court record reads, referring to the FBI's Computer Analysis Response Team, a unit focused on performing forensic analyses of seized devices. The document is written by the government, and is opposing the return of Natanson's devices.
>
> The FBI raided Natanson's home as part of its investigation into government contractor Aurelio Perez-Lugones, who is charged with, among other things, retention of national defense information. The government believes Perez-Lugones was a source of Natanson's, and provided her with various pieces of classified information. While executing a search warrant for his mobile phone, investigators reviewed Signal messages between Pere-Lugones and the reporter, the Department of Justice previously said.
[1] https://www.404media.co/fbi-couldnt-get-into-wapo-reporters-iphone-because-it-had-lockdown-mode-enabled/
Comments (Score:1, Flamebait)
The comments here should be interesting. What’s the venn diagram of the pro encryption group and the “these boots are so tasty when the stand on liberals” group look like? I suspect the boots so tasty crowd remains silent.
Re:Comments (Score:4, Insightful)
I know you get off on stoking political division, so there is no surprise that you vomited your latest post as soon as this story dropped.
However, reasonable people a) would agree that going after journalists to uncover confidential source is not good for free speech regardless of the context, b) would agree that right against self-incrimination should not disappear just because it is "on a computer" or "on a phone".
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how much longer there will be journalists in the US. WaPo just gutted theirs. And in the same story I saw, it was talking about how the NYT's has become a site of cooking recipes and crossword puzzles. In the same article it talked about how Bezos tossed millions to get that fact based melania thriller to appease his lord majesty, and I guess WaPo journalists are paying for it. I don't think history is going to treat jeffy well, he could be keeping WaPo alive but instead is throwing money at ap
Re: (Score:1)
Yup, they are all owned by MAGAs now, so there is no need for real journalism. Just reprint what they tell you... Sadly independent journalism is currently the only way real news is going to be spread. There are so many low quality independent outlets, you really need to find and filter the crap ones out.
Re: (Score:1)
> I'm not sure how much longer there will be journalists in the US.
There is no shortage of independent journalists. Just go to substack.
Re: (Score:1)
you, yes YOU, have supported the most divisive figure in american political history since the civil war and gonna sit here and pretend like you care about it now? fuck all the way off please
that aside im curious, do you prefer to ingest the boot toe or heel first? what type of wine pairing do you like?
Re: (Score:3)
> However, reasonable people a) would agree that going after journalists to uncover confidential source is not good for free speech regardless of the context, b) would agree that right against self-incrimination should not disappear just because it is "on a computer" or "on a phone"
I must have missed the massive protests from Republicans about this then if the first part of your comment is correct. You ARE claiming Republicans do share the views you attribute to "reasonable people", correct?
Re: (Score:1)
There is plenty of dissent coming from Tucker, Bannon not to say centrists like Glenn. Broaden your sources if you are going to comment on what Republicans do or think, otherwise it is all should be prefaced with "according to Democratic sources".
Re: (Score:2)
Links? I can't find a single case of any of these people even bringing this up.
Re: Comments (Score:2)
You shouldn't finish your popcorn before the movie starts.
Don't keep classified defense info! (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless you're the past president.
Just one more brick in the wall of the oligarchs proving that they can live by a different set of rules.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Or past [1]vice president [bbc.com]. Lets not try to memoryhole that.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-us-canada-68247337
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Right in your link it says Biden cooperated with officials during the investigation. Do you see the difference?
Re: (Score:3)
> A former senator and vice president does not have the same authority to declassify docs as they see fir. See the difference?
No. Because a former President doesn't have any authority to declassify docs either. And the former President you're defending here did NOT cooperate with the FBI despite "being caught red handed."
Re: Don't keep classified defense info! (Score:1)
I'm okay with putting Biden in prison. But let's go after the kingpin and current threat before we go after the small fries that current hold no authority.
Re: (Score:3)
You give them far too much credit. If they had gained access they would be bragging about it.
Re: typical disinformation (Score:2)
But, if they did that, they would not get to keep the phone which is what they were arguing, no? ...perhaps I misread that...
Re: (Score:2)
Even if they did unlawfully keep the phone, what court is going to enforce judgement to return it?
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly most of the time they keep quiet about it because they are trying to avoid having their methods get out to the public.
More often than not if they think that the methods might come out in a discovery and become public they will back off and let the perpetrator walk.
I wouldn't be surprised if that's not what happened here. There was a threat of Discovery and so they backed off on the search.
You'd Be surprised how often we find out about some horrifying things because of a lawsuit and the
Re: (Score:2)
Or they will use "parallel construction" and get away with straight up lying in court.
Re: (Score:2)
> Just because the authorities claim something does not mean it's true, this may simply be the disinformation they need people to believe. For all we know, it might just be a red herring and a red flag.
I came to say exactly this. I still think the odds favour the supposition that they're telling the truth - but I wouldn't bet much money on either side.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, not _forever_ ... my iPod said it was locked for another 23508980 minutes, in december 2014. I will just have to remember the code by August 25, 2059
totalitarians go after reporters (Score:4, Interesting)
More than the phone was siezed and there is a special 1980 law protecting reporters and going after ALL their sources (do you think this administration stopped with just one?)
> On Friday night, a federal court in Virginia unsealed a redacted version of the search warrant affidavit that provides the FBI’s sworn statement justifying its request to search the home of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson. In the search, the government seized two laptops, Natanson’s phone, a voice recorder, and other electronic devices.
>
> ...
>
> “In its affidavit, the government did not reference the federal law that prohibits, with few exceptions, raids targeting journalists or newsrooms to seize unpublished work. The government appears to have ignored a crucial press freedom guardrail in searching a journalist’s home and did not alert the magistrate judge to the law’s application in this case, let alone show how or if it had complied with the statute’s considerable protections.”
>
> That federal law is the Privacy Protection Act of 1980, which created essential protections for journalists and newsrooms from government searches and seizures. Congress passed it out of concern that such raids could stanch the free flow of information to the public.
[1]https://www.rcfp.org/natanson-... [rcfp.org]
[1] https://www.rcfp.org/natanson-fbi-search-affidavit-unsealing-statement/
Re:totalitarians go after reporters (Score:4, Informative)
It is way early to try to memoryhole [1]Obama's administration going after journalists [apnews.com] the same way. This is one of the rare cases where this is undeniably both parties problem. This is why Constitution exists.
[1] https://apnews.com/general-news-dbba6eaf984a4be08cc235f66fd36a8d
Re: (Score:3)
What constitution? It was on life support before Roe vs Wade was overturned despite a complete lack of new legislation or a constitutional amendment to back that up (even Dred Scott needed a constitutional amendment to over turn its precedent), and the current administration is ignoring it outside of token "Pretend Congress still has some power" stuff.
The US Constitution is toilet paper right now. The next democratic (small D) government should have a new one ready to go that has the major holes in the curr
Re: (Score:2)
Based on the article you leaked, he was aggressive in plugging the leaks inside the government. He didn't appear to arrest journalists and seize their devices for an unlawful search. I have no issue with any president attempting to stop their government from leaking classified information, including our current one. I do have a huge issue with the search and seizure of journalists for the sole reason of finding their confidential leak. We are way beyond becoming the next North Korea or Hungary, this is
Re: (Score:1)
Your motivated reading of the linked article does not change that Obama's administration [1]did the same thing [cjr.org]. I am not defending Trump's administration on this issue, but it is dishonest to pretend this is something new.
[1] https://www.cjr.org/criticism/barack_obamas_press_freedom_legacy.php
Re: (Score:2)
This is why you don't let this stuff slide, even when the guy doing it is popular and seemingly benign. The next guy might not be, and once the door is open...
Re: (Score:2)
Damn. It took a whole 40 minutes between the first post and your post for someone to come up with the fact that search warrants against journalists should never be issued to find their sources. Kudos.
This should have been the first topic to be discussed, instead of "Apple ads" and technology stuff. Police states and totalitarian regimes go after journalists sources. Freedom of press is paramount in a democracy.
Bill Gates probably wishing... (Score:1)
... that Epstein practiced this good of OpSec. I am glad that someone at WaPo explained how to configure iPhones for security to journalists working there.
It would be funny if ... (Score:1)
... Epstein used bitlocker and Windows automatically uploaded the key tot he cloud that later was used to decrypt emails about Bill's syphilis problems.
Re: It would be funny if ... (Score:2)
Hoist with his own petard. Just desserts for a flimflam that sold a crufty copy of a copy of OS he ripped off. Added window dressing but ignored its horrible security for decadesm His sales team pushed half-baked products into law enforcement, banking, government, and much of the corporate world; despite its glaring technical inadequacies.
Initiate self-destruct sequence. (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if you did get the thing back, no sane person who actually cares about OpSec would use it. It's compromised. Even if they couldn't access the data, there's no telling what else they did succeed in doing to it. Hell, attempting to use it might allow them to finally access that data, complete with automatic transmission to their analysts.
Lockdown mode is better than nothing, but in reality the best option would be automatic, instant, and silent destruction of any data that the adversary might want to get their hands on. After all, adversaries rarely allow you to get the device back anyway. (And there's typically a ploy at work for them if they do.)
Re: Initiate self-destruct sequence. (Score:4, Interesting)
It's tough to initiate that when you're not certain when a device will fall into the wrong hangs. A lock down plus time out for self erase might be a reasonable compromise.
My old friend used to put a hundreds of fake URLs that he monitored as a canary or trip wire (I forgot what he called it). The longish path to a fake file was unlikely to be found accidentally, but if someone access his device and attempted to access the links that would inadvertently alert him. This can be helpful for detecting a remote attack, or knowing when an agency successfully unlocked a device. With the intention that he'd get a lawyer to go after any improper procedure to reach an acquittal
Good Apple ad. (Score:1)
In any case, if it's true, it means none of the companies that crack this stuff bothered with lockdown mode, so now they will and it will be cracked soon enough.
Bad Apple Ad (Score:2)
Why shouldn't the phone be secure by default
Re:Bad Apple Ad (Score:4, Informative)
Because it would be unusable. [1]Lockdown mode is pretty severe [apple.com], it's not something you want to deal with day to day.
[1] https://support.apple.com/en-gb/105120
Re: (Score:2)
> Because it would be unusable. [1]Lockdown mode is pretty severe [apple.com], it's not something you want to deal with day to day.
I am reading through the list in your link and I don't get it - what part of this is supposed to be "unusable"?
[1] https://support.apple.com/en-gb/105120
Re: (Score:2)
Despite what you claim you clearly didn't read the link the GP posted. It's a massive list of stuff that's disabled that people would find an iDevice barely useful without.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess it is in the eye of the beholder, but "severe" seems overstated. I actually prefer some of the "restrictions" - no more Facetime spammers.
Re: (Score:3)
From the link:
How Lockdown Mode protects your device
When Lockdown Mode is enabled, some apps and features will function differently, including:
Messages: most message attachment types are blocked, other than certain images, video and audio. Some features, such as links and link previews, will be unavailable.
Web browsing: certain complex web technologies are blocked, which may cause some websites to load more slowly or not operate correctly. In addition, web fonts may not be displayed, and images may be repla
Re:Bad Apple Ad (Score:4, Insightful)
They just need to make each one of those a toggle. I'd turn quite a few of those on.
Re: (Score:2)
> They just need to make each one of those a toggle. I'd turn quite a few of those on.
Whatever you toggle becomes the weakest link, potentially even cumulatively. ...not that I disagree with you.
Re: Bad Apple Ad (Score:3)
Presumably to avoid users accidentally bricking their phone due to a security snafu.