Top DOJ official warns about Texas shooter's encrypted phone

[Judi Lynn]

Source: ABC News

By TRISH TURNER
 Nov 9, 2017, 8:32 PM ET

In the wake of the attack at a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, last weekend that left 26 people dead and investigators unable to access the shooter’s encrypted phone to search for possible leads, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein made clear in a speech today that he is prepared to do battle with technology giants to get whatever might be stored on that device.

“Nobody has a legitimate privacy interest in that phone. The suspect is deceased,” Rosenstein said. “Even if he were alive, it would be legal for police and prosecutors to find out what is in the phone.”

Tuesday afternoon, Christopher Combs, the FBI’s special agent in charge in Texas, said the shooter’s phone was flown to the agency’s lab in Quantico, Virginia. Combs refused to name the phone model, but sources familiar with the matter tell ABC’s Jack Date that the phone is an Apple product.

“When you shoot dozens of innocent American citizens, we want law enforcement to investigate your communications and stored data,” Rosenstein said. “We expect police and prosecutors to investigate such horrendous crimes. There are things that we need to know.”

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/US/top-doj-official-warns-texas-shooters-encrypted-phone/story?id=51051911

[Plucketeer]

1. What was that about swapping

liberty for security? The proverbial slippery slope is getting greased by surveillance.

[GoneOffShore]

2. And this take from across the pond.

US government seizes Texas gun mass murder to demand backdoors
Too early to talk gun control, not too early to bork iPhone security

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/11/09/us_government_texas_shooting_iphone_backdoor/

[harun]

19. All about the framing. Excellent contrast, thanks for posting.

[calimary]

29. Messaging. Its not just what youre selling. Its HOW youre selling it.

The GOP figured that out a long time ago. Sure wish our side could.

[rurallib]

3. odd that they fight to keep gun access for anyone as a constitutional right

but they are ready to shred the constitution to get private information in any way possible.

They live by their own rules - make 'em up as they go.

[BootinUp]

4. Maybe a seance would help. Nt

[Kaleva]

5. I'm fine with this. The owner of the phone is dead.

[Hoyt]

6. Yeah, doesn't really bother me either in this case. Not sure they'll find anything, though.

[Demit]

14. Yeah, it's just for this one time, right?

They only want to do it this once and they promise they'll never ask again!

[Hoyt]

15. As long as they get a warrant in future, I'm fine with it. There are lots of white wing armed racist

militia groups, politicians, etc., that need to be surveilled. Again, PROPER warrant. There are lot of legitimate threats to society and it really doesn't bother me to use technology. Can government abuse that power, Yes. But if government is going to abuse that power, denying access to gun-loving mass killer's phone isn't going to stop it.

Again, I don't think they are going to find anything on this armed creeps phone, but it's worth looking after what he did.

[Demit]

16. So they don't even have any Probable Cause.

Any indication (from other evidence) that he might have information about racist militia groups on his phone. Any indication that he has information about legitimate threats to society. That means they're fishing. And that's ok with you, to give the authorities that kind of sweeping power. Even in cases where you expect that they won't find anything.

The WHOLE IDEA is to avoid the government abusing that power! Your casual use of the word "if" is very scary.

[harun]

20. +1

[Hoyt]

22. A massacre is probable cause, don't you think?

[Demit]

24. Probable cause of what?

They know he did the massacre. What would they be looking for on his phone, that they didn't find in his houses, bank records, activities, recent known movements, etc?

[sarisataka]

28. If killing a bunch of people

Isn't probable cause to search, why did they search his house, bank records...?

[Demit]

33. You tell me.

But now that they've done that, my question is, what are they continuing to look for?

I'm actually asking a real question here. What do you think they're hoping to find?

[sarisataka]

35. I don't know what

If anything they expect to find. If I were investigating I would be looking for any accomplice who may have provided support. That could be revealed in text messages.

If it is so unimportant, why did they search his physical property? They knew what he did and that he was dead. The same logic applies, no need to search.

[Hoyt]

50. We agree on this one. :)

[titaniumsalute]

23. Killing 26 people isn't probable cause???

[Demit]

25. Probable cause of what?

[titaniumsalute]

31. Probable cause for legally being able to search the persons belongings

Killing people is probable cause for a judge to allow law enforcement to search cars, apartments, houses, places of business, computers, etc. Why not a cell phone?

[Demit]

32. What do they expect to find on the phone?

Btw, they've had it in their possession but can't get in it, or else they already would have checked it. But what is at issue here is, they want to force an outside entity—that heretofore has had no legal obligation to do so—to help them. So they'll have to convince a judge to help them force the company to knuckle under to their wishes. What justification do you think they have? What are they looking for? Not proof that he killed the people. That's known.

They just want the POWER to see what they can see. They are fishing. They want the power for future use, for anybody. And you think that's just hunky-dory.

[titaniumsalute]

34. Based on your argument then

What's the point of going through their apartment, vehicles, computers, etc. Should the police not have the ability to that either? How is going through a mobile device (a handheld computer) different than going through a PC or laptop?

[Demit]

37. You're avoiding my question. What are they looking for that they couldn't find in his other effects?

My "argument" is that the police should not have unlimited power just because they want to have unlimited power. Based on *your* argument, to turn it around, the police should have the right to search through everybody's effects who ever knew him. Never know what you'll find, right? They should have a right to rummage thru his ex-wife's apartment & her cell phone, for example, just on the off chance there's something, anything there.

You want the police to have extraordinary powers over you without having to present a reason. I don't.

I think we're done here.

[titaniumsalute]

38. I agree we are done here. You avoid my questions as well. Bye bye

[WhoWoodaKnew]

11. Me too

[FailureToCommunicate]

12. You're kidding right? You're really okay with the government getting a backdoor to your phone?

This isn't just about HIS phone.

[Kaleva]

40. Better stock up on guns before the men in black wisk you away to the FEMA camps

[jberryhill]

27. So let me see if I understand you....

All of YOUR communications with someone who is dead, should be fair game for the government, correct?

So your lawyer is killed in a car crash. In the course of investigating the crash, they recover your lawyer's phone. It has emails, messages, and other confidential information of yours on it.

You actually believe that if someone you know is dead, then the police are entitled to have all of your communications with that person?

[Kaleva]

39. Like the Trump campaign comms picked up on surveillance of a foreign agent

I'm fine with this.

[jberryhill]

41. This doesn't have anything to do with surveillance of foreign communications

Your point was that the data stored on the phone of any dead person is fair game for whomever wants to look at it.

There are communications you have held with people, and those communications are stored on their phones.

People die.

The conclusion is that you don't care who gets their hands on your communications in the event someone with whom you have communicated is dead.

[Kaleva]

42. Doesn't even have to be dead

Criminals under surveillance invariably talk to folks who are of no interest to LEO but their communications with the person of interest are picked up nonetheless.

[jberryhill]

43. I gather you no longer wish to discuss the topic at hand

Do you want to talk about unlocking a phone, or do you want to talk about communications held across networks?

The latter topic has nothing to do with the circumstances here.

Your assertion, back when you were talking about THIS topic, was that a dead person does not have a privacy interest in the contents of their phone.

I can assure you that if I were dead, there are plenty of people who would have a privacy interest in the data stored on my phone.

[Kaleva]

45. Any person under criminal investigation, dead or alive,

doesn't have a privacy interest in data stored on their phone. If any of my communications with said person happen to be stored on his or her phone, so be it.

[jberryhill]

46. That's not how it works

Whether being "under criminal investigation" has anything to do with "data stored on their phone" is important.

Simply because someone is "under criminal investigation" is not a blanket license for a warrant to search anything and everything belonging to that person. Even if that person is alive.

However, I'm puzzled by your belief that a dead guy is "under criminal investigation". What, in your mind, are the charges pending against him?

[Kaleva]

47. You are really twisting yourself into a pretzel over this.

The shooter was a terrorist. IMO, the govt. has every right to check his phone to see if he was working in cahoots with anyone else. It would be in the national interest to do so.

Your argument is like saying that if Lee Harvey Oswald had a smart phone, the govt. shouldn't be able to access it because of privacy concerns.

[jberryhill]

48. Not at all

"The shooter was a terrorist"

Ah, I forgot the "terrorist" exception to everything at law.

"Your argument is like saying that if Lee Harvey Oswald had a smart phone, the govt. shouldn't be able to access it because of privacy concerns."

No, it's not like saying that at all.

Just to see where we might be in our understanding of how the law actually works, is it your understanding that if you are pulled over for drunk driving, the police may search the trunk of your car?

[Kaleva]

51. Was Devin Kelley pulled over for drunk driving and now the FBI wants to access his phone?

The drunk driver analogy doesn't even come close to what Kelley did.

[yourmovemonkey]

7. Perhaps we could direct our thoughts and prayers at the phone

That always seems to help in frustrating circumstances, right?

[durablend]

18. What exactly are they trying to find out?

He's dead, all those people are dead so what's on that phone that's going to do anyone any good (certainly not going to bring any of them back)? Or is it feel-good that they're going to try and prevent "such a tragedy" from happening again (though we clearly know they're not going to do jack shit)

[Xipe Totec]

8. Did they try a fingerprint unlock? I mean, they've got the body. nt

[LudwigPastorius]

9. Touch ID requires a living finger to supply the print.

A capacitive sensor reads the slight electrical charge present in live bodies, and the RF sensors will only read the live tissue under your finger's layers of dead skin.

[Flaleftist]

17. They only have 48 hours.

If a fingerprint isn’t used to acces an iPhone within 48 hours, only the code will work. I’ve never hear about the electrical charge thing before, but with all the technology available today, I’m surprised they don’t have some kind of technology to mimick the charge and fool the sensor.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/8/16626452/apple-fbi-texas-shooter-iphone-unlock-encryption-debate

[PSPS]

10. They likely already got in the phone but are using this pretext to get their precious back door.

Besides, what more do they need to know that might only be on the phone? All text messages and email and virtually everything else is already stored elsewhere and available to them. The iCloud backup is available. This wasn't a terrorist plot that may involve others. In other words, they're just milking it to get the universal back door into everyone's devices that they dream about.

[Owl]

13. Exactly.

[harun]

21. Bingo

[brewens]

26. It might be acceptable for the manufacturer to get the phone and extract the data for them.

They get their info and the manufacturer keeps everyone's security intact.

[DetlefK]

30. Nope. That's still a slippery-slope.

Up next, the government would demand that the manufacturer tell them how they did it, in the name of security.

If it's written down, it can be stolen.

[GoneOffShore]

36. Never a good idea. Strong encryption should be just that. No back doors.

If they get in once, they'll get in again.

[jberryhill]

49. And what if the manufacturer does not want to do that?

Who at Samsung or Apple will you jail for contempt if they don't do what they are ordered to do?

[xor]

44. This is a tough one and I don't know what I think yet...

My initial thought is that this guy doesn't deserve any protection and these companies should do whatever to give them access. But this isn't really about him. This has a much greater impact on everyone. I'm not sure exactly what they are expecting for Apple to do, but if it involves putting backdoors into future products then that puts everyone at risk. I don't just mean from some evil government gone mad, but also from run of the mill cyber criminals who will no doubt take advantage of any weakened security. That also won't help them in this specific case. Are they saying that Apple has the ability to unlock this phone without issue?