FBI–Apple encryption dispute

The FBI–Apple encryption dispute concerns whether and to what extent courts in the United States can compel manufacturers to assist in unlocking cell phones whose data are cryptographically protected.[1] There is much debate over public access to strong encryption.[2]

An iPhone 5C, the model used by one of the perpetrators of the 2015 San Bernardino attack

In 2015 and 2016, Apple Inc. received and objected to or challenged at least 11 orders issued by United States district courts under the All Writs Act of 1789. Most of these seek to compel Apple "to use its existing capabilities to extract data like contacts, photos and calls from locked iPhones running on operating systems iOS 7 and older" in order to assist in criminal investigations and prosecutions. A few requests, however, involve phones with more extensive security protections, which Apple has no current ability to break. These orders would compel Apple to write new software that would let the government bypass these devices' security and unlock the phones.[3]

The most well-known instance of the latter category was a February 2016 court case in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) wanted Apple to create and electronically sign new software that would enable the FBI to unlock a work-issued iPhone 5C it recovered from one of the shooters who, in a December 2015 terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California, killed 14 people and injured 22. The two attackers later died in a shootout with police, having first destroyed their personal phones. The work phone was recovered intact but was locked with a four-digit password and was set to eliminate all its data after ten failed password attempts (a common anti-theft measure on smartphones). Apple declined to create the software, and a hearing was scheduled for March 22. However, a day before the hearing was supposed to happen, the government obtained a delay, saying they had found a third party able to assist in unlocking the iPhone and, on March 28, it announced that the FBI had unlocked the iPhone and withdrew its request. In March 2018, the Los Angeles Times later reported "the FBI eventually found that Farook's phone had information only about work and revealed nothing about the plot."[4]

In another case in Brooklyn, a magistrate judge ruled that the All Writs Act could not be used to compel Apple to unlock an iPhone. The government appealed the ruling, but then dropped the case on April 22 after it was given the correct passcode.

Background
James Comey, former FBI director
Main article: Crypto Wars
Tim Cook, Chief Executive Officer of Apple Inc. Cook and former FBI Director Comey have both spoken publicly about the case.

In 1993, the National Security Agency (NSA) introduced the Clipper chip, an encryption device with an acknowledged backdoor for government access, that NSA proposed be used for phone encryption. The proposal touched off a public debate, known as the Crypto Wars, and the Clipper chip was never adopted.[5]

It was revealed as a part of the 2013 mass surveillance disclosures by Edward Snowden that the NSA and the British Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) had access to the user data in iPhones, BlackBerry, and Android phones and could read almost all smartphone information, including SMS, location, emails, and notes.[6] As well, the leak stated that Apple had been a part of the government's surveillance program since 2012, however, Apple per their spokesman at the time, "had never heard of it".[7]

According to The New York Times, Apple developed new encryption methods for its iOS operating system, versions 8 and later, "so deep that Apple could no longer comply with government warrants asking for customer information to be extracted from devices."[8] Throughout 2015, prosecutors advocated for the U.S. government to be able to compel decryption of iPhone contents.[9][10][11][12]

In September 2015, Apple released a white paper detailing the security measures in its then-new iOS 9 operating system. The iPhone 5C model can be protected by a four-digit PIN code. After more than ten incorrect attempts to unlock the phone with the wrong PIN, the contents of the phone will be rendered inaccessible by erasing the AES encryption key that protects its stored data. According to the Apple white paper, iOS includes a Device Firmware Upgrade (DFU) mode, and that "[r]estoring a device after it enters DFU mode returns it to a known good state with the certainty that only unmodified Apple-signed code is present."[13]

Apple ordered to assist the FBI

The FBI recovered an Apple iPhone 5C—owned by the San Bernardino County, California government—that had been issued to its employee, Syed Rizwan Farook, one of the shooters involved in the December 2015 San Bernardino attack.[14] The attack killed 14 people and seriously injured 22. The two attackers died four hours after the attack in a shootout with police, having previously destroyed their personal phones. Authorities were able to recover Farook's work phone, but could not unlock its four-digit passcode,[15][16] and the phone was programmed to automatically delete all its data after ten failed password attempts.

On February 9, 2016, the FBI announced that it was unable to unlock the county-owned phone it recovered, due to its advanced security features, including encryption of user data.[17][18] The FBI first asked the National Security Agency to break into the phone, but they were unable to since they only had knowledge of breaking into other devices that are commonly used by criminals, and not iPhones.[19] As a result, the FBI asked Apple Inc. to create a new version of the phone's iOS operating system that could be installed and run in the phone's random access memory to disable certain security features that Apple refers to as "GovtOS". Apple declined due to its policy which required it to never undermine the security features of its products. The FBI responded by successfully applying to a United States magistrate judge, Sheri Pym, to issue a court order, mandating Apple to create and provide the requested software.[20] The order was not a subpoena, but rather was issued under the All Writs Act of 1789.[21][22] The court order, called In the Matter of the Search of an Apple iPhone Seized During the Execution of a Search Warrant on a Black Lexus IS300, California License Plate 35KGD203, was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.[23][24][25]

The use of the All Writs Act to compel Apple to write new software was unprecedented and, according to legal experts, it was likely to prompt "an epic fight pitting privacy against national security."[26] It was also pointed out that the implications of the legal precedent that would be established by the success of this action against Apple would go far beyond issues of privacy.[27]

Technical details of the order

The court order specified that Apple provide assistance to accomplish the following:

  1. "it will bypass or disable the auto-erase function whether or not it has been enabled"[24] (this user-configurable feature of iOS 8 automatically deletes keys needed to read encrypted data after ten consecutive incorrect attempts[28])
  2. "it will enable the FBI to submit passcodes to the SUBJECT DEVICE for testing electronically via the physical device port, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or other protocol available"[24]
  3. "it will ensure that when the FBI submits passcodes to the SUBJECT DEVICE, software running on the device will not purposefully introduce any additional delay between passcode attempts beyond what is incurred by Apple hardware"[24]

The order also specifies that Apple's assistance may include providing software to the FBI that "will be coded by Apple with a unique identifier of the phone so that the [software] would only load and execute on the SUBJECT DEVICE"[24]

There has been much research and analysis of the technical issues presented in the case since the court order was made available to the public.[29]

Apple's opposition to the order

The February 16, 2016 order issued by Magistrate Judge Pym gave Apple five days to apply for relief if Apple believed the order was "unreasonably burdensome". Apple announced its intent to oppose the order, citing the security risks that the creation of a backdoor would pose towards customers.[30] It also stated that no government had ever asked for similar access.[31] The company was given until February 26 to fully respond to the court order.[32][33]

On the same day the order was issued, chief executive officer Tim Cook released an online statement to Apple customers, explaining the company's motives for opposing the court order. He also stated that while they respect the FBI, the request they made threatens data security by establishing a precedent that the U.S. government could use to force any technology company to create software that could undermine the security of its products.[34] He said in part:

The United States government has demanded that Apple take an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers. We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand. This moment calls for public discussion, and we want our customers and people around the country to understand what is at stake.[34]

In response to the opposition, on February 19, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a new application urging a federal judge to compel Apple to comply with the order.[35] The new application stated that the company could install the software on the phone in its own premises, and after the FBI had hacked the phone via remote connection, Apple could remove and destroy the software.[36] Apple hired attorneys Ted Olson and Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. to fight the order on appeal.[26]

The same day, Apple revealed that in early January it had discussed with the FBI four methods to access data in the iPhone, but, as was revealed by a footnote in the February 19 application to the court, one of the more promising methods was ruled out by a mistake during the investigation of the attack. After the shooter's phone had been recovered, the FBI asked San Bernardino County, the owner of the phone, to reset the password to the shooter's iCloud account in order to acquire data from the iCloud backup. However, this rendered the phone unable to backup recent data to iCloud unless its pass-code was entered.[37][38][39] This was confirmed by the U.S. Department of Justice, which then added that any backup would have been "insufficient" because they would not have been able to recover enough information from it.[40]

The government cited as precedent United States v. New York Telephone Co., in which the Supreme Court ruled in 1977 that the All Writs Act gave courts the power to demand reasonable technical assistance from the phone company in accessing phone calling records. Apple responded that New York Telephone was already collecting the data in question in the course of its business, something the Supreme Court took note of in its ruling. Apple also asserts that being compelled to write new software "amounts to compelled speech and viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment. ... What is to stop the government from demanding that Apple write code to turn on the microphone in aid of government surveillance, activate the video camera, surreptitiously record conversations, or turn on location services to track the phone's user?" Apple argued that the FBI had not made use of all of the government's tools, such as employing the resources of the NSA. A hearing on the case was scheduled for March 22, 2016.[41]

San Bernardino County District Attorney Michael Ramos filed a brief stating the iPhone may contain evidence of a "lying dormant cyber pathogen" that could have been introduced into the San Bernardino County computer network,[42][43][44] as well as identification of a possible third gunman who was alleged to have been seen at the scene of the attack by eyewitnesses.[45] The following day, Ramos told the Associated Press that he did not know whether the shooters had compromised the county's infrastructure, but the only way to know for sure was by gaining access to the iPhone.[46][47] This statement has been criticized by cyber-security professionals as being improbable.[47][48][49][50]

Tim Cook's statements

In an interview for a Time magazine cover story, Cook said that the issue is not "privacy versus security ... it's privacy and security or privacy and safety versus security." Cook also said, "[T]his is the golden age of surveillance that we live in. There is more information about all of us, so much more than ten years ago, or five years ago. It's everywhere. You are leaving digital footprints everywhere."[51]

In a March 21, 2016, Apple press conference, Cook talked about the ongoing conflict with the FBI, saying, "[W]e have a responsibility to protect your data and your privacy. We will not shrink from this responsibility."[52]

FBI withdrawal of request

On March 21, 2016, the government requested and was granted a delay, saying a third party had demonstrated a possible way to unlock the iPhone in question and the FBI needed more time to determine if it will work.[53][54][55] On March 28, 2016, the FBI said it had unlocked the iPhone with the third party's help, and an anonymous official said that the hack's applications were limited; the Department of Justice withdrew the case.[56][57] The lawyer for the FBI has stated that they are using the extracted information to further investigate the case.[58]

On April 7, 2016, FBI Director James Comey said that the tool used can only unlock an iPhone 5C like that used by the San Bernardino shooter, as well as older iPhone models lacking the Touch ID sensor. Comey also confirmed that the tool was purchased from a third party but would not reveal the source,[59] later indicating the tool cost more than $1.3 million and that they did not purchase the rights to technical details about how the tool functions.[60] Although the FBI was able to use other technological means to access the cellphone data from the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone 5C, without the aid of Apple, law enforcement still expresses concern over the encryption controversy.[61]

Some news outlets, citing anonymous sources, identified the third party as Israeli company Cellebrite. However, The Washington Post reported that, according to anonymous "people familiar with the matter", the FBI had instead paid "professional hackers" who used a zero-day vulnerability in the iPhone's software to bypass its ten-try limitation, and did not need Cellebrite's assistance.[62][63]

Other All Writs Act cases involving iPhones
State-by-state usage of the All Writs Act by the federal government of the United States against Apple Inc. and Google.[64]
  Apple Inc.
  Google
  Apple Inc. and Google

Apple had previously challenged the U.S. Department of Justice's authority to compel it to unlock an iPhone 5S in a drug case in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn (In re Order Requiring Apple Inc. to Assist in the Execution of a Search Warrant Issued by the Court, case number 1:15-mc-01902[65]), after the magistrate judge in the case, James Orenstein, requested Apple's position before issuing an order.[66][67][68] On February 29, 2016, Judge Orenstein denied the government's request, saying the All Writs Act cannot be used to force a company to modify its products: "The implications of the government's position are so far-reaching – both in terms of what it would allow today and what it implies about Congressional intent in 1789 – as to produce impermissibly absurd results."[69] Orenstein went on to criticize the government's stance, writing, "It would be absurd to posit that the authority the government sought was anything other than obnoxious to the law."[65][70][71] The Justice Department appealed the ruling to District Court Judge Margot Brodie.[72] Apple requested a delay while the FBI attempted to access the San Bernardino iPhone without Apple's help.[73] On April 8, after the FBI succeeded, the Justice Department told the Brooklyn court it intended to press forward with its demand for assistance there,[74] but on April 22, the government withdrew its request, telling the court "an individual" (the suspect, according to press reports) had provided the correct passcode.[75]

In addition to the San Bernardino case and the Brooklyn case, Apple has received at least nine different requests from federal courts under the All Writs Act for iPhone or iPad products. Apple has objected to these requests. This fact was revealed by Apple in court filings in the Brooklyn case made at the request of the judge in that case. Most of these requests call upon Apple "to use its existing capabilities to extract data like contacts, photos and calls from locked iPhones running on operating systems iOS7 and older" (as in the Brooklyn case), while others "involve phones with more extensive encryption, which Apple cannot break" and presumably seek to order Apple to "design new software to let the government circumvent the device's security protocols and unlock the phone" (as in the San Bernardino case).[3]

Reactions

National reactions to Apple's opposition of the order were mixed.[76] A CBS News poll that sampled 1,022 Americans found that 50% of the respondents supported the FBI's stance, while 45% supported Apple's stance.[77] Also, 1,002 surveyed Americans who own smartphones were divided into two sides; 51% were against Apple's decision, while 38% supported their stance.[78]

Support for Apple

The Reform Government Surveillance coalition, which includes major tech firms Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo!, Twitter, and LinkedIn, has indicated its opposition to the order.[79][80][81] By March 3, the deadline, a large number of amicus curiae briefs were filed with the court, with numerous technology firms supporting Apple's position, including a joint brief from Amazon.com, Box, Cisco Systems, Dropbox, Evernote, Facebook, Google, Lavabit, Microsoft, Mozilla, Nest Labs, Pinterest, Slack Technologies, Snapchat, WhatsApp, and Yahoo!. Briefs from the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Access Now, and the Center for Democracy and Technology also supported Apple.[82][83][84]

The think tank Niskanen Center has suggested that the case is a door-in-the-face technique designed to gain eventual approval for encryption backdoors[85] and is viewed as a revival of the Crypto Wars.[86]

U.S. Representative Mike Honda, a Democrat who represents the Silicon Valley region, has voiced his support for Apple.[87]

On February 23, 2016, a series of pro-Apple protests organized by Fight for the Future were held outside of Apple's stores in over 40 locations.[88][89][90]

Zeid Raad al-Hussein, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, warned the FBI of the potential for "extremely damaging implications" on human rights and that they "risk unlocking a Pandora's box" through their investigation.[91]

General Michael Hayden, former director of the NSA and the Central Intelligence Agency, in a March 7 interview with Maria Bartiromo on the Fox Business Network, supported Apple's position, noting that the CIA considers cyber-attacks the number one threat to U.S. security and saying that "this may be a case where we've got to give up some things in law enforcement and even counter terrorism in order to preserve this aspect, our cybersecurity."[92]

Salihin Kondoker, whose wife was shot in the attack but survived, filed a friend of the court brief siding with Apple; his brief said that he "understand[s] that this software the government wants them to use will be used against millions of other innocent people. I share their fear."[93]

Edward Snowden said that the FBI already has the technical means to unlock Apple's devices and said, "The global technological consensus is against the FBI."[94][95]

McAfee founder and Libertarian Party presidential primary candidate John McAfee had publicly volunteered to decrypt the iPhone used by the San Bernardino shooters, avoiding the need for Apple to build a backdoor.[96] He later indicated that the method he would employ, extracting the unique ID from inside the A7 processor chip, is difficult and risks permanently locking the phone, and that he was seeking publicity.[97]

Ron Wyden, Democratic senator for Oregon and a noted privacy and encryption advocate, questioned the FBI's honesty concerning the contents of the phone. He said in a statement, "There are real questions about whether [the FBI] has been straight with the public on [the Apple case]."[98]

Support for FBI

Some families of the victims and survivors of the attack indicated they would file a brief in support of the FBI.[99]

The National Sheriffs' Association has suggested that Apple's stance is "putting profit over safety" and "has nothing to do with privacy."[70] The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, and the National Sheriffs' Association filed a brief supporting the FBI.[100]

"With Apple's privacy policy for the customers there is no way of getting into a phone without a person's master password. With this policy there will be no backdoor access on the phone for the law enforcement to access the person's private information. This has caused a great dispute between the FBI and Apple's encryption.[61] Apple has closed this backdoor for the law enforcement because they believe that by creating this backdoor it would make it easier for law enforcement, and also make it easier for criminal hackers to gain access to people's personal data on their phone." Former FBI director James Comey says that "We are drifting to a place in this country where there will be zones that are beyond the reach of the law."[61] He believes that this backdoor access is crucial to investigations, and without it many criminals will not be convicted.[61]

Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, a Democrat and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has voiced her opposition to Apple.[87] All candidates for the Republican nomination for the 2016 U.S. presidential election who had not dropped out of the race before February 19, 2016 supported the FBI's position, though several expressed concerns about adding backdoors to mobile phones.[101]

On February 23, 2016, the Financial Times reported[102] that Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, has sided with the FBI in the case. However, Gates later said in an interview with Bloomberg News "that doesn't state my view on this."[103] He added that he thought the right balance and safeguards need to be found in the courts and in Congress, and that the debate provoked by this case is valuable.[104]

San Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan said in an interview:

I'll be honest with you, I think that there is a reasonably good chance that there is nothing of any value on the phone. What we are hoping might be on the phone would be potential contacts that we would obviously want to talk to. This is an effort to leave no stone unturned in the investigation. [To] allow this phone to sit there and not make an effort to get the information or the data that may be inside of that phone is simply not fair to the victims and their families.[105]

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., said that he wants Apple to unlock 175 iPhones that his office's Cyber-Crime Lab has been unable to access, adding, "Apple should be directed to be able to unlock its phones when there is a court order by an independent judge proving and demonstrating that there's relevant evidence on that phone necessary for an individual case."[106]

FBI Director Comey, testifying before the House Judiciary Committee, compared Apple's iPhone security to a guard dog, saying, "We're asking Apple to take the vicious guard dog away and let us pick the lock."[107]

Apple's iOS 8 and later have encryption mechanisms that make it difficult for the government to get through. Apple provided no backdoor for surveillance without the company's discretion. However, Comey stated that he did not want a backdoor method of surveillance and that "We want to use the front door, with clarity and transparency, and with clear guidance provided by law." He believes that special access is required in order to stop criminals such as "terrorists and child molesters". Many companies such as Apple would not give the U.S. access due to the policies Apple has in place on users' confidentiality.[108]

Calls for compromise

Both 2016 Democratic presidential candidates—former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders—suggested some compromise should be found.[101][109]

U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter called for Silicon Valley and the federal government to work together. "We are squarely behind strong data security and strong encryption, no question about it," he said. Carter also added that he is "not a believer in back doors."[110]

In an address to the 2016 South by Southwest conference on March 11, President Barack Obama stated that while he could not comment on the specific case, "You cannot take an absolutist view on [encryption]. If your view is strong encryption no matter what, and we can and should create black boxes, that does not strike the balance that we've lived with for 200 or 300 years. And it's fetishizing our phones above every other value. That can't be the right answer."[111]

Proposed legislation

On April 13, 2016 U.S. Senators Richard Burr and Dianne Feinstein, the Republican Chair and senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, respectively, released draft legislation that would authorize state and federal judges to order "any person who provides a product or method to facilitate a communication or the processing or storage of data" to provide data in intelligible form or technical assistance in unlocking encrypted data and that any such person who distributes software or devices must ensure they are capable of complying with such an order.[112][113]

Freedom of Information Act lawsuit

In September 2016, the Associated Press, Vice Media, and Gannett (the owner of USA Today) filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the FBI, seeking to compel the agency to reveal who it hired to unlock Farook's iPhone, and how much was paid.[114][115] On September 30, 2017, a federal court ruled against the media organizations and granted summary judgment in the government's favor.[115][116] The court ruled that the company that hacked the iPhone and the amount paid to it by the FBI were national security secrets and "intelligence sources or methods" that are exempt from disclosure under FOIA; the court additionally ruled that the amount paid "reflects a confidential law enforcement technique or procedure" that also falls under a FOIA exemption.[115]

Inspector General Investigation

Background

On August 31, 2016 Amy Hess, the FBI's Executive Assistant Director, raised concerns with the Office of Inspector General alleging there was a disagreement between units of the Operational Technology Division (OTD) of their capability to access Farook's iPhone; namely between the Cryptographic and Electronic Analysis Unit (CEAU) and the Remote Operations Unit (ROU). She also alleged that some OTD officials were indifferent to FBI leadership (herself included)[117] giving possibly misleading testimony to Congress and in court orders that they had no such capability.

Findings

Ultimately, the Inspector General's March 2018 report[118] found no evidence that the OTD had withheld knowledge of the ability to unlock Farook's iPhone at the time of Director Comey's congressional testimony of February 9 and March 1, 2016. However, the report also found that poor communication and coordination between the CEAU and ROU meant that "not all relevant personnel had been engaged at the outset".

The ROU Chief (named by Vice to be Eric Chuang)[119] said he only became aware of the access problem after a February 11 meeting of the Digital Forensics and Analysis Section (DFAS) - of which the ROU is not a member. While the OTD directors were in frequent contact during the investigation, including discussions about Farook's iPhone, Asst. Dir. Stephen Richardson and the Chief of DFAS, John F. Bennett, believed at the time that a court order was their only alternative.

Chuang claimed the CEAU Chief didn't ask for their help due to a "line in the sand" against using classified security tools in domestic criminal cases.[lower-alpha 1] The CEAU Chief denied such a line existed and that not using classified techniques was merely a preference. Nevertheless, the perception of this line resulted in the ROU not getting involved until after John Bennett's February 11 meeting asking "anyone" in the bureau to help.

Once Chuang "got the word out", he soon learned that a trusted vendor was "almost 90 percent of the way" to a solution after "many months" of work and asked they prioritize its completion. The unnamed vendor came forward with their solution on March 16, 2016 and successfully demonstrated it to FBI leadership on March 20. The US Attorneys Office was informed the next day and they withdrew their court action against Apple on March 28.

When asked why the ROU was not involved earlier the Chief of Technical Surveillance Section (TSS), Eric Chuang's superior, initially said it was not in his "lane" and it was handled exclusively by the DFAS because "that is their mandate". He later claimed that Farook's phone was discussed from the outset but he did not instruct his unit chiefs to contact outside vendors until after February 11. In either event, neither he nor the ROU were asked to request help from their vendors until mid-February. By the time the Attorneys Office filed their February 16 court order, the ROU had only just begun contacting its vendors.

The CEAU Chief was unable to say with certainty that the ROU had been consulted beforehand and that the February 11th meeting was a final "mop-up" before a court action was filed. The CEAU's search for solutions within the FBI was undocumented and was handled informally by a senior engineer that the CEAU Chief personally trusted had checked with "everybody".

On the other hand, it's possible that Hess' asking questions is what prompted the February 11 "mop-up" meeting. During the CEAU's search Hess became concerned that she wasn't getting straight answers from the OTD and that unit chiefs didn't know the capabilities of the others. The Inspector General stated further:

... the CEAU Chief may not have been interested in researching all possible solutions and instead focused only on unclassified techniques that could readily be disclosed in court that OTD and its partner agencies already had in-hand.

Both Hess and Chuang stated the CEAU Chief seemed not to want to use classified techniques and appeared to have an agenda in pursuing a favorable ruling against Apple. Chuang described the CEAU Chief as "definitely not happy" that they undermined his legal case against Apple and had vented his frustration with him.

Hess said the CEAU Chief wanted to use the case as a "poster child" to resolve the larger problem with encrypted devices known as the "Going Dark challenge". The challenge is defined by the FBI as "changes in technology [that] hinder law enforcement's ability to exercise investigative tools and follow critical leads".[120] As The Los Angeles Times reported in March 2018, the FBI was unable to access data from 7,775 seized devices in their investigations. The unidentified method used to unlock Farook's phone - costing more than $1 million to obtain - quit working once Apple updated their operating system.[4]

Conclusion

The Inspector General's report found that statements in the FBI's testimony before Congress were accurate but relied on assumptions that the OTD units were coordinating effectively from the beginning. They also believe the miscommunication delayed finding a technical solution to accessing Farook's iPhone. The FBI disputed this since the vendor had been working on the project independently "for some time". However, according to Chuang - whom described himself as a "relationship holder" for the vendor - they were not actively working to complete the solution and that it was moved to the "front burner" on his request; to which the TSS Chief agreed.

In response to the Inspector General's report, the FBI intended to add a new OTD section to consolidate resources to address the Going Dark problem and to improve coordination between units.

Notes
  1. Eric Chuang appears to be referring to a January 2002 memo requiring approval from the Deputy Attorney General to grant use for classified tools in criminal cases. While Chuang was aware of two previous cases where they were used, he claimed this infrequency proved that using such techniques was "difficult"."

See also

References
  1. Grossman, Lev (March 17, 2016). "Inside Apple CEO Tim Cook's Fight With the FBI". Time. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved March 17, 2016.
  2. Benner, Katie; Lichtblau, Eric (March 28, 2016). "U.S. Says It Has Unlocked iPhone Without Apple". The New York Times. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved March 28, 2016.
  3. McLaughlin, Jenna (February 23, 2016). "New Court Filing Reveals Apple Faces 12 Other Requests to Break Into Locked iPhones". The Intercept. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved March 3, 2016.
  4. Tanfani, Joseph (March 27, 2018). "Race to unlock San Bernardino shooter's iPhone was delayed by poor FBI communication, report finds". The Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on July 22, 2018. Retrieved August 18, 2018.
  5. Crypto: How the Code Rebels Beat the Government—Saving Privacy in the Digital Age, Steven Levy, 2001
  6. "Privacy Scandal: NSA Can Spy on Smart Phone Data". September 7, 2013. Archived from the original on September 19, 2019. Retrieved February 25, 2016.
  7. "NSA taps data from 9 major Net firms". USA TODAY. Archived from the original on June 7, 2013. Retrieved May 5, 2019.
  8. Sanger, David E.; Chen, Brian X. (September 27, 2014). "Signaling Post-Snowden Era, New iPhone Locks Out N.S.A." The New York Times. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved February 25, 2016.
  9. "Manhattan DA: iPhone Crypto Locked Out Cops 74 Times". Wired. July 8, 2015. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved February 25, 2016.
  10. Zakrzewski, Cat (October 12, 2015). "Encrypted Smartphones Challenge Investigators". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved February 25, 2016.
  11. "Prosecutors press on with 'think of the children' campaign against encryption in iOS, Android". AppleInsider. August 12, 2015. Archived from the original on March 2, 2016. Retrieved February 25, 2016.
  12. Kary, Tiffany; Dolmetsch, Chris (November 18, 2015). "Apple, Google Urged to Crack Encrypted Phones in Terror Probes". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved February 25, 2016.
  13. "iOS Security—Version 9 or later" (PDF). Apple Inc. September 2015. Archived (PDF) from the original on February 27, 2016. Retrieved February 25, 2016.
  14. Nakashima, Ellen (February 17, 2016). "Apple vows to resist FBI demand to crack iPhone linked to San Bernardino attacks". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on February 17, 2016. Retrieved February 18, 2016.
  15. Decker, Eileen M.; Donahue, Patricia A.; Wilkison, Tracy L.; Chiu, Allen W. (February 19, 2016). "Government's Motion to Compel Apple Inc. to Comply With This Court's February 16, 2016 Order Compelling Assistance in Search". United States Attorneys. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved February 27, 2016.
  16. Zetter, Kim (March 11, 2016). "New Documents Solve a Few Mysteries in the Apple-FBI Saga". WIRED. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved March 11, 2016.
  17. Volz, Dustin; Hosenball, Mark (February 9, 2016). "FBI director says investigators unable to unlock San Bernardino shooter's phone content". Reuters. Archived from the original on February 17, 2016. Retrieved March 31, 2016.
  18. Abdollah, Tami; Tucker, Eric (February 16, 2016). "SAN BERNARDINO SHOOTING: Apple must help US hack killer's phone". The Press-Enterprise. Archived from the original on February 18, 2016. Retrieved February 16, 2016.
  19. Whittaker, Zack (June 10, 2016). "NSA finally admits why it couldn't hack San Bernardino shooter's iPhone". ZDNet. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved June 11, 2016.
  20. Blankstein, Andrew (February 16, 2016). "Judge Forces Apple to Help Unlock San Bernardino Shooter iPhone". NBC News. Archived from the original on February 17, 2016. Retrieved February 16, 2016.
  21. Chesney, Robert M. (February 17, 2016). "Apple vs FBI: The Going Dark Dispute Moves from Congress to the Courtroom". Lawfare. Archived from the original on February 18, 2016. Retrieved February 20, 2016.
  22. Mitchell, Anne P. (February 17, 2016). "Full Explanation of Court Order to Apple to Unlock San Bernardino Shooters' iPhone and Apple Refusal (Full text of court order and Tim Cook's letter included)". The Internet Patrol. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved February 26, 2016.
  23. "Court Docket for USA v. In the Matter of the Search of an Apple iPhone Seized During the Execution of a Search Warrant on a Black Lexus IS300, California License Plate 35KGD203". Docket Alarm. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved March 16, 2016.
  24. Pym, Sheri (February 16, 2016). "Order Compelling Apple, Inc. to Assist Agents in Search" (PDF). United States District Court for the Central District of California. Archived (PDF) from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved February 27, 2016.
  25. Pettersson, Edvard (February 25, 2016). "Apple Slams U.S. Bid to Make It Crack iPhone in Court Papers". Bloomberg Politics. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved February 25, 2016.
  26. Dolan, Maura; Kim, Victoria (February 18, 2016). "Apple-FBI fight over iPhone encryption pits privacy against national security". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved February 20, 2016.
  27. Davidson, Amy (February 19, 2016). "The Dangerous All Writs Act Precedent in the Apple Encryption Case". New Yorker. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved February 20, 2016.
  28. Boutrous Jr., Theodore J. (February 25, 2016). "APPLE INC'S MOTION TO VACATE" (PDF). Documentcloud. p. 51. Archived (PDF) from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved March 14, 2016.
  29. "Analyzing the FBI case against Apple: A technical review". ReadySignOn. Retrieved March 21, 2016.
  30. Perez, Evan; Hume, Tim (February 17, 2016). "Apple opposes judge's order to hack San Bernardino shooter's iPhone". CNN. Archived from the original on February 18, 2016. Retrieved February 17, 2016.
  31. Yadron, Danny (February 19, 2016). "Apple says the FBI is making access demands even China hasn't asked for". The Guardian. Archived from the original on February 20, 2016. Retrieved February 20, 2016.
  32. "SAN BERNARDINO SHOOTING: Apple gets more time to file its response". The Press-Enterprise. February 19, 2016. Archived from the original on February 20, 2016. Retrieved February 19, 2016.
  33. Pagliery, Jose (March 21, 2016). "Apple will battle the FBI in court Tuesday". CNN Money. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved April 20, 2016.
  34. Cook, Tim (February 16, 2016). "A Message to Our Customers". Apple Inc. Archived from the original on February 17, 2016. Retrieved February 19, 2016.
  35. Levine, Mike; Date, Jack; Cloherty, Jack (February 19, 2016). "DOJ Escalates Battle With Apple Over San Bernardino Shooter's Phone". ABC News. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved February 19, 2016.
  36. "San Bernardino shooting: US says Apple could keep, destroy software to help FBI hack iPhone". Associated Press. February 19, 2016. Archived from the original on February 20, 2016. Retrieved February 19, 2016.
  37. Dave, Paresh (February 19, 2016). "Apple and feds reveal San Bernardino shooter's iCloud password was reset hours after attack". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on February 21, 2016. Retrieved February 19, 2016.
  38. Date, Jack (February 19, 2016). "San Bernardino Shooter's Apple ID Passcode Changed While in Government Possession, Apple Says". Yahoo! GMA. Archived from the original on March 9, 2018. Retrieved February 19, 2016.
  39. Volz, Dustin; Edwards, Julia (February 20, 2016). "U.S., Apple ratchet up rhetoric in fight over encryption". Reuters. Archived from the original on February 19, 2016. Retrieved February 20, 2016.
  40. "Apple Says Law Enforcement Missed Chance to Back Up San Bernardino Shooter's iPhone". CNN Wire. February 20, 2016. Archived from the original on February 21, 2016. Retrieved February 20, 2016.
  41. Zetter, Kim; Barrett, Brian (February 25, 2016). "Apple to FBI: You Can't Force Us to Hack the San Bernardino iPhone". Wired. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved February 25, 2016.
  42. Fagan, Gary (March 4, 2016). "In the Matter of the Search of an Apple iPhone Seized During the Execution of a Search Warrant on a Black Lexus IS300, California License Plate 35KGD203" (PDF). Ars Tecnica. Archived (PDF) from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved March 10, 2016.
  43. Kravets, David (March 3, 2016). "San Bernardino DA says seized iPhone may hold "dormant cyber pathogen"". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on March 5, 2016. Retrieved March 4, 2016. The iPhone is a county owned telephone that may have connected to the San Bernardino County computer network. The seized iPhone may contain evidence that can only be found on the seized phone that it was used as a weapon to introduce a lying dormant cyber pathogen that endangers San Bernardino's infrastructure.
  44. Downey, David (March 4, 2016). "SAN BERNARDINO SHOOTING: DA fears terrorist's iPhone could have launched cyber attack". The Press-Enterprise. Archived from the original on March 6, 2016. Retrieved March 5, 2016.
  45. "Prosecutor: iPhone could ID unknown San Bernardino attacker". CBS News. Associated Press. March 4, 2016. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved March 5, 2016.
  46. Bailey, Brandon (March 3, 2016). "Does an extremist's iPhone contain a "cyber pathogen"?". Associated Press. Archived from the original on March 10, 2016. Retrieved March 10, 2016.
  47. Kravets, David (March 4, 2016). "What is a "lying-dormant cyber pathogen?" San Bernardino DA says it's made up [Update]". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved March 5, 2016. Did he use the county's infrastructure? Did he hack into that infrastructure? I don't know. In order for me to really put that issue to rest, there is one piece of evidence that would absolutely let us know that, and that would be the iPhone.
  48. Collins, Katie (March 4, 2016). "Harry Potter fiction or iPhone weaponry? The 'dormant cyber pathogen' at the heart of Apple vs. FBI". CNET. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved March 5, 2016.
  49. "What's a 'cyber pathogen'? San Bernardino DA baffles security community". The Guardian. March 4, 2016. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved March 5, 2016.
  50. Russel, Jon (March 4, 2016). "San Bernardino DA claims Syed Farouk's iPhone may house 'cyber pathogen'". Tech Crunch. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved March 5, 2016.
  51. "Transcript of Nancy Gibbs' interview with Tim Cook". Time. March 18, 2016. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved March 18, 2016.
  52. "Apple's Tim Cook on iPhone unlocking case: 'We will not shrink from this responsibility'". AOL. TechCrunch. March 21, 2016. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved March 21, 2016.
  53. "The Latest: FBI, Apple hearing over unlocking phone canceled". Yahoo! News. Associated Press. March 21, 2016. Retrieved March 21, 2016.
  54. "FBI may have found way to unlock San Bernardino shooter's iPhone". CBS News. Associated Press. March 21, 2016. Archived from the original on March 25, 2016. Retrieved March 22, 2016.
  55. "SAN BERNARDINO SHOOTING: Israeli company is helping the FBI, reports say". The Press-Enterprise. March 23, 2016. Archived from the original on March 24, 2016. Retrieved March 23, 2016.
  56. "FBI says it has cracked terrorist's iPhone without Apple's help". CNN Money. March 28, 2016. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved March 28, 2016.
  57. Dale, Jack; Levine, Mike; Newcomb, Alyssa (March 28, 2016). "Justice Department Withdraws Request in Apple iPhone Encryption Case After FBI Accesses San Bernardino Shooter's Phone". ABC News. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved March 28, 2016.
  58. Lichtblau, Eric (April 6, 2016). "F.B.I. Lawyer Won't Say if Data From Unlocked iPhone Is Useful". New York Times. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved April 6, 2016.
  59. Gibbs, Samuel (April 7, 2016). "San Bernardino iPhone hack won't work on newer models, says FBI". The Guardian. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved April 7, 2016.
  60. Lichtblau, Eric; Benner, Katie (April 21, 2016). "F.B.I. Director Suggests Bill for iPhone Hacking Topped $1.3 Million". The New York Times. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved April 25, 2016. Comey said the cost was 'more than I will make in the remainder of this job, which is 7 years and 4 months.'
  61. Dujardin, Peter (April 12, 2015). "Law enforcement worries over beefed-up phone encryption". Daily Press. Daily Press. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved May 2, 2016.
  62. Nakashima, Ellen (April 12, 2016). "FBI paid professional hackers one-time fee to crack San Bernardino iPhone". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on April 14, 2016. Retrieved April 14, 2016.
  63. "Government keeping his technique to crack San Bernardino iPhone 'classified'". www.mbgadget.com. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved December 2, 2016.
  64. Pagliery, Jose (March 30, 2016). "Here are the places feds are using a controversial law to unlock phones". CNN. Time Warner. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved April 30, 2016.
  65. In Re Order requiring Apple, Inc. to assist in the execution of a search warrant issued by the court, Memorandum and Order Archived February 10, 2021, at the Wayback Machine, James Orenstein, Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn), 1:15-mc-1902 (JO), February 29, 2016
  66. Field, Emily. "Apple Says Gov't Can't Force It To Unlock iPhone". Law360. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved March 3, 2016.
  67. Bradshaw, Tim; Waters, Richard (February 24, 2016). "Apple's legal strategy v FBI has roots in case heard last year". Financial Times. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved February 25, 2016.
  68. Frankel, Alison (February 17, 2016). "How a N.Y. judge inspired Apple's encryption fight with Justice". Reuters. Archived from the original on March 12, 2016. Retrieved March 11, 2016.
  69. Ackerman, Spencer; Thielman, Sam; Yadron, Danny (February 29, 2016). "Apple case: judge rejects FBI request for access to drug dealer's iPhone". The Guardian. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved February 29, 2016.
  70. Smythe, Christie; Wang, Selina; Kary, Tiffany (March 1, 2016). "Apple Goes to Washington Fresh From Big Boost in iPhone Fight". Bloomberg. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved March 1, 2016.
  71. Smythe, Christie; Kary, Tiffany (February 29, 2016). "Apple Wins in Brooklyn Battle Over Unlocking iPhone". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved March 2, 2016.
  72. Edwards, Julia (March 7, 2016). "Justice Department asks judge to revisit NY iPhone case". Yahoo! News. Reuters. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved March 8, 2016.
  73. "Citing FBI quest, Apple asks judge to delay iPhone data case". Yahoo! News. Associated Press. March 25, 2016. Retrieved March 25, 2016.
  74. "U.S. to continue appeal of iPhone data case in New York". Yahoo! Finance. Reuters. April 8, 2016. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved April 8, 2016.
  75. Bradshaw, Tim (April 23, 2016). "FBI ends stand-off with Apple over iPhone". FT. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved April 25, 2016.
  76. Botelho, Greg; Brascia, Lorenza; Martinez, Michael (February 18, 2016). "Anger, praise for Apple for rebuffing FBI over San Bernardino killer's phone". CNN. Archived from the original on February 19, 2016. Retrieved February 19, 2016.
  77. "CBS News poll: Americans split on unlocking San Bernardino shooter's iPhone". CBS News. March 18, 2016. Archived from the original on March 20, 2016. Retrieved March 19, 2016.
  78. "More Support for Justice Department Than for Apple in Dispute Over Unlocking iPhone". Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved April 24, 2016.
  79. "Reform Government Surveillance Statement Regarding Encryption and Security". Reform Government Surveillance. February 17, 2016. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved February 24, 2016.
  80. Clark, Jack (February 17, 2016). "Google, Tech Companies Side With Apple in Decryption Protest". Bloomberg. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved February 24, 2016.
  81. Andor Brodeur, Michael (February 23, 2016). "FBI v. Apple: What's at stake in encryption fight". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved February 23, 2016.
  82. Brandom, Russell (March 3, 2016). "Google, Microsoft, and other tech giants file legal briefs in support of Apple". The Verge. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved March 4, 2016.
  83. Maddigan, Michael; Katyal, Neil (March 2, 2016). "Brief of Amici Curiae Amazon, et. al" (PDF). Hogan Lovells US LLP. Archived (PDF) from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved March 4, 2016.
  84. "Amicus Briefs in Support of Apple". Apple Press Info. March 3, 2016. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved March 4, 2016.
  85. Froomkin, Dan; McLaughlin, Jenna (February 26, 2016). "FBI vs. Apple Establishes a New Phase of the Crypto Wars". The Intercept. Retrieved February 26, 2016.
  86. Lee, Sung (February 26, 2016). "The government's decades-long battle for backdoors in encryption". Newsweek. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved February 27, 2016.
  87. Thielman, Sam; Yadron, Danny (February 27, 2016). "Crunch time for Apple as it prepares for face-off with FBI". The Guardian. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved March 1, 2016.
  88. Reisinger, Don (February 22, 2016). "Will You Protest the FBI at Apple Stores on Tuesday?". Fortune. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved March 13, 2016.
  89. MOSCARITOLO, ANGELA (February 24, 2016). "Protesters Gather to Support Apple in FBI iPhone Fight". PCMag. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved March 13, 2016.
  90. CUTHBERTSON, ANTHONY (February 22, 2016). "APPLE STORE PROTESTS OVER ENCRYPTION BATTLE PLANNED WORLDWIDE". Newsweek. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved March 13, 2016.
  91. "San Bernardino Shooting: UN chief warns of implications of Apple-FBI row". The Press-Enterprise. Associated Press. March 4, 2016. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved March 4, 2016.
  92. Limitone, Julia (March 7, 2016). "Fmr. NSA, CIA Chief Hayden Sides with Apple Over Feds". Fox Business. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved March 9, 2016.
  93. "San Bernardino survivor's husband backs Apple in battle with FBI". AOL. TechCrunch. February 29, 2016. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved March 21, 2016.
  94. Reisinger, Don (March 9, 2016). "Snowden: FBI Saying It Can't Unlock iPhone is 'Bullsh**'". Fortune. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved March 9, 2016.
  95. Snowden, Edward (March 8, 2016). "The global technological consensus is against the FBI. Why? Here's one example". Twitter. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved March 9, 2016.
  96. Hathaway, Jay (February 19, 2016). "Antivirus Wild Man John McAfee Offers to Solve FBI's iPhone Problem So Apple Doesn't Have To". Following: How We Live Online. Archived from the original on February 23, 2016. Retrieved February 24, 2016.
  97. Turton, William (March 7, 2016). "John McAfee lied about San Bernardino shooter's iPhone hack to 'get a s**tload of public attention'". The Daily Dot. Archived from the original on May 15, 2016. Retrieved March 7, 2016.
  98. Fontana, John (April 6, 2016). "FBI's strategy in Apple case caught in distortion field". ZDNet. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved April 6, 2016.
  99. Abdullah, Tami; Myers, Amanda Lee (February 22, 2016). "Some Victims in Terror Attack Support Efforts to Hack iPhone". ABC News. Associated Press. Archived from the original on February 24, 2016. Retrieved February 25, 2016.
  100. Nelson, Joe. "State, federal law enforcement agencies file in support of FBI in Apple battle". San Bernardino County Sun. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved March 30, 2016.
  101. "What presidential candidates are saying about the Apple v. FBI debate". Christian Science Monitor. February 19, 2016. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved February 25, 2016.
  102. Foley, Stephen; Bradshaw, Tim (February 23, 2016). "Gates breaks ranks over FBI Apple request". Financial Times. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved February 25, 2016.
  103. "Gates disputes report that he backs FBI in Apple dispute". Bloomberg. February 23, 2016. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved February 25, 2016.
  104. McPhatefeb, Mike (February 23, 2016). "Bill Gates Weighs In on Apple's Clash With the F.B.I." The New York Times. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved February 25, 2016.
  105. "San Bernardino Police Chief Sees Chance Nothing of Value On Shooter's iPhone". NPR. February 26, 2016. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved February 27, 2016.
  106. "It's Not Just The iPhone Law Enforcement Wants To Unlock". NPR. February 21, 2016. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved March 3, 2016.
  107. Abdollah, Tami; Neumeister, Larry (March 1, 2016). "Apple clash before Congress as encryption fight simmers". CBS News. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved March 3, 2016.
  108. Rosenblatt, Seth (October 16, 2014). "FBI director demands access to private cell phone data". Cnet. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved May 2, 2016.
  109. Bereznak, Alyssa (February 25, 2016). "Every GOP presidential candidate sides with the FBI in fight with Apple". Yahoo! News. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved February 25, 2016.
  110. Vanian, Jonathan (March 2, 2016). "Defense Secretary Says He Is For Encryption And Against Back Doors". Fortune. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved March 3, 2016.
  111. Machkovech, Sam (March 11, 2016). "Obama weighs in on Apple v. FBI: "You can't take an absolutist view"". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved March 12, 2016.
  112. Volz, Dustin; Hosenball, Mark (April 8, 2016). "Leak of Senate encryption bill prompts swift backlash". Reuters. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved April 14, 2016.
  113. Hosenball, Mark; Volz, Dustin (April 13, 2016). "U.S. Senate panel releases draft of controversial encryption bill". Yahoo! Finance. Reuters. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved April 14, 2016.
  114. Heath, Brad (September 16, 2016). "USA TODAY, others sue FBI for info on phone hack of San Bernardino shooter". USA Today. Archived from the original on September 17, 2016. Retrieved September 17, 2016.
  115. Josh Gerstein, Judge: FBI can keep cost of iPhone hack secret Archived October 29, 2017, at the Wayback Machine, Politico (October 1, 2017).
  116. Associated Press v. Federal Bureau of Investigation Archived April 20, 2019, at the Wayback Machine, Civil Action No. 16-cv-1850 (TSC) (D.D.C. Sept. 13, 2017).
  117. Hess, Amy (April 19, 2016). "Statement Before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation Washington, D.C." fbi.gov. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved August 18, 2018.
  118. "A Special Inquiry Regarding the Accuracy of FBI Statements Concerning its Capabilities to Exploit an iPhone Seized During the San Bernardino Terror Attack Investigation" (PDF). oig.justice.gov. Office of the Inspector General, US Department of Justice. Archived (PDF) from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved August 18, 2018.
  119. Cox, Joseph (March 29, 2018). "The FBI Used Classified Hacking Tools in Ordinary Criminal Investigations". Motherboard. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved August 18, 2018.
  120. "Going Dark". fbi.gov. Archived from the original on November 1, 2019. Retrieved August 18, 2018.
  121. "Modern cell phones are not just another technological convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans 'the privacies of life.'" Riley v. California, 573 U. S., ___, No. 13-312, slip op. at 28 (2014).
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.