San Bernardino Muslim Terrorist Syed Farook Killed 14 In The Name Of Diversity

San Bernardino D.A.: Clue to Possible Third Gunman on Shooter’s Phone

The San Bernardino, California, district attorney suspects that shooter Syed Rizwan Farook’siPhone could hold information about an unconfirmed third gunman in the December shooting spree, or maybe even what he calls a “cyber pathogen” set to harm the local infrastructure.

  • Drunk_by_Noon

    Thank you Apple for protecting that third shooter’s privacy!
    Really, I’ll remember that for a very long time.

    • It’s a bizarre defense.

      • Frances

        Cat – if the FBI is able to force Apple to provide the key to this phone, how long do you think it will be before said key is used against the left’s “enemies”? As in us.

        • Exile1981

          Apple has had a back door in the iphone for years and shares private data all the time with the nsa. Why the change now?

          • Minicapt

            Nope, but it is a comfort to those who know nothing but pontificate much.

            Cheers

          • Exile1981

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2014/07/22/every-iphone-has-a-security-backdoor/#77506cf937d7

            Apple admitted having a back door around the encryption in 2014… they just promised not to use it.

          • B__2

            And maybe they learnt from their experiences with the undisclosed collection of GPS data that was a big issue when it came out. This isn’t a new revelation suddenly exposed by this FBI business, and Apple may be doing what it can to avoid this in the future. Maybe Apple realised how vulnerable it was if all user information was subject to a court order or search warrant. As manufacturer of hardware and system software Apple could build a back door for unlimited access to your data if it wants to without needing the Government to require it: Apple seems to want to prevent being forced to make one to hand over to the government at its whim. Only the NSA know if there is an NSA back door still there and there into the future. If there is one, Apple may or may not have assisted to create one, but you will almost certainly never know either way.

          • Minicapt

            “Hi Steven, please note you’re referencing an article I wrote in July 2014. The information in it is no longer relevant as iOS has been significantly upgraded over multiple generations since along with the hardware upgrades and a new version of Touch ID. Best regards, Gordon”

            Cheers

          • David Murrell

            Apple’s Tim Cook wants to protect the third Islamic State murderer.

          • B__2

            Really? Don’t you think that the two months since and the current worldwide publicity would have allowed any co-conspirator to have covered their tracks or have flown from jurisdiction by now? Where is the information that there was a third ‘murderer’ come from, and if they know for sure there was just one other murderer, then this has come without the need for breaking the iPhone encryption. The government already knows where every phone call incoming or outgoing from that phone went, since that information is gathered and stored by the phone company. Only if the terrorists have a document with a list of their co-conspirators that they never called would this iPhone hack be useful. Look at the array of tech companies lined up now behind Apple’s stance and ask yourself: am I the person been played as a fool by my government on this issue?

          • B__2

            Apple has been working for many years to improve the security of their iPhone. This has been progressing bit by bit, which is why the cloud backup storage was one of the remaining avenues to get the information without a password and without Apple having to write specific code to break the iPhone security. I expect to see an iPhone that even Apple can’t breach its privacy in the near future. NSA might have a back door into it, who knows for sure? I do know that an iPhone that is safe from Chinese, EU, Russian, North Korean, or Iranian government demands to unlock it protects your privacy and your national security too. It’s a double edged sword, the encryption protects everyone, the good people as well as the bad. – and there are many more good people than bad. Apple has abided with court orders before, but use of this All Writs law is overreach and could set a precedent to allow the government (and its employees) access at all times to all of your private information. Please read up on the whole story, not just that reported in sound bites. The FBI chose the San Bernadino terrorist murders case for its emotive justification in setting a precedent that would allow less worthy cases to proceed.

          • Exile1981

            From the stuff leaked a few years back it was obvious Apple had a back door. I have no idea if they still do. Yes they may be telling the truth about the security they provide.

            At this point I just assume any electronic device I buy can and will be accessed at any time by groups or agencies with out my knowing; and act accordingly.

            For the record I don’t trust Tim Cook or Apple to be judges of whats in my best interest. A lot of the groups and causes he supports are all about big government and less freedoms.

            I also don’t trust the FBI and think they are using this case to set a precident that will allow them and other agencies to set up the next stage of a police state.

            What I think we are seeing is a marketing ploy. Apple makes a big show of defending privacy but eventually caves in…. the releases the new I-phone secure to great fan fair and millions rush out to buy one.

          • B__2

            I think Apple has more to lose by being known as the lackey of the US government than it has to gain. If Apple can be made to provide hacked versions of its OS for the US government, then any government can make Apple do the same for them. If there was a back door still in the iOS, you are almost certain not to find out about it, since that information is worth billions and the lives of real people to keep quiet. Only the NSA and involved (if any) people in Apple would know for sure, and they’re not going to release a hint of this. OpSec would require that any information gained through this method would have to come from another plausible source to be able to be released. It might seem cold to make the decision, but the finding of an additional shooter would not be worth disclosing such a back door.

            How would you like your name to be known as the programmer with access to such a backdoor, or access to a new tool that can break encryption of any iPhone? Would you feel safe? Would you feel your family was safe from threats or kidnapping? Many governments (or drug cartels) would be prepared to kill people for this ability. Having the real ability to be immune from such threats in saying you literally cannot give any entity free access protects the Apple programmers, their families and their friends too.

            Apple, unlike Google, doesn’t make its money from selling your data to third parties. As such, it has the most to gain by making sure that, as far as it can, only you have access to your own information. I personally like that approach, and you are free to make your own purchasing decisions on phones, tablets and computers.

    • Gary

      The problem is that the “Jihadimooners” iPHone was owned by the County as part of his Job to do field work at schools.
      It’s NOT his phones , plus his boss must have had the general password to access each other and read emails or view schedules.
      Good luck quitting a job and keeping your iPhone or refusing to give the ex employer a code to access it for the next worker.
      My guess is that Obama got to them to keep this iPhone dead until the election is over.

  • Jaedo Drax

    If only the FBI hadn’t fucked it up, and reset the password, locking them out of the iPhone.

    http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2016/03/fbi-admits-mistake-in-trying-to-unlock-san-bernardino-shooters-iphone.html/

  • andycanuck

    I’ve read about four different versions of what the FBI wants to do, all with different civil liberties points, so I don’t care now. However, I would point out that Apple doesn’t mind blowing China’s government over anything they want but wants to draw a line with the FBI on an already-committed act of Islamic terror.

    • Minicapt

      Apple doesn’t. One of the reasons for the current problem with the iPhone is that, several years ago, the Chinese government began demanding increased access to iOS functions. The government already had access to metadata and such via the government phone system, so Apple instituted complete encryption of the phone’s personal data on the phone, and then eliminated saving the decrypting data to the cloud. Thus your generally available data could be accessed via phone companies and ISPs, but your personal data was safe on the phone behind your password. The Chinese government can demand Apple turn over data, but if Apple has backups of the data, it is encrypted, and the key is on the individual’s phone; Apple does not provide decryption facilities.
      The FBI should have handed the problem over to NSA; it is the responsible agency for such matters in the US government. That this has occurred and continues, suggests that NSA has not broken Apple’s various OSs.
      NSA does produce a version of Android which they promise is “properly secured”.

      Cheers

  • Exile1981

    F- you DA. When the attack happened the survivors all said 3 shootets. The police initially said 3 shooters. The video of the shooting is under lock down. The DA previously said all the witnesses wete wrong only 2 shooters…. and now that apple refuses to help they claim they need it to find the 3rd shooter. BS

    • B__2

      If the FBI really believed that, then they would have used that evidence in their court case against Apple to justify a court ordered hack. They have not. Forensic evidence would show exactly how many guns were used in the San Bernadino terrorist attack, and almost certainly how many shooters (DNA evidence would be used too). There is no reasonable reason to hide a third shooter now if in fact there was one. Many shootings incorrectly initially identify the number of shooters, which is probably the case here. Apple is trying to protect your right to privacy, to not allow the government and its employees access to all of your information any time it likes.

      • Exile1981

        Your missing my point. If the DA spends month denying the number of shooters and refusing to release footage; which would confirm the number. He can not now use the 3rd shooter as justification to force apple.

        • B__2

          Did you not read the linked article? D.A. Mike Ramos *is* using the implied possibility of a third shooter as justification to force Apple. They really do know now since they now have all of the witness statements and forensic evidence including DNA amplification, and possibly any CCTV video as well. Notice the careful use by Mike’s language to create the impression that there might have been a third shooter that requires Apple to submit posthaste, without actually claiming there was a third shooter on site.

          • Exile1981

            I saw that. I’m saying that if you spend months denying the existence of the 3rd shooter you shouldn’t be able to use the threat of the 3rd shooter to get your way. I’m saying he’s an @ss for doing it.

  • Gary

    Harry Lime .