Hacker News Reader

Comment by itsadrop | Hacker News Reader

Law enforcement using a throw away account here. Why is this such a mystery? Of course they have it. We're all scrambling to find the 15 grand to get a license. (its 15K for a web based license, 30K for a standalone license) Cold cases are being re-opened because we can now access devices we have shelved. I guess I'm just confused why it's such a big deal?

View on HN

> We're all scrambling to find the 15 grand to get a license

Well, there's that part.

Apparently lots of my tax dollars are going towards purchasing a temporary license for a temporary solution to a permanent problem that isn't really a problem at all?

Though I must admit, one day those things are going to look great in some museum. They tell a really interesting story. Hopefully the price tag is included on the exhibit description.

Let's not forget that it isn't just one policy agency wanting to buy these.

It's every single department, in every single city, in every single state.

That's thousands, if not tens of thousands, of departments buying these when they'll all be useless as soon as Apple patches the exploit.

Seems like a whole lot of wasted money. But who knows, they might just catch enough "big bad Marijuana dealers" to offset the cost.

That's what the LEO really means by cold cases. Nothing important. Just more drug busts.

> Nothing important. Just more drug busts.

People dying because of drug overdoses seems like a pretty big deal to me, but then again (thank God) I've never had a family member or close friend succumb to a drug addiction.

I don't think it's very charitable of you to assume that just because people don't believe that police handling of drug crimes is effective they don't also think the opiate crisis in the US is a big deal (I'm assuming that's what you're referring to).

If you don't believe that a solution works, then further effort on a non-functioning solution isn't a big deal, even if you feel the problem is a problem.

Many drug overdoses come as a result of it being illegal. You can't be sure of the potency, and there is the incentive to use different active ingredients (higher potency, thus being easier to smuggle, but also increasing the risk of overdose).

> Apparently lots of my tax dollars are going towards purchasing a temporary license

Depending on where you live, maybe 16 cents on the dollar is going to “defense.” And I’d imagine that $15k per license is a tiny fraction of that.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-w...

To be fair, a lot of crime evidence is in the phones. Given that we want cops to investigate and jail them, you can't blame them for doing everything possible--within the law. $15k is nothing, labs cost money, detective time cost money and so on.

Doesn't seem like conducting forensics "over the web" is a good way to control the custody chain or prove that evidence wasn't planted.

the data from the device isn't being transmitted "over the web". The data stays secure on the device. Once the device opened the defense has the right to also examine the phone and determine if "evidence was planted".

Granting access to outside computers means you can't disprove that outside meddling hasn't happened. I would expect a certified forensics lab to maintain a strict firewall for all electronic devices.

I guess the prospect of outside meddling will seem sufficiently unlikely that juries will not view it as much of a hindrance. After all, even with a chain of custody, there are innumerable opportunities for evidence to be planted. You just have to get one or two people who are willing to lie about things. In the US, the standard is "reasonable doubt," and the faint chance that evidence is tampered with during this unlock process will not likely trip the "reasonable" part of that standard, even if it does add some non-zero amount of doubt.

It's a black box that you don't know quite how it works, and you are required to give a third party access to it at all times. I don't know how you can state with certainty that nothing else on the phone was changed.

For me personally, the problem is with trust. I'm not confident that these devices won't encourage the agencies that have them to "go fishing" on the phones of every person they arrest just because they have these shiny new toys.

I also don't trust these agencies will be held accountable when they abuse these devices.

Sally Suburb has a warrant for unpaid tickets? Better check her phone while we have her!

I recall a certain incident, which I'm sure wasn't isolated. I believe it was in California somewhere, where police essentially saw obtaining and trading nudes they would obtain from peoples' phones as a game.

Using the threat of force to obtain nude images of women you've pulled over sure has a rapey feel, to me. Going on and forwarding those images to your friends sounds an awful lot like revenge porn as well. Apparently the police in that area don't agree, though.

I don't believe any of those officers received any actual punishment beyond the standard "take a paid vacation while we let this blow over in the media".

I know, I know, it was just a few of those mythical and rare "bad apples".. but until the good apples who supposedly outnumber the bad start cleaning house, and stop standing up for those "bad apples" to protect the image of their "brotherhood", trust will continue to be an issue.

This is the problem with the "bad apples" phrase. It seems to me people forget the line is "Bad apples spoil the bunch" it's categorically NOT "A few bad apples sure are annoying as heck" as if merely acknowledging that bad apples exist is enough to signal you're doing something about the problem.

Police Departments across the country seem to have a hard time getting this, and as do many of their supporters to the point of "it's a few bad apples" becoming an utterly worthless phrase anymore, IMO.

No mystery, just a morality tale: If you can f8ck someone, do it whether is legal or not.

The FBI wants backdoors, doesn't get backdoors - as far as we know at least - and uses illegal devices to bruteforce mobile phones. There's no grey area here, either you respect people's privacy or not. Circumventing the essence of law one way or another sends a strong signal and it is the wrong kind of signal IMHO.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com