DOJ Reached Out To San Bernardino Victims For Legal Support Before Going To Court Against Apple

from the and-they-want-us-to-believe-it's-not-a-pr-campaign? dept

The FBI keeps insisting that it’s legal fight with Apple is not about the precedent and not about using the tragic incident in San Bernardino as an emotional plug to break down strong encryption. And yet… now it’s come out that even before going to court, federal prosecutors from the DOJ went to the families of those killed in the San Bernardino attacks and asked them to file an amicus brief of support with the court:

Stephen Larson, the lawyer for the victims, told the Guardian the office of the US attorney for the central district of California contacted him on 14 February with a request to file a brief asking Apple to aid in unlocking the phone.

On 16 February, the federal attorney, Eileen Decker, requested a federal magistrate, judge Sheri Pym, issue a warrant for the unlocked iPhone 5C. Pym provided it that day.

Even more interesting? Larson himself hadn’t previously been representing any of the victims. Instead, the local district attorney “connected him” with survivors and relatives of those killed.

It’s not clear who he’s actually representing right now. So far, at least a few of the relatives of those murdered have actually come out in support of Apple. We already mentioned Karen Fagan:

Karen Fagan, of Upland, is the ex-wife of Harry “Hal” Bowman and mother of their two daughters.

“This is a very different thing than asking for data that is Apple’s possession,” Fagan wrote in an email. “They have complied with all of those requests. This is asking them to build a new piece of technology that could be used to invade the privacy of any iPhone. Furthermore, the FBI is citing an act written in 1789 (instead of new legislative action) to justify their request.

“I know that it is a tempting argument to say that we should allow government access to private information in order to make people feel safe. After all, the argument goes, people who aren’t breaking the law have nothing to hide. While that may be true, American citizens have been granted privacy rights, and this request breaches those rights,” Fagan wrote.

And then there’s Carole Adams as well:

Her son was killed in the San Bernardino, Calif., massacre — but Carole Adams agrees with Apple that personal privacy trumps the feds’ demands for new software to break into iPhones, including the phone of her son’s killer.

The mom of Robert Adams — a 40-year-old environmental health specialist who was shot dead by Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife — told The Post on Thursday that the constitutional right to privacy “is what makes America great to begin with.”


“This is what separates us from communism, isn’t it? The fact we have the right to privacy,” she said. “I think Apple is definitely within their rights to protect the privacy of all Americans.

I’m sure that plenty of others will sign on to Larson’s amicus brief, but the fact that it was all pre-vetted by the DOJ certainly seems noteworthy, and highlights how the DOJ/FBI recognize how much of a publicity stunt this case really is.

Filed Under: , , , , , ,
Companies: apple

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “DOJ Reached Out To San Bernardino Victims For Legal Support Before Going To Court Against Apple”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment

The upside

Regardless of how the outcome of the case turns out, the tech industry has recognized that this is a threat to the security of their products and like all previous threats, it will be dealt with. I imagine that as we speak, Apple employees are currently working on a future revision of iOS that will require user interaction from within the interface (or some similar new security measure) in order to apply an patch to the firmware other than a complete wipe and reset making a request for future products of this nature impossible. That’s how technology works. When bugs are found they are fixed even if the bug exists in the legal system.


Re: Re: The upside

Apple already requires a Password for a Firmware update and pretty much everything else.

The only thing I can think of to get around that is a new Modified version of iOS that the government wants that correctly Digitally signed by Apple and somehow forcing a Auto update. Maybe there’s a way to get around by doing that?!?!

That still requires work from Apple to do such a thing that the court has no right in asking Apple to do.


Re: Re: Re: Re:

Ah, thank you! I’m sure your brain will be quite at home in our data processing center’s Life Support and Analog Heuristics support infrastructure, supporting the court’s Fact-finding analysis division.

The transfer was so easy, a child could do it. Unfortunately, DeForest Kelly was not available, so the transfer was effected by the Head of Antonin Scalia, recently installed in its own jar, attached to an Arduino-controlled robot body.

Again, thank you for your donation to the Department of Justice Posthumus Thinking Tank.


Yet, the quotes from those who support Apple are both pretty misleading and meaningless. Apple’s update system is incrediblysecure and any attempt to hack an Iphone generally leads to a bricked phone. Trying to apply a patch to “any iphone” just won’t work.

The privacy issue is also moot. First and foremost, there is the question of ownership of the phone (the City owns, it, not the end user). They are acked for the phone to be unlocked and helping where possible. Second, the right to privacy is not without limits, and especially during a murder investigation. it’s pretty hard to say “you can’t read that, it’s private”. If the courts deem it worthy of review (and have done so in this case) there is no real privacy issues.

Honestly, when i read those quotes, I think that Apple is working harder than anyone to spin the story. It’s working too, because you have bought into it hook line and “every other post on your blog this week”.


Re: Re:

Apple’s update system is incrediblysecure and any attempt to hack an Iphone generally leads to a bricked phone. Trying to apply a patch to “any iphone” just won’t work.

Do you really think that Apple prepares a patch for every phone Individually? A signed patch can be applied to any phone running the same OS version, unless Apple complicate the patch itself to run a pre-install check.


Re: Re:

That said, I’ve had iOS 9.2.1 running on my iPhone for a while.

A few days ago, I started getting pestered by iTunes that my iOS was out of date. It wanted me to install an update to iOS 9.2.1. I’ve been ignoring it, but finally applied it yesterday, and the nag screens went away.

I have no idea what got updated on my phone from 9.2.1 to 9.2.1, nor why my phone suddenly started reporting it needed the update. It could be that they applied an out of band security fix; it could be that they installed a back door. I have no way of knowing.

Both sides are applying a large amount of torque to this story; I figure with that much force, eventually it’ll fall apart and we’ll be able to do a post mortem on the remains.


Re: Re: Re: Re:

there was an un-numbered update to fix a ‘problem’ with the touch ID.

see, if someone got their touch ID fixed by an unauthorized source, it can get messed up and brick the phone (in the name of security).

People got upset, so Apple fixed it.

Now if you get your touch ID fixed by an unauthorized source, it simply shuts off the touch ID function.

Now, why that was an un-numbered update, I am not sure. It should have been 9.2.2.


Re: Re:

Honestly, when I read your comments, I see you are full of bullshit.

Second, the right to privacy is not without limits, and especially during a murder investigation.

Yes, if we are investigating a murder it’s ok to screw all the rest of the population to get such murderer. Who cares about civil rights, it’s a murderer!!!


Re: Re: Re: Re:

Not to mention that it’s not really a murder investigation. A murder investigation seeks to find out who the murderer is, what the motivation was, etc. We know who the murderers were. We already know about as much as we’re going to know about the incident. This is just an information gathering exercise after the fact.


Re: Re: Re: Re:

“Yes, if we are investigating a murder it’s ok to screw all the rest of the population to get such murderer. Who cares about civil rights, it’s a murderer!!!”

Gee Ninja, I didn’t think you were quite that much of an idiot. Opinion changed, I guess.

My point is that during an investigation, the courts may order access to things that would otherwise be private. This is the phone used by the person who committed the crime, and the investigation may go to areas that for others is private.

My point is that during an investigation of a major crime, police do look in places where you (the accused) might consider private, but that are not – say your bank records or your mailbox. Privacy isn’t an absolute.


Re: Re:

Second, the right to privacy is not without limits, and especially during a murder investigation.

This isn’t about the privacy of the shooters. It’s about the privacy for those who own iPhones.

They can’t ALL be under investigation for murder.

Please, try and keep up. I was better with you trying to argue a backdoor isn’t a backdoor, rather than this slop.


Re: Re: Re: Re:

Actually, it’s not about the privacy for those who own iPhones either — it’s about the government’s ability to use the All Writs Act to compel individuals/corporations to create/modify product to defeat security protections.

The precedent this would set is just as bad if you never touch an Apple product. If the precedent is set, then ANY software company can be compelled to do the same — and possibly under a gag order at that. Since this is a novel application, it wouldn’t fly under a gag order, and needs its day in public court.


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:


which is why I, who have never owned an Apple phone, and has no intention of ever owning an Apple phone, someone who is generally considered to be an “apple hater,” strongly back them in this matter.

It’s not about this bastard. It’s not about Apple. It’s not about the Apple fanbois. It’s about everyone. Sure, it’s JUST the FBI now (the same FBI that under it’s founding director kept a selection of files that could end the career of almost every major political figure and government official of the day), but what about when it’s the Chinese or the Russians? Once it’s done once, it’s almost impossible for Apple to refuse any request, and that’s not even considering if this build where to be leaked. Can you imagine what a scammer could do with it?

No, this is bad. It’s bad for everyone who doesn’t think 1984 seems like a utopian paradise.


Re: Re: Don't worry, we'll just manufacture another terrorist plot where we control everything this time around...

“Not that the FBI would do something so low down and dirty as to manufacture a terrorist plot”

Perhaps the FBI needs access to the phone to destroy evidence of complicity and/or prior knowledge which would embarrass the FBI.

It was quite unseemly how quickly the Apple ID was changed, and it destroyed the ability to easily gain access to the data. Perhaps intentional?

Quiet Lurckersays:

Seeking a new descriptive term or word

We’ve all heard the reports of the FBI creating terrorist ‘plots’ out of thin air for whatever ill-conceived reason.

Now, the FBI is attempting to get the families of the San Bernardino victims to speak out in favor of forcing Apple to … do whatever it is the feds are asking them to do.

I’d suggest ‘astroturfing’, or perhaps ‘false flag politics’ but those already conveys similar ideas and connote some modicum of effective camouflage and desired result.

Can we come up with a term or expression to suggest an attempt at astroturfing which has been or will most likely be bungled in some fashion?


This explains so much.

Just waiting for the time where the DOJ gets its timing wrong and tries milking some deed before it happens.

I mean, just think about all the “foiled terrorist plots”: the “terrorists” tend to be from the bottom of the clue drawer. Maybe that’s not who the FBI was aiming for. But when they figured that’s what they got, they harvested early rather than risk getting the real constitution-jerker bungled by incompetence.

This one here was a success, so of course they are riding it for all they can. Crime-surfers.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Report this ad??|??Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Older Stuff
12:25 Australian Privacy Commissioner Says 7-Eleven Broke Privacy Laws By Scanning Customers' Faces At Survey Kiosks (6)
10:50 Missouri Governor Doubles Down On 'View Source' Hacking Claim; PAC Now Fundraising Over This Bizarrely Stupid Claim (45)
10:45 Daily Deal: The All-in-One Microsoft, Cybersecurity, And Python Exam Prep Training Bundle (0)
09:43 Want To Understand Why U.S. Broadband Sucks? Look At Frontier Communications In Wisconsin, West Virginia (8)
05:36 Massachusetts College Decides Criticizing The Chinese Government Is Hate Speech, Suspends Conservative Student Group (71)
19:57 Le Tigre Sues Barry Mann To Stop Copyright Threats Over Song, Lights Barry Mann On Fire As Well (21)
16:07 Court Says City Of Baltimore's 'Heckler's Veto' Of An Anti-Catholic Rally Violates The First Amendment (15)
13:37 Two Years Later, Judge Finally Realizes That A CDN Provider Is Not Liable For Copyright Infringement On Websites (21)
12:19 Chicago Court Gets Its Prior Restraint On, Tells Police Union Head To STFU About City's Vaccine Mandate (158)
10:55 Verizon 'Visible' Wireless Accounts Hacked, Exploited To Buy New iPhones (8)
10:50 Daily Deal: The MacOS 11 Course (0)
07:55 Suing Social Media Sites Over Acts Of Terrorism Continues To Be A Losing Bet, As 11th Circuit Dumps Another Flawed Lawsuit (11)
02:51 Trump Announces His Own Social Network, 'Truth Social,' Which Says It Can Kick Off Users For Any Reason (And Already Is) (100)
19:51 Facebook AI Moderation Continues To Suck Because Moderation At Scale Is Impossible (26)
16:12 Content Moderation Case Studies: Snapchat Disables GIPHY Integration After Racist 'Sticker' Is Discovered (2018) (11)
13:54 Arlo Makes Live Customer Service A Luxury Option (8)
12:05 Delta Proudly Announces Its Participation In The DHS's Expanded Biometric Collection Program (5)
11:03 LinkedIn (Mostly) Exits China, Citing Escalating Demands For Censorship (14)
10:57 Daily Deal: The Python, Git, And YAML Bundle (0)
09:37 British Telecom Wants Netflix To Pay A Tax Simply Because Squid Game Is Popular (32)
06:41 Report: Client-Side Scanning Is An Insecure Nightmare Just Waiting To Be Exploited By Governments (35)
20:38 MLB In Talks To Offer Streaming For All Teams' Home Games In-Market Even Without A Cable Subscription (10)
15:55 Appeals Court Says Couple's Lawsuit Over Bogus Vehicle Forfeiture Can Continue (15)
13:30 Techdirt Podcast Episode 301: Scarcity, Abundance & NFTs (0)
12:03 Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist (66)
10:45 Introducing The Techdirt Insider Discord (4)
10:40 Daily Deal: The Dynamic 2021 DevOps Training Bundle (0)
09:29 Criminalizing Teens' Google Searches Is Just How The UK's Anti-Cybercrime Programs Roll (19)
06:29 Canon Sued For Disabling Printer Scanners When Devices Run Out Of Ink (41)
20:51 Copyright Law Discriminating Against The Blind Finally Struck Down By Court In South Africa (7)
More arrow