San Bernardino DA Tells Judge To Side With FBI Over Apple Because iPhone May Have Mythical Cyber Weapon

from the magical-unicorn-fairy-thinking dept

There’s been lots of press coverage over the fact that basically a ton of organizations and experts have filed amicus briefs in support of Apple in its legal fight with the FBI/DOJ — and we’ll have a post on that shortly — but on the flip side, the District Attorney for San Bernardino Country, hilariously arguing that he represents “the people of California” as his client, has filed one of the nuttiest amicus briefs you’ll see in favor of the FBI. The full brief application to file a brief is incredibly short and basically makes no actual legal argument pertaining to the actual questions in the case, involving the power of the All Writs Act, or the necessity of Apple’s involvement. Instead, it tosses out two insane reasons why it’s necessary to get into this phone — which, again, is the work iPhone of Syed Farook (the DA spells it Sayed) — both of which are speculative in the extreme:

  1. Initial reports suggested there were three shooters, instead of two. And even though that was later discounted by basically everyone, perhaps this one phone will reveal a third shooter.
  2. Perhaps the phone has some sort of mythical cyber weapon that could wreak havoc on the world.

Really. Here are the key paragraphs from the amicus brief:

At the time that the murders were being perpetrated at least two 911 calls to the San Bernardino Police Dispatch center reported the involvement of three perpetrators. Although the reports of three individuals were not corroborated, and may ultimately be incorrect, the fact remains, that the information contained solely on the seized iPhone could provide evidence to identify as of yet unknown co-conspirators who would be prosecuted for murder and attempted murder in San Bernardino County by the District Attorney.

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 County’s infrastructure, a violation of Cal. Penal Code §502 (Lexis 2016) and poses a continuing threat to the citizens of San Bernardino County.

What?!? On that first point, as detailed in On the Media’s wonderful “Breaking News Consumer Handbook,” when it comes to active shooter situations, there will almost always be a false report of more shooters than their actually are. On the second point… just wow. San Bernardino County District Attorney Michael Ramos is apparently now making up shit out of thin air. Aren’t law enforcement searches supposed to involve “probable cause” rather than “um… what’s the scariest computery thing I could think of based on what I’ve seen in TV and movies?”

As iPhone forensics expert Jonathan Zdziarski told Dave Kravets at Ars Technica, this is the equivalent of the idea that a “magical unicorn might exist on this phone.” He also noted “the world has never seen what he is describing coming from an iPhone.” And also:

It sounds like he?s making up these terms as he goes. We’ve never used these terms in computer science. I think what he?s trying to suggest is that Farook was somehow working with someone to install a program on the iPhone that would infect the local network with some kind of virus or worm or something along those lines. Anything is possible, right? Do they have any evidence whatsoever to show there is any kind of cyber pathogen on the network or any logs or network captures to show that Farook’s phone tried to introduce some unauthorized code into the system?

Security researchers are now cracking all kinds of jokes about this:

When the security world is making jokes about your legal filing, perhaps it wasn’t a good idea.

Of course, it should also be noted that this is not actually the first time San Bernardino County DA Michael Ramos has been mentioned here on Techdirt. Last year he was blathering on about charging drone operators for murder for flying drones near wildfires. One would hope that magistrate judge Sheri Pym knows better than to give any weight to an argument that is based on magic pixie dust fantasy-land arguments.

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 “San Bernardino DA Tells Judge To Side With FBI Over Apple Because iPhone May Have Mythical Cyber Weapon”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
82 Comments
ThatFatMan (profile) says:

Pixie Dust

One would hope that magistrate judge Sheri Pym knows better than to give any weight to an argument that is based on magic pixie dust fantasy-land arguments.

One can hope, but lets be honest based on the already dangerous ruling issued in this case by Pym…it’s much more likely that Michael Ramos has been the one supplying Pym with the Pixie Dust in the first place.

Anonymous Coward says:

Not only is the argument entirely fictional, it would also support the idea of destroying the phone in order to prevent the phone from connecting to a network and releasing the cyber pathogen it could supposedly carry.

This DA seems to have gotten his tech knowledge from watching Skyfall when the otherwise tech-savvy Q decides to plug a known criminal mastermind’s laptop into a secure network and doesn’t think anything bad would happen.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: It could be deadly! Quick, open it!

The funny thing is they already did that. They took it to his office in hopes that it’d automatically connect to the network and back itself up to the iCloud where Apple could get at it’s information for the FBI. That failing was when we learned that the FBI had had the phone’s iCloud password reset, rendering that method of access impossible.

kenichi tanaka (profile) says:

Somebody needs to remind the San Bernardino district attorney that courts do not allow law enforcement or prosecutors to go on “fishing expeditions” based o0n nothing more than a wild theory. The above statement the prosecutor made:

The seized IPhone may contain evidence

Courts have said in the past that prosecutors and law enforcement need a valid reason to search anything that a suspect might own. Prosecutors and law enforcement need legal justification to search something that a suspect possesses or possessed. Telling the court that they “might be evidence” is not a legal justification for a search, which is why courts routinely toss out evidence when it has been obtained illegally and without due process.

Recently, the Supreme Court ruled in Rodriguez v. United States that police officers who detained a driver and then extended the vehicle stop by calling for a K9 unit where the police found methamphetamine in the car amounted to nothing more than an illegal search.

With Apple, even though the iPhone is owned by the government (the state of California), neither law enforcement nor the government can force any company, corporation, business or private citizen to engage in behavior solely for the benefit of the government.

It’s simply ridiculous how little this prosecutor knows ab out the law, which he is supposed to be quite familiar with.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re:

It’s simply ridiculous how little this prosecutor knows ab out the law, which he is supposed to be quite familiar with.

Ridiculous, but expected. The government doesn’t have anything beyond ‘well there might be something valuable on the phone’ as an argument, so of course their claims of why they really need to be able to force Apple to unlock it are going to be based on some pretty shaky(or utterly ludicrous in this case) logic.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Also possibly on the phone:

– The entire collection of the Library of Alexandria, digitized.

– The script for the tv show ‘Lost’, explaining everything in full detail.

– Full translation of the Voynich Manuscript.

– Winning numbers for the next 100 lotteries.

– A copy of an email from Quentin Tarantino explaining exactly what was in the briefcase in Pulp Fiction.

– The cure for all forms of cancer(but not the common cold).

– An absolutely superb, made-from-scratch BBQ sauce recipe.

– The last will and testament of Emperor Norton, revealing that he was a genuine emperor the entire time.

– A file containing approximately three dozen slightly offensive jokes, every single one of which ends with ‘… and that’s why you don’t ask.’

– Half a dozen funny cat gifs.

– Schematics for a machine capable of producing endless free energy, along with instructions in making a material that acts as a perfect conductor of electricity.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Also possibly on the phone:

I don’t know. But the school sent my smartphone home with the cyber-chickenpox and admonishment to update its vaccinations before it could come back.

And here I’ve been an anti-Vax’er ever since that problem with the Vax 11/780 back in my college years…

Anonymous Coward says:

Full brief?

The full brief is incredibly short and basically makes no actual legal argument…

The document that you’re linking is entitled, “San Bernardino County District Attorney’s APPLICATION to Participate as Amicus Curiae” (bold-allcaps added.)

The APPLICATION says, on p.1-2:

A copy of the District Attorney’s proposed brief is ATTACHED to this motion.

(Bold-allcaps added.)

Further, on p.4, the application says:

The People of the State of California, if permitted to file the ATTACHED amicus curiae brief…

(Bold-allcaps added again.)

ISTM, that the linked document, which the article above characterizes as the “full brief” is not actually the amicus brief. The linked document is just the application to file another document, to wit, the aforementioned amicus brief, which we’re not seeing.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Full brief?

The Lavabit Amicus Brief likewise was attached to its application, and likewise not provided (in the other article).

The article above has been modified to note that, yes, it was just the motion and not the brief.

Re Lavabit, I note that the EFF brief referred to is hosted on the Apple servers rather than the court’s system. I’d wager that the brief itself is available, just not from apple’s servers. … or not when Techdirt wrote it up.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Full brief?

… rather than the court’s system…

At the risk of disclosing sources and methods—

• If trustworthy people are willing to take a physical trip to the courthouse, then physically eyeballing the clerk’s file is an option.
• There might still be reasons to have someone available in a publishing chain who has never agreed to the PACER terms.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Full brief?

Re Lavabit, I note that the EFF brief referred to is hosted on the Apple servers rather than the court’s system. I’d wager that the brief itself is available, just not from apple’s servers. … or not when Techdirt wrote it up.

I got the briefs directly from PACER or from Apple. For whatever reason some of the “attached” briefs aren’t in PACER (or posted by Apple).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Fort Detrick

um, on second thought, that is PREZACTLY where any and all pathogens should be sent

Probably don’t want to use either Joint Base Andrews or Baltimore-Washington International Airport to land a “pathogen”.

It starts out just thinking through the contingencies, and then moves to tabletop exercises, and then writeups land in filefolders… if you’ve got an F-15 in the air already, and KC-135 or KC-10 support arranged, then where do you put it all down? What’s the next stage?

chad holbrook (user link) says:

Historically...

Historically, CA has always made crazy legal arguments and federal judges have backed them. During the trial of Kevin Mitnick, “law enforcement officials convinced a judge that he had the ability to “start a nuclear war by whistling into a pay phone”, meaning that law enforcement told the judge that he could somehow dial into the NORAD modem via a payphone from prison and communicate with the modem by whistling to launch nuclear missiles. ” (Wikipedia – Kevin Mitnick) The judge put him in solitary confinement for eight months.

ConfusedDev says:

So let me get this straight...

So this DA is arguing that there may be a dangerous “cyberpathogen” dormant and safely encrypted so it can’t spread on this phone and therefore we should decrypt this phone and the dangerous “cyberpathogen” and in doing so possibly weaponize the now un-encrypted “cyberpathogen”? Seriously? Am I the only one struck by the stupidity of this argument? Why would you decrypt a dormant encrypted malware? It can’t execute while encrypted!

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re:

The dude is dead. His phone is free game. unlock it.

Something which the FBI, DOJ, and any other agency that wants to take a crack at it is more than welcome to do on their own.

What they aren’t welcome to do is order someone else, in this case Apple, to write custom code for the sole purpose of removing key security features protecting the contents of the device in the process. What they are ‘asking’ for goes well beyond ‘unlock it’, both in what is being demanded and what it will mean if their demand is accepted by the court.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

The dude is dead. His phone is free game. unlock it.

No one’s stopping them.

They just need to guess the passcode and hope the phone doesn’t erase if they don’t guess it correctly.

They’ve got a 1 in 1000 chance of guessing it right before the phone auto-erases. That’s hardly Apple’s problem.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Replacing the drive will not help. The phone doesn’t erase the data on the drive after 10 bad guesses. It erases part of the key that is unique to the phone which was added in at the time it was manufactured. If that key gets erased, it won’t matter whether you made a backup of the encrypted data on the drive to a new one or not.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

It erases part of the key that is unique to the phone which was added in at the time it was manufactured.Source?

My understanding is that the hw uid in the A6 is “fused” which I read as possibly either “fused” or “anti-fused”. Either way, doesn’t that require a higher write voltage than read voltage?

Where are the voltage regulators?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

[Sorry, hit submit too quick. Here’s my previous post, reformatted for readibility.]

It erases part of the key that is unique to the phone which was added in at the time it was manufactured.

Source?

My understanding is that the hw uid in the A6 is “fused” which I read as possibly either “fused” or “anti-fused”. Either way, doesn’t that require a higher write voltage than read voltage?

Where are the voltage regulators?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

My understanding is that the hw uid in the A6 is “fused”

IOS 9 Security Guide, p.10

The device’s unique ID (UID) and a device group ID (GID) are AES 256-bit keys fused (UID) or compiled (GID) into the application processor […] during manufacturing.

(And please note that the A6 does NOT have a “secure enclave”. See p.7 of the Guide, indicating that the “secure enclave” applies to the A7 and later. The A6 is earlier.)

Anonymous Coward says:

If this super scary thing exists, why are they not uprooting the earth to learn what was on the two destroyed phones that likely were destroyed because of evidence being on them? Rather than going a speculative route to the one phone that was not destroyed and unlikely to carry anything of value to the incident.

This is all about precedent and nothing else. If the ruling stands there are LEOs all over the nation standing in line to get a look at the private thoughts/papers/associations of iPhone owners.

kenichi tanaka (profile) says:

I think if you ask any attorney, they will tell you that law enforcement and prosecutors need a legal basis on which to get any type of warrant, whether that’s an arrest warrant, a search warrant or whatever.

Prosecutors saying that “there might be” evidence is NOT a legal justification, that’s just a biased opinion coming from the prosecutor and they aren’t allowed to go on fishing expeditions just because they think there might be evidence.

What happens if Apple is forced to unlock the device and there is no evidence? That opens up to the filing of lawsuits against the police department and the prosecutor.

Courts do not grant warrants based on guesswork. If they did start doing this, it would open up every case to being appealed in the federal courts and cost local jurisdictions millions of tax dollars in wasted court proceedings.

OldGeezer (profile) says:

I have seen many times CNN and other news channels have broken for live breaking coverage. If the story is big enough regular networks will follow. All you will hear is one small scrap of what they think maybe, remotely, might have happened. They keep repeating this following “If you are just joining us”. Other than this one unconfirmed tidbit all they can do is go on endlessly about what they DON’T know. They show blurry, shaky telephoto clips in an continuous loop and keep trying to guess what they are seeing because no reporters can get within a mile until law enforcement has cleared the scene. They relay unsubstantiated and often contradicting rumors. They could go on with regular broadcasting and just condense it into brief updates until they actually have the facts. They should admit when nothing is confirmed and they really don’t know for sure what the fuck happened. Don’t believe anything until a press conference is called. That’s when you find out that nearly everything you have heard for hours is completely wrong.

David says:

Ok, let's think this through.

You have

it was used as a weapon to introduce a lying dormant cyber pathogen that endangers San Bernardino County’s infrastructure, a violation of Cal. Penal Code §502 (Lexis 2016) and poses a continuing threat to the citizens of San Bernardino County.

Now suppose you are a hardened terrorist with a powerful “cyber pathogen” at your disposal. What do you do? You take to guns and start shooting people in the street until you are killed.

I mean, focus!

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

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...