Thread

1. int0x29 · 1790884759 · focus · HN ↗

   These three quotes make me wonder if the police are effectively searching the phone before getting a warrant

   > given that oftentimes they can’t immediately try to break into iPhones that have been seized. That could be because police are still waiting for a court authorization to do so

   > GrayKey Preserve and Evidence Preservation Mode are also designed to combat another iPhone feature that automatically deletes certain data — such as cached locations, and recently deleted photos and iMessages — after a certain number of days. “We're gonna be able to preserve that data for an infinite amount of time.”

   > “That AFU state is captured,” by GrayKey Preserve and Evidence Preservation Mode, the employee says. “Even if that device does reboot for any number of reasons, memory maintenance or the power is lost or whatever, the AFU state is not lost. This is the true magic behind the GrayKey Preserve and the Evidence Preservation Mode function.”

   The power loss tolerance in particular looks iffy. The photo and iMessage bits are a bit more problematic in that light. I get that they claim the police aren't seeing the data but if they are extracting before a warrant that is effectivly the same as pre searching everyone and promising not to read it.

   1. ktm5j · 1790885563 · focus · HN ↗

      I'm not seeing what you're seeing. The inactivity reboot wouldn't be a problem if they aren't waiting for a warrant. The fact that this article even exists supports the fact that they are waiting for warrants.

      Also, as someone who was the victim of a pretty awful violent crime I'm here to tell you that police are not the enemy. There are some really bad people out there, trust me.. if you ever met one you would probably be okay with cops violating their privacy.

      1. franga2000 · 1790929447 · focus · HN ↗

         The fact that this article even exists supports the fact that they have to look like they're waiting for a warrant in order for the evidence to be admissible, so they've found a clever trick.

         If the software hacks the phone first, but only releases the information later, while marketing itself as simply "preserving the device state", they can point at that marketing and say "we're just preserving evidence while waiting for a warrant", despite the fact they've actually already broken into your phone.

         1. ktm5j · 1790947481 · focus · HN ↗

            Have you ever even talked to a police officer? You guys are full of it.

            1. franga2000 · 1790948249 · focus · HN ↗

               Yes, I have. They hate all this red tape (warrants), they hate that everything is encrypted, they're annoyed they don't have the budget for more seat licenses of the latest version of Cellebrite so they could crack more phones and faster. For most cops, wanting to cut red tape and "just do whatever it takes" is in their blood.

               I don't know what you're not seeing here. Even the most honest and fair cop would love to "preserve evidence" while they wait for a warrant - they already turn on airplane mode and put devices in a Faraday cage, sometimes they even put them to charge so they stay AFU until they get a warrant. To them, such software is just a natural extension of that, after some manufacturers added auto reboots.

               And from the software vendor's perspectice, it nakes perfect sense to take advantage of AFU, hack the phone, dump it or install a backdoor to "preserve AFU" and then pretend to hack it once the cops click "I have a warrant now". It's a great business model - it solves a real problem, it gives you a competitive advantage, you aren't even technically lying, just not telling the whole truth.

               1. ktm5j · 1790950919 · focus · HN ↗

                  What I'm not seeing is the problem. I'm thankful that the police did everything in their power to put the man who abducted me behind bars. He did things to me that are too awful to talk about here, you should be thankful you've never been through anything like that. If you had I think you would see things very differently.

                  1. franga2000 · 1790961703 · focus · HN ↗

                     Your logic is that cops do good things (put bad criminals in prison) therefore we should let them do whatever they want. Talk to anyone who's been the victim of police brutality, falsely accused, falsely imprisoned... and you'll see why this doesn't work.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.