4 ms·

That may not be a safe presumption. Organisations like the FBI keep their investigative techniques secret as long as they can, to preserve their effectiveness i

by sjy 7y ago

That may not be a safe presumption. Organisations like the FBI keep their investigative techniques secret as long as they can, to preserve their effectiveness in ongoing and future investigations. Trials are the exception; most cases end without one, and the decline of local reporting means the public is less informed about the daily business of the courts.

jaclaz 7y ago
Yep. it is actually largely dubitative. I don't know, I simply have no idea of the number of device units of the Gray thingy sold, and how much they could have been used, and as well I have no idea on how many crimes involve the access to a (password protected) iPhone, but unless (yet another piece of data I have no idea about) all suspects either use an Android (or however non-iPhone) or give to the police access to the device without need to "crack" the access code, they should be non-trivial amounts. I mean, I understand that it is a fraction (going to trial) of a fraction (criminal cases involving a phone) of a fraction (suspects not providing access to the device) of a fraction (suspects using specifically an iPhone), still the ubiquity of iPhones and the large number of criminal cases should anyway result in tens or hundreds, while we have AFAICT none or maybe a few actually documented/published about. The declining of local reporting may be indeed another factor, but there would certainly be lawyers making a fuss (right or wrong) about this or that right violated through the use of this or similar tool. The contract with ICE: https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2019/05/08/immigration-just-spent-a-record-1-million-on-the-worlds-most-advanced-iphone-hacking-tech/#2ce23c7c5a0a https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2019/05/08/immig... is likely to produce no public court records, just like many national agencies, still the sheer fact that not a single actual court record of its use can be found (at least by me) could mean that the device is not used that much by local police, a few cases should have been brought to the attention of the public.

by sjy 7y ago

jaclaz 7y ago

Yep. it is actually largely dubitative. I don't know, I simply have no idea of the number of device units of the Gray thingy sold, and how much they could have been used, and as well I have no idea on how many crimes involve the access to a (password protected) iPhone, but unless (yet another piece of data I have no idea about) all suspects either use an Android (or however non-iPhone) or give to the police access to the device without need to "crack" the access code, they should be non-trivial amounts. I mean, I understand that it is a fraction (going to trial) of a fraction (criminal cases involving a phone) of a fraction (suspects not providing access to the device) of a fraction (suspects using specifically an iPhone), still the ubiquity of iPhones and the large number of criminal cases should anyway result in tens or hundreds, while we have AFAICT none or maybe a few actually documented/published about. The declining of local reporting may be indeed another factor, but there would certainly be lawyers making a fuss (right or wrong) about this or that right violated through the use of this or similar tool. The contract with ICE: https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2019/05/08/immigration-just-spent-a-record-1-million-on-the-worlds-most-advanced-iphone-hacking-tech/#2ce23c7c5a0a https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2019/05/08/immig... is likely to produce no public court records, just like many national agencies, still the sheer fact that not a single actual court record of its use can be found (at least by me) could mean that the device is not used that much by local police, a few cases should have been brought to the attention of the public.