3 ms·

The public disclosure about the Apple DLLs could potentially be used to drag Apple into any legal case between somebody versus Cellebrite. The disclosure needs

The public disclosure about the Apple DLLs could potentially be used to drag Apple into any legal case between somebody versus Cellebrite. The disclosure needs to be public versus private or under seal or whatever to absolve the Cellebrite counterparty of any liability from reverse engineering. Suddenly Apple is now in potential collusion with Cellebrite. Or maybe not. This public disclosure makes the threat of Discovery a bit less toothless. IANAL but I could imagine Cellebrite has existing or pending litigation where this disclosure upsets their position.

redleader55 6y ago
I think they mention Apple in an attempt to force them to defend their copyright, else they risk losing it. I assume Apple will choose to file for copyright infringement than risk being accused of collusion and lose the copyright on that iTunes or parts of it.
- seba_dos1 6y ago
  That's not how copyrights work, you're confusing it with trademarks.
  - Gaelan 6y ago
    Right, but Apple now has to choose between suing Cellebrite and (tacitly) condoning their behavior. Not the same as losing the copyright, for sure, but still. Not clear which the parent was talking about. Maybe both?
supergirl 6y ago
does cellebrite appear in any legit court cases? from this blog post it sounds like only "authoritarian" regimes use it. i doubt it would appear in any legit case. it's a shady tool. they'll use it to gather info but will not present this info directly in court, instead use it to gather legitimate proof, if needed.
- syntheticcorp 6y ago
  Cellebrite tech is widely used by western authorities (as well as some “authoritarian” regimes)
- sjy 6y ago
  Yes. You’ll find many results for the keyword ‘cellebrite’ on law.justia.com, canlii.org and austlii.edu.au. These free databases are far from comprehensive and most cases won’t go on appeal or end up in a legal research database at all, so this is just the tip of the iceberg.

redleader55 6y ago

I think they mention Apple in an attempt to force them to defend their copyright, else they risk losing it. I assume Apple will choose to file for copyright infringement than risk being accused of collusion and lose the copyright on that iTunes or parts of it.

seba_dos1 6y ago
That's not how copyrights work, you're confusing it with trademarks.
- Gaelan 6y ago
  Right, but Apple now has to choose between suing Cellebrite and (tacitly) condoning their behavior. Not the same as losing the copyright, for sure, but still. Not clear which the parent was talking about. Maybe both?

supergirl 6y ago

does cellebrite appear in any legit court cases? from this blog post it sounds like only "authoritarian" regimes use it. i doubt it would appear in any legit case. it's a shady tool. they'll use it to gather info but will not present this info directly in court, instead use it to gather legitimate proof, if needed.

syntheticcorp 6y ago
Cellebrite tech is widely used by western authorities (as well as some “authoritarian” regimes)
sjy 6y ago
Yes. You’ll find many results for the keyword ‘cellebrite’ on law.justia.com, canlii.org and austlii.edu.au. These free databases are far from comprehensive and most cases won’t go on appeal or end up in a legal research database at all, so this is just the tip of the iceberg.