4 ms·
The issue is that the Celebrite device may have scanned someone else's device that contained a malicious file, meaning that any forensic evidence collected for
by cyphar 5y ago
The issue is that the Celebrite device may have scanned someone else's device that contained a malicious file, meaning that any forensic evidence collected for your device is questionable.
But IMHO (IANAL) this won't actually have an impact -- the defense would need to have some evidence that the particular Celebrite machine was hacked and that this had an impact on the data taken from that particular device. "It could've been hacked" is purely speculative and isn't nearly enough to get evidence thrown out. I mean, courts routinely accept phone screenshots as evidence -- "it could be a fake screenshot" is much more likely thing to happen, and yet you'd still need to provide evidence that the screenshot might be fake.
Not to mention that the bar for warrants is even lower -- you only need "probable cause" in the US.
- salawat 5y agoReasonable doubt. The defense doesn't need to prove anything except that the prosecution hasn't done their job of assuring they've chased down everything they have to. The prosecution, if relying on Cellebrite, can no longer just say "we dumped the contents of the phone" without picking up the additional investigative burden of proving their chain of custody was not maliciously tampered with successfully. That means source code audits, admitting knowledge of the tool into the public record, or doing cross checks with another tool that isn't known to be vulnerable to an undisclosed exploit, which only holds out til the same type of thing happens to the other tool.