{"id":6972,"date":"2017-03-14T12:30:26","date_gmt":"2017-03-14T20:30:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.palada.net\/index.php\/2017\/03\/14\/news-763\/"},"modified":"2017-03-14T12:30:26","modified_gmt":"2017-03-14T20:30:26","slug":"news-763","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.palada.net\/index.php\/2017\/03\/14\/news-763\/","title":{"rendered":"DOJ: No, we won&#039;t say how much the FBI paid to hack terrorist&#039;s iPhone"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"http:\/\/zapt4.staticworld.net\/images\/article\/2016\/07\/iphone_locked-100670623-primary.idge.jpg\"\/><\/p>\n<p><strong>Credit to Author: Gregg Keizer| Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 11:31:00 -0700<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The U.S. Department of Justice yesterday argued that it should not have to reveal the maker of a tool used last year to crack an alleged terrorist&#8217;s iPhone or disclose how much it paid for the hacking job, court documents showed.<\/p>\n<p>That tool was used last year by the FBI to access a password-protected iPhone 5C previously owned by Syed Rizwan Farook, who along with his wife, Tafsheen Malik, killed 14 in San Bernardino, Calif., in December 2015. The two died in a shootout with police later that day. Authorities quickly labeled them terrorists.<\/p>\n<p>In March 2016, after weeks of wrangling with Apple, which balked at a court order compelling it to assist the FBI in unlocking the iPhone, the agency announced it had <a href=\"http:\/\/www.computerworld.com\/article\/3048837\/security\/doj-cracks-san-bernardino-shooters-iphone.html\">found a way to access the device without Apple&#8217;s help<\/a>. Although the FBI acknowledged it had paid an outside group to crack the iPhone, it refused to identify the firm or how much it paid.<\/p>\n<p>Three news organizations &#8212; the Associated Press wire service, the <i>USA Today<\/i> newspaper, and Vice Media &#8212; later filed requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for that information, and more. When the FBI redacted the tool&#8217;s maker and what the agency paid, the news trio objected. In Monday&#8217;s filing, government attorneys asked a federal judge to uphold the redactions.<\/p>\n<p>They contended that both the vendor&#8217;s identity and the price the FBI paid might be used by criminals or foreign intelligence services to help assemble a more complete picture of the tool&#8217;s efficacy and divine the government&#8217;s security priorities. <\/p>\n<p>Information, including the exact workings of the technique used to hack Farook&#8217;s iPhone, might be stolen if the hack&#8217;s maker was made public, the DOJ continued.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Revealing the vendor&#8217;s identity immediately exposes the vendor to attacks and infiltration by hostile entities willing to exploit the technology they provided to the FBI,&#8221; wrote David Hardy, a FBI section chief responsible for record dissemination, in a supporting declaration. &#8220;Since the same proprietary technology now owned by the FBI is also stored within the vendor&#8217;s facilities and computer systems, the security of this technology would only be as good as the vendor&#8217;s own security measures.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Last year, the FBI confirmed that it would <a href=\"http:\/\/www.computerworld.com\/article\/3062932\/security\/fbi-confirms-it-wont-tell-apple-how-it-unlocked-terrorists-iphone.html\">not tell Apple how it had hacked the iPhone<\/a>, saying at the time that while it had paid for the crack &#8212; and from the information in Hardy&#8217;s declaration, actually owns the technology and technique &#8212; it had not purchased &#8220;the rights to technical details about how the method functions&#8221; or the iOS 9 vulnerability it exploited, and so had nothing to tell the Cupertino, Calif. company.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.computerworld.com\/article\/3180800\/security\/doj-no-we-wont-say-how-much-the-fbi-paid-to-hack-terrorists-iphone.html#tk.rss_security\" target=\"bwo\" >http:\/\/www.computerworld.com\/category\/security\/index.rss<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"http:\/\/zapt4.staticworld.net\/images\/article\/2016\/07\/iphone_locked-100670623-primary.idge.jpg\"\/><\/p>\n<p><strong>Credit to Author: Gregg Keizer| Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 11:31:00 -0700<\/strong><\/p>\n<article>\n<section class=\"page\">\n<p>The U.S. Department of Justice yesterday argued that it should not have to reveal the maker of a tool used last year to crack an alleged terrorist&#8217;s iPhone or disclose how much it paid for the hacking job, court documents showed.<\/p>\n<p>That tool was used last year by the FBI to access a password-protected  iPhone 5C previously owned by Syed Rizwan Farook, who along with his wife, Tafsheen Malik, killed 14 in San Bernardino, Calif., in December 2015. The two died in a shootout with police later that day. Authorities quickly labeled them terrorists.<\/p>\n<p>In March 2016, after weeks of wrangling with Apple, which balked at a court order compelling it to assist the FBI in unlocking the iPhone, the agency announced it had <a href=\"http:\/\/www.computerworld.com\/article\/3048837\/security\/doj-cracks-san-bernardino-shooters-iphone.html\">found a way to access the device without Apple&#8217;s help<\/a>. Although the FBI acknowledged it had paid an outside group to crack the iPhone, it refused to identify the firm or how much it paid.<\/p>\n<p class=\"jumpTag\"><a href=\"\/article\/3180800\/security\/doj-no-we-wont-say-how-much-the-fbi-paid-to-hack-terrorists-iphone.html#jump\">To read this article in full or to leave a comment, please click here<\/a><\/p>\n<\/section>\n<\/article>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"colormag_page_container_layout":"default_layout","colormag_page_sidebar_layout":"default_layout","footnotes":""},"categories":[11062,10643],"tags":[11077,11063,714,11094],"class_list":["post-6972","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-computerworld","category-independent","tag-apple-ios","tag-data-privacy","tag-security","tag-smartphones"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.palada.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6972","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.palada.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.palada.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.palada.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.palada.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6972"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/www.palada.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6972\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.palada.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6972"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.palada.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6972"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.palada.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6972"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}