A company that makes phone hacking devices claims to have developed a solution that freezes iPhones in a state that lets cops more easily access sensitive data inside them, according to a video obtained by 404 Media.

This is the latest salvo in the never-ending battle between Apple and companies that help cops — sometimes those in authoritarian countries — break into iPhones.

In November 2024, 404 Media revealed Apple quietly introduced a new feature in iOS that automatically reboots an iPhone that has not been unlocked for 72 hours. The idea behind this so-called “inactivity reboot” is to revert the phone to a state that makes it harder for police to break into the device, and thus extract sensitive data from it with forensics technology.

At the time of Apple’s change, law enforcement agents expressed concern about this new feature, 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, or there is simply a backlog of devices to unlock, for example.


Archive: https://ghostarchive.org/archive/DuJxb

  • NateNate60@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    11 小时前

    Well, as I’ve quickly learned, pretty much nothing in law is an absolute rule. Judges love making their exceptions.

    • IronBird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 小时前

      kinda the entire point of common law, just a vibes legal system designed around enabling english aristocrats to hold onto their power longer

    • halcyoncmdr@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 小时前

      That’s part for sure, but I’d argue that it’s more often lawmakers trying to phrase things to specifically carve out loopholes their donors want to exploit. Then judges having to work through the bullshit to determine what it actually says and whether those specific circumstances are covered.

      That example I have above for instance, should the body not be admissible as evidence just because the killer told Police where it was a few hours before they would have found it anyway?