Swalwell: I was notified by Apple that they did seize my records

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

[dalton99a]

1. Earth to Garland: Special Prosecutor, Please.

[Duppers]

10. Indeed!

Think we'll ever see that happen?

[Takket]

20. Nope

[triron]

26. Either Garland needs to address this shit with serious investigations and potential prosecutions or

he needs to either resign or be fired. Put Sally Yates in there or Hillary Clinton. Don't even confirm them.

[Bev54]

2. I figured he would have been one of the targets. n/t

[demtenjeep]

3. You knew it

Swallwell Won't back down

[demtenjeep]

4. You knew it

Swallwell Won't back down

[CanonRay]

5. We need a special prosecutor for all this shit

[oasis]

6. I look forward to a Ken Burns documentary on Trump's Administration.

[KS Toronado]

8. Interesting thought

If Ken Burns did a documentary on Qrump, it would be factual & honest with no whitewashing.

[RockRaven]

7. To the "Ermahgerd! Special Prosecutor now!" crowd: who do Special Prosecutors work for?

The DOJ will always default to: protect DOJ personnel and justify/excuse DOJ positions/actions. That is what they have always done. That is what they will always do. That includes Special Prosecutors. If there is the faintest whisper of an argument to justify the behavior the Special Prosecutors will find it and latch onto it.

Changing the political appointees at the top changes nothing in this regard. They are still DOJ institutionalists, that's how they got those appointments in the first place.

[BigmanPigman]

9. Clean House at the DOJ from top to bottom.

They are all infected at this point. The department is infected.

[mountain grammy]

12. Agree

[FakeNoose]

22. This! There's no other choice at this point

[triron]

27. This is unprecedented stuff Trump's DOJ did; I say bullshit with protecting this.

[BigmanPigman]

30. Even Hoover didn't go this far.

[BGBD]

11. Apple wouldn't unlock a terrorists phone after he killed

A bunch of people at a Christmas party....

But they'll do this.

[Hekate]

13. Well spotted

[CloudWatcher]

15. Way way different scenarios

The iPhones are pretty securely locked, their contents are pretty well encrypted.

But stuff stored in the "iCloud" is stored unencrypted and is awaiting anyone with a search warrant.

I'm not at all convinced Apple had the technology to unlock that phone. But data stored in the cloud is encrypted only during transportation to & from the iCloud servers. Once on the servers, anyone with access can read it.

[BGBD]

17. I'll believe

that Apple couldn't open that phone when my shit turns purple and smells like rainbow sherbet.

[CloudWatcher]

18. The feds wanted Apple to develop the tools to unlock it

They fought the demand to unlock it because they didn’t have the tools. They could have developed an iOS intended to be insecure, but that would have made a back door available for innumerable unlock requests. And installing such a thing on a locked phone might not have been possible.

But what do I know, I was only an OS software engr working for Apple for 20 years, and only a few of those on iOS. I certainly remember what a PITA it was installing my device drivers on iOS systems, and then only on ones that had special flashed ROMs that allowed access. Customer devices were useless to me, you couldn’t turn them into development systems and I couldn’t get into them. They were very serious about locking them down.

Of course it’s easy to trash Apple, they certainly have issues I’d like to see changed. But I think refusing to add back doors to iOS was laudable.

[BGBD]

25. Sure

That's the company's public stance on everything and I'm not questioning your own technical expertise on any of this. I just doubt that a tool to open those devices already exists somewhere. Chiefly because they sell products in China and I don't believe that China would allow devices that they, the government, can't open when they want to. Along with that thought is that Azimuth was able to break into the phone in not too much time, a couple of weeks at most from the timeline that's available.

Isn't part of Apples job to test the vulnerabilities of their software? There isn't a security team at Apple who red teamed this system and found ways in?

[TraceNC]

19. Apple's encryption:

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303

[Blue_Adept]

21. Exactly, these are apple to orange comparisons

Anyone who doesn't understand the difference just doesn't understand the very basic technology and events at play here.

[DallasNE]

14. Did A Judge Sign A Warrant?

My guess is no. So under what law was that legally possible. Or is that the point?

Both the constitution and law are outdated by today's technology so when the Constitution says papers it means things stored on paper. Things stored electronically are not protected. I think that construction is too strict. Papers means documents and documents can reside on either paper or electronically. Both should be treated the same in the eyes of the law but they are not.

[CloudWatcher]

16. Grand Jury Subpoenas

From the CNN story:

Those subject to subpoenas were notified in Ma]y by Apple that the Justice Department had issued grand jury subpoenas in February 2018 for their information, the House Intelligence Committee official said.

I'm no lawyer, but Apple has a lot of them on staff. I very much doubt if they complied with anything more than what was required by law. And we've got some awful laws on the books.

Hell, I'm still pissed at Obama for voting for FISA after campaigning saying he would vote against it.

[Autumn]

24. So when Kamala questioned Barr about it in 2019 they already knew there were investigateions

going on by his DOJ. Wow this shit is way beyond broken.

[triron]

29. How the hell did they get a Grand Jury subpoena?

[48656c6c6f20]

23. #TimAppleSecuriy

For when you just got to spy on your enemies.

[kentuck]

28. Do you think Devin Nunes and Jim Jordan knew about it..?

As they were sitting on the Committees?