Hacker News Reader

Comment by jaclaz | Hacker News Reader

Also - besides its name and the company name - there is nothing AFAIK connecting it to "black/gray market", at least initially those were offered only to LEO and only in US and Canada.

And the "long been used" is IMHO a tad bit exaggerated, it came out in the first months of 2018, and - set aside the FBI and whatever other US three or four letter government agencies, it is not likely that US$ 15,000 or US$ 30,000 is something that any police department has in a drawer and can spend instantly, more probably it has taken at least a few months for everyone to get the expense authorized:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2018/03/05/apple...

No idea on volumes of sale or how many departments got one, in either the "online" or "offline" version, but by now - if it was "widely" used - I presume we would have a lot of evidence based on unlocked iPhones in trials.

View on HN

>it is not likely that US$ 15,000 or US$ 30,000 is something that any police department has in a drawer

I wish that were true. Police in any small town in America could start at lunchtime and have that amount by nightfall. Let me introduce you to "civil asset forfeiture" ( https://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/03/civil-asse... )

There are state and federal version of this, and a "sharing" program to share the loot. It's pure corruption in blatant violation of the US Constitution, but it's good for government/police business (e.g. buys a lot of helicopters, tactical/swat equipment, training, etc.) so it persists.

As a non-American, it's almost unbelievable that the police can basically rob you in the so-called land of the free and home of the brave.

Worldwide problem.

"The idea that the State originated to serve any kind of social purpose is completely unhistorical. It originated in conquest and confiscation - that is to say, in crime. It originated for the purpose of maintaining the division of society into an owning-and-exploiting class and a propertyless dependent class - that is, for a criminal purpose." -- Albert J. Nock

That may not be a safe presumption. Organisations like the FBI keep their investigative techniques secret as long as they can, to preserve their effectiveness in ongoing and future investigations. Trials are the exception; most cases end without one, and the decline of local reporting means the public is less informed about the daily business of the courts.

Yep. it is actually largely dubitative.

I don't know, I simply have no idea of the number of device units of the Gray thingy sold, and how much they could have been used, and as well I have no idea on how many crimes involve the access to a (password protected) iPhone, but unless (yet another piece of data I have no idea about) all suspects either use an Android (or however non-iPhone) or give to the police access to the device without need to "crack" the access code, they should be non-trivial amounts.

I mean, I understand that it is a fraction (going to trial) of a fraction (criminal cases involving a phone) of a fraction (suspects not providing access to the device) of a fraction (suspects using specifically an iPhone), still the ubiquity of iPhones and the large number of criminal cases should anyway result in tens or hundreds, while we have AFAICT none or maybe a few actually documented/published about.

The declining of local reporting may be indeed another factor, but there would certainly be lawyers making a fuss (right or wrong) about this or that right violated through the use of this or similar tool.

The contract with ICE:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2019/05/08/immig...

is likely to produce no public court records, just like many national agencies, still the sheer fact that not a single actual court record of its use can be found (at least by me) could mean that the device is not used that much by local police, a few cases should have been brought to the attention of the public.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com