this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2026
591 points (99.7% liked)

Technology

88390 readers
3954 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
591
Cops Can Bypass iPhone’s Automatic Reboot to Get Into Locked Phones, Leaked Video Claims (www.404media.co)
submitted 2 days ago by tonytins@pawb.social to c/technology@lemmy.world
103 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] halcyoncmdr@piefed.social 31 points 2 days ago (1 children)

In the US, if cops get into a phone before a warrant, even if a warrant is issued later, all evidence from the phone is suppressed as illegally obtained.

This is not a hard and fast rule. There is the concept of Inevitable Discovery.

If they find evidence during an illegal entry, they may later seize it lawfully under a search warrant and prosecutors may use it in court if they can supply an independent source, rather than benefit from the earlier violation.

Real world example: In Nix v. Williams, decided in 1984, the Supreme Court considered evidence of a child’s body found after police obtained incriminating statements from Williams. Those statements were later determined to have been illegally obtained and were excluded. However, the body was located in the existing search area and the same type of location (a culvert) they were searching. It was simply in a search quadrant they had not gotten to yet. So the searchers would likely have found the body anyway even without those statements.

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago (2 children)

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

[–] IronBird@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

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 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

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?