316
Cops Can Bypass iPhone’s Automatic Reboot to Get Into Locked Phones, Leaked Video Claims (www.404media.co)
submitted 9 hours ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
60 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
[–] 9 points 6 hours ago (7 children)

Federal judges still do threaten and issue contempt of court penalties and disciplinary referrals to officials who blatantly disobey court orders.

I guess this is my main point of concern right now, as an outsider. I know that the courts are still ruling against Trump and the Republicans fairly regularly, but then I hear about situations where they're simply ignoring the courts' rulings and little seems to actually happen as a result.

What do those "disciplinary referrals" actually do? Do people actually get fired, or is it just something else for the Republicans to ignore?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (6 children)

    Disciplinary referrals are issued against lawyers who break the court rules. Contempt of court is used against anyone (lawyer or not) who violates a direct order from the court. A lawyer who blatantly violates an order may receive both a disciplinary referral and also a contempt of court penalty.

    Before a court issues a penalty of any kind against anyone, they usually issue what is called an order to show cause, which essentially means the party accused of violating the rules must appear before the judge and explain why they should not receive a penalty.

    Disciplinary referrals are addressed to the state bar association, which are organisations comparable to guilds which license lawyers. The bar association can impose penalties against the lawyer which include:

    • Censure, a formal finger-wagging which leaves a permanent mark on their licence and is generally considered detrimental to future job prospects
    • Mandatory ethics training or re-take bar exam
    • Temporary suspension of their licence to practise law
    • Disbarment and expulsion from the bar association, which permanently revokes the lawyer's licence to practise law. This typically cascades to all bar associations across the country.

    An example: Rudy Guiliani was a Trump lawyer who filed submissions before several courts containing information he knew to be false and raising allegations he knew were unsubstantiated, as a part of Trump's scheme to overturn the 2020 presidential election. The New York bar association disbarred him for this, and the DC bar association took note and automatically disbarred him as well. His legal career is finished; he cannot legally be employed as a lawyer anywhere in the country.

    Contempt of court is an inherent power of the court to punish people who violate its orders. A judge can, on their own initiative, declare someone guilty of contempt of court and impose a punishment for it, which could include:

    • A fine, possibly an increasing fine until the order is complied with. The fine is paid personally by the person found guilty of contempt of court and no immunities apply.
    • Imprisonment for a fixed term, usually not more than a month
    • Imprisonment until the person complies with the order
    • Anything else the judge comes up with, that does not violate Amendment 8 of the US Constitution or relevant laws

    Example: A lawyer was fined $10,000 in March 2026 by my state's Court of Appeal for submitting a brief containing AI hallucinations.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 4 hours ago (1 child)

    The judiciary really needs to start using "Imprisonment until the person complies with the order" a lot more early, often, and against people higher up in the DoJ org chart.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 hours ago

    Judges generally issue escalating sanctions. A verbal admonition first, then a verbal threat to impose sanctions, then an order to show cause, then actual penalties.

    Despite what the media reports, the Administration always folds and complies because it would be embarrassing to have senior officials or government lawyers actually penalised for failing to comply with a court order.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 4 hours ago (3 children)

    Ah, so as this progresses the Republicans steadily run out of "competent" lawyers because they keep getting disbarred (or quitting to save their legal skins), leaving them with increasingly incompetent ones that have an even harder time accomplishing stuff.

    Here's hoping their legal wells run dry quickly, I suppose.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 hours ago (1 child)

    Remember in the early days of Trump II when we were hearing about entire US Attorney's offices quitting in protest? That no longer happens, but that's what happens when top brass asks experienced, career lawyers to defend positions they know are indefensible, and insists they sign their name to hot garbage, that they know is the same kind as what got Rudy Guiliani disbarred.

    So yes, the Trump Justice Department is indeed running out of good lawyers and that's why the US Attorney's Office for DC is led by a Fox News commentator who happens to have a law degree.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •