LAPD hacked into iPhone 5S belonging to slain wife of 'Shield' actor
latimes.comEvery time I hear about a husband -> wife murder case that doesn't involve a prior violent crime history or some large amount of physical and circumstantial evidence the two words that go through my mind are "tunnel vision," Without leads the cops just latch on to the only thing they have which is "well... ugh... divorce law gives him a monetary incentive to bust a cap in her ass now don't it?"
I'd like to hear what the defense has to say. I think it's really fishy for a journalist to write an article that basically parrots the prosecution. Maybe the defense couldn't be reached for comment...well then say that if it's the case.
>Authorities allege about 8:30 p.m. on the day of the killing, a man called police from the actor’s cellphone, saying that he had just shot his wife to death.
>A handgun was later recovered in the home.
If you were going to murder someone's wife, it would be a good misdirection, wouldn't it?
its obviously not definitive proof, but its still pretty reasonable for the police to be investigating the husband, no?
Using a phone that the police couldn't unlock but somehow the murderer could ?
This doesn't seem like a case of tunnel vision. The evidence and circumstances of the theory do seem to point towards the husband. Of course, the trial may reveal Jace's innocence, but there seems to be enough evidence that I don't think "lazy police work" applies in this case.
Also: "Jace's attorney and the prosecutor assigned to his case could not be reached for comment."
"the trial may reveal Jace's innocence"
That's unfortunate. The system is suppose to prove his guilt, and assume innocence by default.
> Of course, the trial may reveal Jace's innocence
If it even comes to a trial.
"Jace's attorney and the prosecutor assigned to his case could not be reached for comment."
It's no wonder that Apple is becoming increasingly pushy about updates on iOS. I've noticed in the last few months that the new pop-up options are to either "remind me later" (and it absolutely will) or "update now."
I think a huge part of it is trying to stay ahead of this security curve.
Exploits are going to continue to be found in older versions of iOS (and every other piece of software, for that matter). It's kind of disheartening to think that if the authorities just hold your phone long enough, they'll eventually have an exploit to unlock it with.
It is interesting when Microsoft did the same with Windows most my peers were pretty outraged. Imagine clicking remind me later in the morning, start a long running process when you are just about to go to have lunch and coming back to Windows installing updates after a restart.
I don't think Apple gains anything substantial from pushing security fixes, however eroding user control could be in their interest.
There's one key difference: iOS doesn't automatically reboot itself at seemingly random times. If you choose "install later," it will make sure you aren't on the phone when it starts the process.
That Windows loves to do it with no warning _while you are actively using the computer_ is what makes it annoying.
Actually I think Windows has always had a little popup in the bottom right which lets you cancel within about five minutes. But sure, you might happen to step away momentarily during that time.
Thankfully browsers and editors now save and restore their last state, so an automatic reboot doesn't enrage me like it did in the WinXP days.
While that modal does exist, Windows for some reason does not give it always-on-top status, so if you have anything fullscreen running you'll never see it. There also seems to be a limit to the number of times you're allowed to delay a reboot, though I'm not entirely sure on that.
On Windows Server 2012, if there are pending updates as soon as you RDP in it will start a 15 minute countdown with no option to cancel (at least no obvious one I could find). That's ridiculous.
Agreed. I've lost work before due to this behavior. Granted, I should be more diligent with saving my work.
Um, there is a bit of a difference between how you use Windows and how you use iOS.
Notably, there is no real notion of long running process in iOS.
I am only concerned about the day than a NSL makes them push an update that backdoors or weakens security under the guise of something else.
would Apple be able to resist it? how would it become known they tried?
The killing was 19/05/2014. iOS8 came out on 17/09/2014, and the iPhone 5S launched with iOS7. It’ll have been iOS7, and hence unencrypted by default in a way Apple (and presumably attackers) can access.
That sounds right. There are a few unanswered questions.
"[I]n 2015, an Apple technician was ordered by an L.A. judge to help police extract data from the phone's hard drive, according to the search warrant."
So, did Apply comply? If they did, or if they didn't, I don't think this has been reported anywhere.
Perhaps Apple complied and imaged the disk, and afterwards, LA needed a consultant to actually make something of it.
There are various statements issued by Apple stating that they do cooperate with law enforcement when they can, and that pre-full-disk-encryption, they generally did.
That said, they sometimes go out of their way to make it inconvenient - if you want data provided on physical media, you have to supply a firewire disk
Yes. There is a huge difference between:
1. "Here's how to break the phone's encryption using available tools today", and;
2. "Here's a less-secure version of the OS, we'll use our digital signature to convince the phone to accept it."
If they ever do the latter, they can be sure it won't be long before they start getting warrants to push insecure OS updates to everyone named as a "person of interest," which seems to be everyone these days.
And the next time a Snowden leaks that Apple is sending insecure OS updates to more-or-less all iPhones, they have lost an enormous amount of goodwill and brand recognition.
A lot of people believe (rightly or wrongly) that run-of-the-mill Android phones are insecure because the carriers won't push updates, but that you can trust top-tier manufacturers like Apple to keep your phone secure.
The last thing they need is for people to say "Cheap Android, Expensive iPhone, there's no difference."
...had no arrest history, according to public records, but divorce papers from a previous marriage include allegations of threats and domestic violence.
Has there been a divorce in California in the last several decades in which child custody was an issue, which has not included such allegations? Are reporters really that ignorant, or do they just assume their readers are?
Well, in Logan, Walker, Jordan, and Horvath (2002) 40% of cases in Kentucky over a two year period did not mention violence (and the court ruling was largely insensitive to the presence or not of violence allegations).
Using the number "Domestic Violence-Related Calls for Assistance" as reference on how to scale from Kentucky to California, ~60 % of divorce cases will have no mention of violence.
(In 2004 Kentucky had 800 calls per 100 000 inhabitants and California had 500; the assumption is that number of allegations in hearings scale with the calls of assistance).
https://aifs.gov.au/publications/allegations-family-violence...
https://oag.ca.gov/crime/cjsc/stats/domestic-violence
http://www.ncdsv.org/fortcampbell/I-12_Kentucky%20DV%20Facts...
http://www.census.gov/popest/data/state/totals/2004/tables/N...
Thank you for confirming my point that the domestic violence rate as reported in divorce proceedings far exceeds that as reported to police, by two orders of magnitude. (Presumably some of the reports to police are false, which lowers the actual rate even further. Many such reports are filed on the advice of divorce attorneys, after all.) Doesn't that seem like a fact that a serious journalist would include?
What are you talking about? First off, your point was that reports of domestic violence was almost always involved in child dispute cases, which I remarked was not true.
Secondly, the calls for assistance is basically reports to the police, and they (8 per 1000 in Kentucky and 5 per 1000 in California [ACS 2008 estimate]) are close to the divorce rate in the respective states (13 per 1000 in Kentucky and 8 per 1000 in California). Overestimating by saying that all divorces are settled in court (some numbers say that ~ 4 % are), the 60% of cases involving domestic violence means that there would be 7.8 per 1000 domestic violence divorce cases. As this is the same amount as the number of calls for police assistance (8 per 1000), your claim that the rate of domestic violence reported is orders of magnitude greater in court is pure falsehood. The case in California is even worse, with estimated 3.2 per 1000 domestic violence cases versus 5 per 1000 calls about domestic violence.
https://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/marriage/data/acs/Evalua...
'just the facts' reporting strikes again. The lack of context is not an effective way of eliminating bias.
Whoa....slightly off-topic. I mis-understood "Shield" as being a reference to "Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D", in which Patton Oswalt has starred...whose wife recently passed.
Went too far down the rabbit hole there.