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.
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 a bigger concern with respect to intelligence agencies who conduct mass surveillance.
even if a warrant is issued later, all evidence from the phone is suppressed as illegally obtained.
This assumes a healthy and functioning country. I wouldn’t assume that of the US in particular. People are being hunted, kidnapped, imprisoned and murdered by the government as we speak.
I’m a law student in the US, so I’m actually privy to this information in the form of all the talks that they have judges and lawyers giving.
You may not assume that the US judiciary is healthy and functioning, but it is not as broken as most international observers (or chronically online Americans) think it is. In particular, if you have been observing the Department for Justice’s results recently, you’ll notice a few things:
- Because the Department has been hiring for loyalty and not legal skill, the Department has lost most of its prior prestige. Previously, clerking for the Department was a competitive law school position. Now, the top legal minds then to avoid it. As a result, the quality of legal skill at the Department has decreased, drastically.
- Judges in the federal judiciary, with the exception of some notable Trump cronies, is actually very willing to uphold existing procedural law and rule against the government. It happens extremely regularly.
- When judicial orders are ignored, it is almost always temporary and not in any lasting way. Federal judges still do threaten and issue contempt of court penalties and disciplinary referrals to officials who blatantly disobey court orders.
So in short, you are partially correct and partially wrong. The judiciary of the US has shown to be remarkably resilient considering it has withstood two years of a fascist in power and in full control of the legislature.
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?
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.
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.
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.
jeannie piero, the drunk lawyer.
Go learn about the harmless error rule. You are incredibly naive. DAs and cops break the rules ALL THE TIME because once there’s a conviction the burden of proof shifts and a defendant, now convicted, in prison has the burden of proving (somehow, while behind bars) that in a theoretical other version of reality they wouldn’t have been convicted had the error not been made.
It’s a nearly impossible standard to meet, especially difficult after conviction, and the remedy is not even necessarily release, merely a new trial.
Not only that, even if a judge and DA and cops violate a defendant’s rights OVER AND OVER they still almost always apply the harmless error rule. Even if the trial is essentially infected with bias and procedural corruption (what could be deemed structural error), courts do not care.
Many decisions the court makes are just denials without opinions also, so it’s not like the court always even justifies why they ignore a convicted person’s request. In other words, the appellate cases you’re reading as a law student showing one defendant got released over an error is a cherry picked case chosen by the court either to create the illusion of a fair functioning system or chosen because the situation is so egregious (that means terrible) that courts will look bad if they don’t overturn it.
But no, there’s nothing functional here.You’re privy to nothing if you don’t understand that things haven’t really been functioning for a long time, primarily because the harmless error rule allows corrupt DAs cops and judges to do almost anything.
First of all, you’re doing important work and I wish you well in your studies and career, for everyone’s sake.
Thanks for the insight. Definitely some positives there. When ICE have added an innocent person’s data to be absorbed into (eg) Palantir’s database, how confident can we be that it is actually removed again?
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.
Well, as I’ve quickly learned, pretty much nothing in law is an absolute rule. Judges love making their exceptions.
kinda the entire point of common law, just a vibes legal system designed around enabling english aristocrats to hold onto their power longer
The idea behind GrayKey Preserve and Evidence Preservation Mode is to keep the iPhone in a state known as After First Unlock, or AFU.
They don’t need to access before a warrant. The whole point of this new method is to keep the phone from going into BFU so they can pull the data off later, when a warrant comes through. (Or again, on the record)
that assumes you can prove it, and that the system gives a shit.
Well, I expect this to be patched asap now that it has leaked. Apple has been quick to patch things when such leaks happen. Hopefully that’s the case here too.
Apple probably gave them the backdoor
On the assumption Apple wants to facilitate access to such authorities, were I Apple, I’d have either already made available redundant backdoor so disabling any one wouldn’t be a problem; or, I’d have others ready to be opened when I need to shut others down.
I have a family member who is a cop, and they told me this was possible months ago. I doubt Apple doesn’t know
but that’s only needed when apple doesn’t give access to the phone which they just do when there’s a warrant
cops have no problems getting in iphones there’s just a little delay sometimes
they still have all the hacking technology too
[citation needed]
Apple’s been pretty good at patching vulnerabilities and a pain in the ass for cops trying to get into phones, with the only actually better option being GrapheneOS.
If only we could see what apple was doing under the hood. If only companies that constantly pat themselves on the back for being secure could be open source.
Wasn’t there a vulnerability in the chips apple uses for USB?
For chips released in 2018 and 2019. To the best of my knowledge anything newer than a iPhone 11 nothing has yet been found and announced. So 7 years ago. That said you know that if there is some unannounced vulnerability and some spyware company or government knows of it, they are not going to report it.
deleted by creator
Reminder: if you anticipate being in contact with law enforcement and have any spare moments at all: restart your phone and do not unlock it. This “before first unlock” (BFU) state does not yet have auth keys loaded and secrets decrypted in active memory, and is thus rather more difficult to exploit and gain entry to.
Does this work for both Apple and Android?
Yes.
I don’t have a phone.
Cops in USA? Is this only for USA? If yes, I don’t care. The article tittle suggests police all over the world.
Is there a different iPhone outside of the us?
yes, they are different and have to confirm to local laws
