Last week we learned that the Cellebrite could unlock any iPhone, including newer ones (with the latest operating system, iOS 11).
Many were apprehensive about the safety of their devices, but another matter of Forbes came to calm the nimos in an interview with Jeremy Nazarian, chief marketing officer of the Israeli company.
The name of Cellebrite came up after the firm have managed to unlock and access the iPhone 5c shooter of San Bernardino, with the permission of the FBI. Therefore, as was to be expected, Nazarian said that this kind of the more acceptable to srios cases:
There is a public safety issue here. These capabilities are appropriate for homicdios, crimes against children, drug trafficking, that is, the main security threats to the Public in any community. We feel an obligation to those who serve the mission of the Public security in order to ensure that these capabilities are preserved.
Confirming much of what we have stated in our podcast, the on Air # 268, the executive consoled those who believe the firm uses malicious and illegal tools that can compromise security by saying that “it doesn't work”; he explained that no one is "listening to your iPhone" with a listening "wireless" actually necessary physical access to the machine for any extraction of information.
In addition, the devices to be accessed must be obtained as evidence that part of an investigation or case. "There is nothing inherent technology, which means that it is open to abuse," said Nazarian.
Regarding the iPhones 8, 8 Plus or X, which were accessed by the company and reported in another published issue, the executive did not elaborate as this could allow Apple engineers to correct any security flaws in iOS, forcing Cellebrite to Create new unlocking methods. As a result, she remains as reserved as possible on the subject, earning good money from the requests she said, "for public safety" made by several large companies and governments.
I only hope that money doesn't speak louder than ethics if the request is something that doesn't necessarily have to do with public security (or what some governments consider as such)