106
FBI Couldn’t Get into WaPo Reporter’s iPhone Because It Had Lockdown Mode Enabled (www.404media.co)
submitted 1 week ago by tonytins@pawb.social to c/technology@lemmy.world
116 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The FBI has been unable to access a Washington Post reporter’s seized iPhone because it was in Lockdown Mode, a sometimes overlooked feature that makes iPhones broadly more secure, according to recently filed court records.

The court record shows what devices and data the FBI was able to ultimately access, and which devices it could not, after raiding the home of the reporter, Hannah Natanson, in January as part of an investigation into leaks of classified information. It also provides rare insight into the apparent effectiveness of Lockdown Mode, or at least how effective it might be before the FBI may try other techniques to access the device.

“Because the iPhone was in Lockdown mode, CART could not extract that device,” the court record reads, referring to the FBI’s Computer Analysis Response Team, a unit focused on performing forensic analyses of seized devices. The document is written by the government, and is opposing the return of Natanson’s devices.

Archive: http://archive.today/gfTg9

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] dev_null@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago

Is this an advertisement? Sure, yes. The government can get into any phone? No.

[-] Zamboni_Driver@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago

Any iPhone? Almost certainly.

[-] floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 week ago

Virtually any phone I would say, yeah. Either by rubberhose cryptanalysis or by sheer time, money, and tools, they most likely can.

[-] dev_null@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

So "any phone" turned into "virtually any phone", and the owner needs to be alive and apprehended, and then they "most likely" can, maybe.

See, I mostly agree with what you said. But you can see how we have moved the goalpost away from "there is no phone the government cannot get into", to "the government can get into most phones", which is quite a different statement.

[-] floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I am not moving goalposts or making different statements, I'm not the user you were replying to.

I also mostly agree with you, but my angle is that the difference between "the government can get into virtually any phone" and "the government can get into most phones" is that the latter makes it seem like you can be "smart/knowledgeable enough" to avoid that, and that's untrue. You should assume everything you keep on your phone can be extracted because of the nature of smartphone manufacturers, the supply chain etc, but I do not believe no phone can't be broken into like OP was saying, thus "virtually any phone" seems fitting.

this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2026
106 points (99.1% liked)

Technology

81207 readers
1074 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws