News Community Reacts to Apple vs FBI Story

[nsaspook]

I think the general public would have easily been placated by Apple endorsing the FBIs story that it's just this one time and they are destroying the tool after one use. This stand is to impress someone else.

The FBI is likely going to try and fold this case into their larger agenda against "going dark":
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/otd/going-dark-issue
and Apple is posturing for parts of the government who actually need completely "dark" phones, and wouldn't like to think Apple keeps tools on hand to let the FBI in when it asks. I believe they feel they are ahead in this technology and would get the lion's share of the government market.

Just this one time == The checks in the mail. The public has seen this movie.

The people in government that need phones like the Boeing Black or Sectera Edge are limited in number (tens of thousands). A nice niche market for an over priced defense contractor but peanuts to Apple.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Just this one time == The checks in the mail. The public has seen this movie.

The people in government that need phones like the Boeing Black or Sectera Edge are limited in number (tens of thousands). A nice niche market for an over priced defense contractor but peanuts to Apple.

Wiki says the U.S. Military has 1.3 million active personnel, and 800,000 reservists. I would assume that, during combat, even the lowliest soldier might be in possession of sensitive information (received by phone). Imagine a squad of dead US soldiers having their pockets rifled by the enemy for their easily hacked, off the shelf, androids. I think Generals consider scenarios like that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces

 

[nsaspook]

Wiki says the U.S. Military has 1.3 million active personnel, and 800,000 reservists. I would assume that, during combat, even the lowliest soldier might be in possession of sensitive information (received by phone). Imagine a squad of dead US soldiers having their pockets rifled by the enemy for their easily hacked, off the shelf, androids. I think Generals consider scenarios like that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces

You have no idea how operational security works in a tactical environment. Only a fool would pass non-time sensitive information to or allow a squad of grunts on patrol with phones that can be tracked using off the shelf signals intelligence devices.

 

[DiracPool]

This isn't rocket science, as I said in an earlier post. At the end of the day it's all about the gain versus the risk. We have some idea of the risk, and we have absolutely no idea of the gain. So, is it worth venturing down that slippery slope path? My opinion is that it isn't. If you do, you have to be prepared to believe that Apple is somehow in cahoots with the terrorists and have some ulterior motive for not wanting to fold to federal authorities. Barring that, then you'll have to accept that their is a greater risk of opening up a whole can of worms with creating this new software that is not even remotely outweighed by what? What could be on there? A few long dead phone numbers from disposable phones and some fake alias names and email addresses?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/24/opini...-silicon-valley-divide-opinion-rogers-grumet/
http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/26/11120760/apple-vs-fbi-legal-brief-explained

 

[DiracPool]

For some reason, the cnn post I listed above takes you to Bill Gate's take on the Apple vs. FBI thing, even though I linked it to the next story, "Apple: Break-in order a government overreach" So just forward to that segment. However, what's notable about that short segment with Bill is that he's doing his old shtick with the hand gestures and "why are you picking on me" demeanor that he did in the DOJ anti-trust investigation that makes me want to vomit. Remember when he was sitting there all indignant and saying, "I don't get it, all we do is make these programs and put them in little boxes, and if people like it, then they buy the boxes, if they don't then they can buy somebody else's boxes."

Remember that? Of course at the same he was waxing that angelic sentiment Bill had his goons out on the street threatening any clone maker that if they didn't play ball and buy their whole software package deal, they wouldn't get DOS/Windows, which would have effectively put the clone maker out of business. That's one thing you have to give Trump, at least he's not duplicitous about his bullying. Unlike Gates, he doesn't hide behind a woosey public relations front.

Plus, let's not forget that microsoft is not so terribly worried about your security that they don't hold a skeleton key to access all your information from their software AND can easily just hand it over to the FBI without having to create this backdoor that is being asked of Apple...

http://www.howtogeek.com/199171/heres-why-windows-8.1s-encryption-doesnt-seem-to-scare-the-fbi/

"The FBI isn’t happy about the latest versions of iOS and Android using encryption by default. FBI director James Comey has been blasting both Apple and Google. Microsoft is never mentioned — but Windows 8.1 uses encryption by default, too.

The FBI doesn’t seem worried about Windows 8.1’s default “device encryption” feature. Microsoft’s encryption works a bit differently — Microsoft holds the keys and could hand them over to the FBI."

So, again, I don't know where your loyalties lie, but I trust Apple (and Google) more with my security than I do Microsoft or the FBI..

http://www.howtogeek.com/199171/heres-why-windows-8.1s-encryption-doesnt-seem-to-scare-the-fbi/

"However, Microsoft’s means of allowing law enforcement to access encrypted files is something that’s flown under the radar. It’s particularly relevant when we see Apple and Google digging in and refusing to enable this covert access. Apple and Google can’t provide law enforcement with access to your encrypted data, but Microsoft can."

 

[zoobyshoe]

Only a fool would pass non-time sensitive information to or allow a squad of grunts on patrol with phones that can be tracked using off the shelf signals intelligence devices.

Whatever. My attempted point was that low level people need secure phones, not just the 10,000 guys at the top. From my earlier posted link:

Currently, the United States doesn't allow government workers or soldiers to use smartphones for sending classified messages because the devices have not met security certifications.

Officials have said they worry that hackers or rogue apps could tap into the commercial version of Android and spill state secrets to foreign governments or to the Web through a publisher such as WikiLeaks. As many as 5 million Android users may have had their phones compromised by a recent virus outbreak rooted in apps found on Google's market, said security software maker Symantec.

But with a secure smartphone, a soldier could see fellow infantry on a digital map, or an official could send an important dispatch from Washington's Metro subway without fear of security breaches.

It's more than a side peanuts market for Apple.

 

[quarknsoul]

Apparently you have zero freedom as well, because the FBI is trying to force you to develop software to help them.

This isn't a story about privacy. The FBI has a warrant. They want Apple to compromise their own product.

You mean Apple has to build new operating system? Okay,who will pay for that? FBI? What about Apple's customers? We are talking about millions of people around the world,dude.

 

[zoobyshoe]

What could be on there? A few long dead phone numbers from disposable phones and some fake alias names and email addresses?

As far as I can see, the case was closed when they determined these were "homegrown" terrorists with no links to other groups. There's no web to uncover, no future linked crimes to thwart. The terrorists are dead. The gun provider in custody. Move on, FBI.

In the motion to comply the FBI said they has reason to suspect the terrorists made calls to the very people they later murdered. Sounds ominous, but those were their co-workers so it actually might be kind of surprising if they had never called them. If they called their co-workers, then doesn't the FBI have the better option of going into the co-workers phones?

In the meantime, there have been two or three more mass shootings that no one was able to foresee, by apparent crazy people. San Bernadino is much more like those recent ones than it was like 911, with the difference that the San Bernardino crazy people had Muslim ideology. My point being that in certain cases all you can do is clean up after the fact, do some sorting out, but you won't get leads on future crimes that might be prevented.

 

[DiracPool]

In the meantime, there have been two or three more mass shootings that no one was able to foresee, by apparent crazy people. San Bernadino is much more like those recent ones than it was like 911, with the difference that the San Bernardino crazy people had Muslim ideology. My point being that in certain cases all you can do is clean up after the fact, do some sorting out, but you won't get leads on future crimes that might be prevented.

Sadly, I have to agree with you on this point, so there will be no contentious dialog here between us for the Jerry Springer crowd

 

[zoobyshoe]

Microsoft also markets to the government, hyping their security:

https://www.microsoft.com/surface/en-us/business/government

The DoD uses Windows 10.

 

[mheslep]

As far as I can see, the case was closed when they determined these were "homegrown" terrorists with no links to other groups. ...

Where do "they" definatively say these killers have "no" links? As simple due dillegence, should not law enforcement inspect a couple months of phone-text information before claiming no-links?

 

[mheslep]

...That's one thing you have to give Trump, at least he's not duplicitous about his bullying. Unlike Gates, he doesn't hide behind a woosey public relations front.

Of course Trump hides, of course he is duplicitous. He's just more talented at it than most. No policy detail on anything. Instead of Gates' "little boxes", Trump deflects with "choke artist", "loser". Fronts plans to deport illegal immigrants while using all the illegal labor he can gather.

 

[russ_watters]

No comment on the rest, but this article states that previous requests did not compromise encrypted data.

From the fifth paragraph:

FYI, I didn't ignore/miss that, but since it is saying something different from what other sources are saying, it's tough to evaluate. Also from the article:

It’s hard to say for sure whether Apple ever willingly broke the encryption on phones before iOS 7 — only Apple and the feds know for sure — but sources suggest the "70 iPhones" figure refers to simple data extraction.

So it is speculative, either way. Good to know, at least.

 

[russ_watters]

Everyone has forgotten that the County of San Bernadino owns this phone. They bought phones for their employees for work purposes. The County of San Bernadino gave the FBI permission to get into the phone pretty much from the get-go. Farook was a government employee. That fact is the tip of an iceberg that no one has explored. Apple is not taking a stand here for the privacy of individual citizens who might buy their phones...

The question I have, though, is why do government agencies buy phones for their employees at all? They have a job, why can't they get their own phones? ...

So, in all this Apple vs FBI situation, no one has mentioned the huge number of government and military personnel who require completely secure phones, nor all the recent experiments it has undertaken with different kinds of phones to achieve security. That Farook had this very secure phone at all, was because he was a government employee.

It is an interesting line of speculation, but I think you are going too far. Lots and lots of employers provide their employees phones and it is mostly an issue of money: you can't expect an employee to do company business on their own phone, that they pay for. My company is relatively small, so it provides allowances/reimbursement for using personal phones for company business.

I see no reason to believe that Farook's job required the use of a very secure phone. If what you are suggesting were true, I would think we'd have seen a direct reporting of it: if nothing else, such policies should be easily accessible.

You can spin it that way. You can also spin it such that the FBI is working to prevent the military from having secure phones, which puts our troops in harms way.

Even if the above line of reasoning were true, that still wouldn't be. Companies regularly make products for military use that are different from civilian versions of the same products.

Wiki says the U.S. Military has 1.3 million active personnel, and 800,000 reservists. I would assume that, during combat, even the lowliest soldier might be in possession of sensitive information (received by phone).

You assume very, very incorrectly. No offense, but this sounds like Hillary Clinton style ignorance of security. Zooby: she'd full of crap. The level of ignorance required for her to have done the things she did with honesty is absolutely staggering. By and large, the government takes these things seriously.

I think Generals consider scenarios like that.

They certainly already have.

 

[russ_watters]

Can you make a strong case that Apple is the only party in the US capable of cracking this phone?

Probably not, but why would I even bother?

Can you make a strong case that a search warrant is not just _permission_ for government to search, that it confers on the government the power to conscript any party they deem necessary to execute the search to their satisfaction?

I already have. Either you didn't read it or you ignored it. I recommend reading back a page or two to where I quoted key pieces of the FBI request/court order. Or better yet, read the actual cour documents! This principle you are arguing against actually pre-dates the Bill of Rights! It comes from the original law describing the power of the courts. It is critical/inherent to court power.

Finally, which foreign countries will it be acceptable to conscript US parties to execute their searches? France seems to have your approval already.

You're missing the point. The US can conscript Apple's help because Apple is an American company. France can request, but they have much more limited power to enforce. Such a thing would probably come through a request through the State Department, like extradition and arrest requests. These things are evaluated - as are all arrest/search warrants - on a case by case basis.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Where do "they" definatively say these killers have "no" links?

According to FBI Director James B. Comey, the FBI's investigation revealed that the perpetrators were "homegrown violent extremists" inspired by foreign terrorist groups. They were not directed by such groups and were not part of anyterrorist cell or network.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_San_Bernardino_attack

As simple due dillegence, should not law enforcement inspect a couple months of phone-text information before claiming no-links?

I don't know their exact criteria for determining there were no outside links, but they came to this conclusion fairly soon after the attack, so I think all major indicators of a linked group must have been absent. Farook and wife were as impossible to predict as all non-Muslin rampage killers.

 

[russ_watters]

This isn't rocket science, as I said in an earlier post. At the end of the day it's all about the gain versus the risk. We have some idea of the risk, and we have absolutely no idea of the gain. So, is it worth venturing down that slippery slope path? My opinion is that it isn't. If you do, you have to be prepared to believe that Apple is somehow in cahoots with the terrorists and have some ulterior motive for not wanting to fold to federal authorities. Barring that, then you'll have to accept that their is a greater risk of opening up a whole can of worms with creating this new software that is not even remotely outweighed by what? What could be on there? A few long dead phone numbers from disposable phones and some fake alias names and email addresses?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/24/opini...-silicon-valley-divide-opinion-rogers-grumet/
http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/26/11120760/apple-vs-fbi-legal-brief-explained

So you are confining the gain to this one cell phone, but multi-plexing the risk of the FBI winning to everyone? Thats...fair...

There is risk if the FBI loses to, that goes beyond this one cell phone if a company doesn't need to help law enforcement execute searches anymore, with or without encryption. And there is also risk associated with secure phones themselves.

If you want to play like we should be even-handed with this, you actually need to be even-handed in your analysis!

 

[russ_watters]

Microsoft also markets to the government, hyping their security:

https://www.microsoft.com/surface/en-us/business/government

The DoD uses Windows 10.

That's ironic because Windows 10 is the first Windows operating system to include the same back-hatch that all Apple products have had for decades and is at issue in this debate: the ability to modify the operating system without user permission.

 

[Astronuc]

We've noted that the iPhone in question is the property of the County of San Bernadino, and in theory they have a right to access the contents of the phone. It would be interesting to know what restrictions are placed on the use of the phone by employees. I've worked for companies, which issued laptops to employees. One company was pretty casual about personal use, but another company was very restrictive and indicated that company laptops were only to be used for company business, and they reserved the right to monitor emails, ostensibly to protect company IP and other interests, e.g, reputation.

Also, I presume the 'service provider' has a record of calls, to and from. My service provider has provided detailed records including phone numbers and duration of calls. So ostensibly, the county can provide that record to the FBI. What cannot be provided is the content of the calls, except for voice messages left on the phone.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

I already have. Either you didn't read it or you ignored it. I recommend reading back a page or two to where I quoted key pieces of the FBI request/court order. Or better yet, read the actual cour documents! This principle you are arguing against actually pre-dates the Bill of Rights! It comes from the original law describing the power of the courts. It is critical/inherent to court power.

I've read the FBI's court documents. Have you read Apple's that I posted a link to?

Main points: 1) Some laws that pre-date the Bill of Rights are more limited in scope (or entirely unconstitutional) after the Bill of Rights. One of Apple's legal arguments is that code is protected speech under the 1st Amendment. Your opinion is irrelevant, since the fact will depend on how the court rules (and subsequent appeals). Lots of abuses of government power predate the Bill of Rights, I don't see how stating a law or principle pre-dates the Bill of Rights makes it more valid or compelling. 2) Apple has pointed out for the court that the power the government seeks is a conscription. The power of conscription has been limited by a number of Amendments and laws passed since 1789. Apple argues that since Congress had an opportunity and declined to extend the power of conscription to technology back doors that the FBI is overstepping their power to seek it through the courts. 3) Apple points out that once the ability for a back door is created, there is no way to confidently prevent it from becoming available to parties that best not have it.

Some are creating a conspiracy theory that Apple seeks to empower criminals of all kinds. Apple is more arguing that Congress should express the will of the people on this specific question, and until they do, Apple retains their discretion not to compromise their product or their customers in a matter Congress has already declined to force their hand on.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

There is risk if the FBI loses to, that goes beyond this one cell phone if a company doesn't need to help law enforcement execute searches anymore, with or without encryption. And there is also risk associated with secure phones themselves.

This risk only exists until Congress passes a law creating the duty some parties are already claiming they have based on a law that pre-dates the Bill of Rights. To whatever degree the people and the Congress agree there is a real risk, it can be fixed very quickly.

 

[zoobyshoe]

It is an interesting line of speculation, but I think you are going too far. Lots and lots of employers provide their employees phones and it is mostly an issue of money: you can't expect an employee to do company business on their own phone, that they pay for. My company is relatively small, so it provides allowances/reimbursement for using personal phones for company business.

Good point.

I see no reason to believe that Farook's job required the use of a very secure phone.

I'm basing it on those two old articles:

Currently, the United States doesn't allow government workers or soldiers to use smartphones for sending classified messages because the devices have not met security certifications.
Officials have said they worry that hackers or rogue apps could tap into the commercial version of Android and spill state secrets to foreign governments or to the Web through a publisher such as WikiLeaks. As many as 5 million Android users may have had their phones compromised by a recent virus outbreak rooted in apps found on Google's market, said security software maker Symantec.
But with a secure smartphone, a soldier could see fellow infantry on a digital map, or an official could send an important dispatch from Washington's Metro subway without fear of security breaches.

Five years ago, at least, when that article came out, the government was all about secure phones. They still are:

If what you are suggesting were true, I would think we'd have seen a direct reporting of it: if nothing else, such policies should be easily accessible.

You're right, so I just googled, and found this interesting article:

High profile cases such as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton using her personal phone and email server for government business highlight the prevalence of employees bringing their own devices to work, as well as the problems inherent in doing so when federal data is involved.

http://www.federaltimes.com/story/government/mobility/2015/03/31/agencies-need-byod-policies/70715578/
If you read the article you see the policy is not set, it is in the process of being worked out. But the Hilary mini-scandal demonstrates this is being scrutinized. The FBI vs Apple case has put Hilary's thing in the shadows and everyone's forgotten the flak she took for using insecure devices.

But, does this apply to County employees? Federal employees call County employees, so it might.

Even if the above line of reasoning were true, that still wouldn't be. Companies regularly make products for military use that are different from civilian versions of the same products.

At this point the FBI hasn't made that distinction and has a standing opposition to "going dark." But, that's a side issue to my larger point in inventing that scurrilous allegation, which was, you can take anyone who has any position on an issue and find a way to demonize them. When the crime was emotionally incendiary, the urge to do that becomes more severe.

 

[zoobyshoe]

You assume very, very incorrectly. No offense, but this sounds like Hillary Clinton style ignorance of security.

I'm going by what the article said:

But with a secure smartphone, a soldier could see fellow infantry on a digital map...

In combat, the location of fellow infantry would certainly be sensitive information.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm basing it on those two old articles:

I think you must be reading something that isn't there, because:
1. He wasn't a federal employee.
2. He would not have dealt with classified material.

So those articles don't appear to me to have anything relevant to say about this case.

But, does this apply to County employees? Federal employees call County employees, so it might.

I don't think you understand what it means for a communication to be "classified". You can call a federal employee from your home phone. The conversation won't be classified, even if you are reporting a possible terrorist attack in planning. You're implying that all government communications of all types are classified and that just isn't so.

I'm going by what the article said:

No you aren't. The key part you added was that it would be a unsecure, "off the shelf" phone. It is just plain absurd to think that soldiers would be carrying classified information on personal smartphones in combat, as a matter of policy. Do you really think the DOD is that stupid?

At this point the FBI hasn't made that distinction and has a standing opposition to "going dark."

Huh? You're suggesting the FBI is against secure government communications? If the first part of the line of reasoning just went too far, that is just pure nonsense, zooby. You're allowing your imagination to get away from you here.

 

[jim hardy]

If it can be hacked, it will

with thousands of clever kids like this out there - nothing is sacred.



check out his credit card hacker...

 

[russ_watters]

I've read the FBI's court documents.

Then I would appreciate if you stopped saying things you know aren't true or if you disagree with something being said, address it directly rather than saying something that implies you aren't even aware of the issue you are referring to.

Have you read Apple's that I posted a link to?

Yes.

Main points: 1) Some laws that pre-date the Bill of Rights are more limited in scope (or entirely unconstitutional) after the Bill of Rights.

Oy. Case in point to the above. If you did read the court documents, you are certainly acting like you didn't. It is tough to even know where to go with that. I was pointing out how fundamental the principle we were discussing is, but it has a long history of being re-affirmed that is discussed in the court documents. Again, if you really read them, you aren't acting like it.

One of Apple's legal arguments is that code is protected speech under the 1st Amendment. Your opinion is irrelevant, since the fact will depend on how the court rules (and subsequent appeals).

As is yours, but you could at least try applying some logic and studying history (or consult with some experts) in order to try to accurately predict whether that argument will succeed.

Lots of abuses of government power predate the Bill of Rights, I don't see how stating a law or principle pre-dates the Bill of Rights makes it more valid or compelling.

You've previously argued that this is a new power. That's a direct refutation of your previous false claims. But you are right, and more to the point: just being old doesn't mean it is valid. What makes it valid is that it has been renewed/affirmed over and over and over and over again.

Some are creating a conspiracy theory that Apple seeks to empower criminals of all kinds.

I've never seen anyone, anywhere make such a suggestion, so there is no good reason for you to raise it as a strawman here.

This risk only exists until Congress passes a law creating the duty some parties are already claiming they have based on a law that pre-dates the Bill of Rights.

All I can do is roll my eyes at such nonsense. Dr. Courtney, you are making rational discussion very difficult by continuously ignoring facts/issues discussed in documents you claim to have read. At this point, maybe it would be a good idea if you would start quoting the actual passages you disagree with and quoting arguments made by quality sources describing why they are wrong. This shooting from the hip stuff you are doing is producing a huge volume of nonsense.

 

[Astronuc]

Lots of abuses of government power predate the Bill of Rights, I don't see how stating a law or principle pre-dates the Bill of Rights makes it more valid or compelling.

Please provide some examples, or even one. Note that the Constitution (which provides for certain powers within the government), predates the Bill of Rights, so citing the Constitution could potentially be valid or compelling.

Abuse of power also post-dates the Bill or Rights. For example, the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Reference: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Alien.html

From the second reference - "These acts increased the residency requirement for American citizenship from five to fourteen years, authorized the president to imprison or deport aliens considered "dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States" and restricted speech critical of the government. These laws were designed to silence and weaken the Democratic-Republican Party. Negative reaction to the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) helped contribute to the Democratic-Republican victory in the 1800 elections."

The government is certainly entitled to protect the security of the nation, i.e., the people/public. The restrictions on speech critical of the government were seen by many, and rightly so, as an infringement on the freedoms of speech and the press as guaranteed in the first amendment.

 

[zoobyshoe]

So those articles don't appear to me to have anything relevant to say about this case.

Because you've forgotten the point I was making when I brought them up.

I don't think you understand what it means for a communication to be "classified". You can call a federal employee from your home phone. The conversation won't be classified, even if you are reporting a possible terrorist attack in planning. You're implying that all government communications of all types are classified and that just isn't so.

No, I am not implying all government communications are classified. I'm saying the situation might exist where a federal employee calls a county employee with classified information. Like when? Like after 911 or after San Bernadino, to name two I can think of. The vulnerability would be in the less secure phone.

No you aren't. The key part you added was that it would be a unsecure, "off the shelf" phone. It is just plain absurd to think that soldiers would be carrying classified information on personal smartphones in combat, as a matter of policy. Do you really think the DOD is that stupid?

You're just making my point for me: the Military wants soldiers to have secure phones. The fictional insecure phone scenario demonstrates why. It's not a description of how it is, it's a description of what the military doesn't want.

Huh? You're suggesting the FBI is against secure government communications? If the first part of the line of reasoning just went too far, that is just pure nonsense, zooby. You're allowing your imagination to get away from you here.

Afraid not. I'm not responsible for any strawmen your imagination accidentally concocts. Read carefully. Remember that thread about the origins of life where you mistook the article as saying the opposite of what it was actually saying?

The government is obviously concerned about the security of its phones. The old articles show the government actively exploring all makes. All phone makers, including Apple, want a piece of that pie. As big a piece as they can get.

 

[mheslep]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_San_Bernardino_attack

I don't know their exact criteria for determining there were no outside links, but they came to this conclusion fairly soon after the attack, so I think all major indicators of a linked group must have been absent. Farook and wife were as impossible to predict as all non-Muslin rampage killers.

Yes, the couple were homegrown per Comey. But, per testimony Dec 9th:

" JAMES COMEY: We're working very hard to understand exactly their association and the source of their inspiration. We're also working very hard to understand whether there was anybody else involved with assisting them, with supporting them, with equipping them. And we're working very, very hard to understand did they have other plans, either for that day or earlier?
...

LINDSEY GRAHAM: Is there any evidence that this marriage was arranged by a terrorist organization or terrorist operative, or was it just a meeting on the Internet?

COMEY: I don't know the answer to that yet.

GRAHAM: Do you agree with me that if it was arranged by a terrorist operative of organized, that is a game changer?

COMEY: It would be a very, very important thing to know."

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/09/459099429/fbi-director-provides-new-details-on-san-bernardino-shooters

Based on the FBI director's statements, the government has good reason to inspect the information on that phone.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Yes, the couple were homegrown per Comey. But, per testimony Dec 9th:

" JAMES COMEY: We're working very hard to understand exactly their association and the source of their inspiration. We're also working very hard to understand whether there was anybody else involved with assisting them, with supporting them, with equipping them. And we're working very, very hard to understand did they have other plans, either for that day or earlier?
...

LINDSEY GRAHAM: Is there any evidence that this marriage was arranged by a terrorist organization or terrorist operative, or was it just a meeting on the Internet?

COMEY: I don't know the answer to that yet.

GRAHAM: Do you agree with me that if it was arranged by a terrorist operative of organized, that is a game changer?

COMEY: It would be a very, very important thing to know."

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/09/459099429/fbi-director-provides-new-details-on-san-bernardino-shooters

Based on the FBI director's statements, the government has good reason to inspect the information on that phone.

I think the FBI has sufficient reason to inspect the information on the phone just based on whose phone it was. That's a different thing than saying they think there's a good chance there'll be something important on it.
This "arranged marriage" thing is news to me, and would be of importance. I don't get the impression the FBI, or anyone, thinks there is anything about that on the phone, though, and it turns out they already have access to emails or PMs the couple exchanged during the time they were talking online before they were married:

“We can see from our investigation that in late 2013, before there is a physical meeting of these two people resulting in their engagement and then journey to the United States, they are communicating online, showing signs in that communication of their joint commitment to jihad and to martyrdom,” Mr. Comey said. “Those communications are direct, private messages."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/17/u...-jihad-in-private-messages-fbi-says.html?_r=0
That "arranged terrorist marriage" story seems to have its origins in the statements of a coworker:

Christian Nwadike, a colleague who worked beside Farook for almost four year, tells CBS News that Farook was different after he returned from Saudi Arabia, where he went on a pilgrimage.
"Do you believe that he was radicalized?" Begnaud asks him.

"Yes, by the wife, I think he married a terrorist," Nwadike says.

"He married a terrorist?"

"Yes, he was set up through that marriage," Nwadike tells CBS News.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/12/04/suspects-family-shocked-killings/76773382/
I assume the FBI went back and interviewed this guy after the NBC story appeared. At any rate, I'm not aware they've changed their assessment of "homegrown."