The FBI lied about the amount spent on iPhone hacking

The general population should be aware that people/administration staff/CEOs in corporations lie, they lie a lot, and even if they get caught there is little consequence as there is no You Must Tell the Truth Act of 1688.

People in government however are allegedly accountable to their financiers, i.e. the tax payers, that being the general population.

The accounting must be spot on, the tender process must be legitimate in accordance with the law and able to withstand any sort scrutiny.

With regards to obtaining data from an alleged terrorist at the time, in 2016, the head of the FBI a James Comey stated that the bureau paid $1.4 million in order to retrieve the data from the iPhone 5C of Syed Farook.

It was not until years later that it was revealed that the price was not $1,400,000 as Comey stated but rather $900,000 or half a million dollars less.

So, did the books state that taxpayers paid $1,400,000 for the service?

If so, then what did the $500,000 really go to?

Another Black Ops?

In any event the FBI lied.

How many more lies have the public paid for?

Can they be really trusted in other matters?

See article from phonearena.com of the headline:

Long running mystery is solved; this is the firm that unlocked terrorist's iPhone 

We now know the answer to a long-running mystery that involves the Apple iPhone. In December 2015, in what was later called a terrorist attack, married couple Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik shot to death 14 people in a San Bernardino office building. Apple got involved when a court ruled that the tech giant had to unlock Farook's iPhone 5c.

Name of company that unlocked terrorist's iPhone 5c in 2016 is finally revealed

Apple CEO Tim Cook refused to follow the court order because doing so would require Apple to create a special version of iOS for the government to use. The executive feared that this special software-dubbed Govt.OS-could leak once in the hands of institutions like the FBI resulting in the loss of privacy for every iPhone user. Eventually, the FBI paid a data extraction company to unlock Farook's phone although the identity of that company was only guessed at until now.

Before we get to that name, let's step back and look at the issue. The FBI felt that inside the alleged murderer's phone it might find evidence pertaining to the San Bernardino attack along with a list of places Farook might have been scoping out for future attacks. Those who agreed with Apple's decision not to abide by the court's ruling worried that the government was setting a precedent for unlocking handsets while others felt that Apple was supporting terrorism.

This was such a huge story in the beginning of 2016 that presidential candidates felt compelled to weigh in on Apple's decision not to follow a court order. Donald Trump, who was then the GOP front runner, said "The reality is time is of the essence when you’re talking about the possibility of a terrorist attack." Marco Rubio stated that, "Ultimately, I think being a good corporate citizen is important," and said that the standoff between Apple and the government was a good example why talks between the tech industry and lawmakers need to take place.

The FBI finally paid a company to open the device and there were plenty of rumors about which company was used to do the deed. The first rumor said that Israeli company Cellebrite was paid a little more than $15,000 to do the job. Later on, then FBI head James Comey said that the actual price to unlock the handset came to $1.4 million. It was later reported that no useful information was unearthed by the FBI.

According to the Washington Post, Cellebrite had nothing to do with the unlocking of Farook's iPhone 5c. Instead, a little-known firm named Azimuth was the company that cracked the device. Azimuth is now owned by L3Harris Technologies and was reportedly paid $900,000 to do the job for the federal government.

Apple discovered the truth in the process of suing a company called Corellium that creates virtual online iPhones which can be used to research hacks for iOS. The court dismissed the case filed by Apple.

While Apple was lambasted in the media for taking what was considered to be a stance in favor of the terrorist, Tim Cook told employees in a memo that "As individuals and as a company, we have no tolerance or sympathy for terrorists. When they commit unspeakable acts like the tragic attacks in San Bernardino, we work to help the authorities pursue justice for the victims. And that's exactly what we did. Starting with iOS 8, we began encrypting data in a way that not even the iPhone itself can read without the user's passcode, so if it is lost or stolen, our personal data, conversations, financial and health information are far more secure."

So we now have the answer to a long unsolved mystery that had been festering for more than five years.

The lies and propaganda of the mainstream media, government and police

The CCP aren’t the only ones that deceive their population, where all you have to do is look closer to home, i.e. here in this colony we call Australia.

Australia’s media is not unbiased, where to put it quite simply they are the government’s lap dog/biatch/corporate whores, doing whatever it takes to put the herd into a zombie state of government/corporate subservience for whatever agenda is on the table irrespective of the truth.

The general population is treated on the ‘idiot box’ to a propaganda series called Highway Patrol which currently airs on Channel 7 on Wednesday’s from 7:30pm.

In this case we pay attention to a section from Season 9 Episode 6 called Drunk Off Roading:

Source: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6s7x0s

From the 6m21s and 16m50s marks, a road pirate or cop (Senior Constable Damien O’Brien) as they are commonly referred to stops a driver, where the following conversation occurs:

O’Brien: How you doin’ mate, ah have you got your driver’s licence there?

Driver: Ah, can I ask what for?

O’Brien: Ah, ‘cause you’re driving a car, so you’re required to produce your licence.

You’re required to produce a licence when .... intercepted by police.

“This man reckons he knows the law better than senior constable O’Brien.” chimes in the narrator.

O’Brien: So far you failed to produce your licence... name and address... that’s two offences.

Putting the driver’s other banter aside, O’Brien also mentions that the driver must follow the Road Safety Act, but (deliberately?) FAILS to mention that a driver does NOT have to have a licence in his/her possession if the driver is 26 years of age or over.

O’Brien has given the driver false/misleading information using the fear of incarceration on the driver, irrespective of the other aspects of law.

You are not required at law to answer any questions by a police officer, when driving or in charge of a vehicle, other than providing your name and address.

In Victoria, you are not required to carry a driver licence if you are over 26 years of age.

O’Brien also failed to notify the driver that he is not required to answer any questions, but if he does that information may be used in a court of law, you know your 'Miranda Rights'.

In any event you cannot trust the police, even with a ‘simple’ roadside stop.

Would you trust O'Brien in a so called court of law, since he has shown on national television that he does not know the very Road Safety Act he is quoting?

Attacker can use a WhatsApp subscriber's phone number to suspend his service

A major security exploit can be used to suspend your WhatsApp account by a bad actor without your permission. The only information that the attacker needs is your phone number. According to Forbes, the attacker's first step is to install WhatsApp on a new phone using your phone number to activate the service.

What happens next is that WhatsApp, using two factor authorization (2FA), tries to verify that it is you who just set up the new WhatsApp service on your phone. Since it isn't you, this procedure will fail over and over again and if done multiple times, it results in your account log-in being suspended for 12 hours. For the next step, the attacker sends an email to WhatsApp stating that his phone (which is really your handset) has been stolen or lost and asks that the WhatsApp account associated with the number be shut down.

Following this request, WhatsApp sends an email confirming that the account has been suspended without asking the attacker for any kind of information that might prove that the request to suspend the account came from the legitimate owner of said account. This process can be repeated numerous times which basically locks you out of your WhatsApp account.

A pair of security researchers named Luis Márquez Carpintero and Ernesto Canales Pereña completed a proof of concept that showed how this attack can block you from using your WhatsApp account. What it can't do is give bad actors a way to enter your account and your confidential messages remain confidential. WhatsApp hasn't said anything yet about plugging the gaping security hole.

The Facebook-owned messaging app did suggest was that users provide it with their e-mail address and two factor authorization "credentials" to help prevent the above mentioned scenario from taking place. But even if this info is given to WhatsApp, you still have to rely on it to follow through. WhatsApp does point out that taking advantage of this exploit violates its Terms of Service which we wouldn't expect to be a deterrent against a hacker.

ESET's Jake Moore says, "This is yet another worrying hack, one that could impact millions of users who could potentially be targeted with this attack. With so many people relying on WhatsApp as their primary communication tool for social and work purposes, it is alarming at what ease this can occur."

Source: phonearena.com