• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Apple refuses FBI request to hack San Bernardino jihadi’s iPhone

Feb 17, 2016 6:13 pm By Robert Spencer

“The FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.” Point taken. So create the technology, get the contents of this criminal murderer’s phone, give it to the FBI, and destroy the technology.

malik_farook_airport

“Apple: We won’t hack San Bernardino terrorist’s iPhone,” by Beau Yarbrough, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, February 17, 2016:

Apple Inc. CEO Tim Cook has blasted a federal magistrate’s order to hack into the work iPhone of Syed Farook, one of two people responsible for the Dec. 2 terrorist attack on the Inland Regional Center, saying the order endangers privacy for millions of customers.

“People use (smartphones) to store an incredible amount of personal information, from our private conversations to our photos, our music, our notes, our calendars and contacts, our financial information and health data, even where we have been and where we are going,” Cook’s open letter, posted on Apple’s website Wednesday morning, reads in part.

“For many years, we have used encryption to protect our customers’ personal data because we believe it’s the only way to keep their information safe. We have even put that data out of our own reach, because we believe the contents of your iPhone are none of our business.”

Federal officials have been able to access information on some phones apparently left behind by Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, including one that reportedly held pictures of the parking garage and entrances and exits of Carter High School in Rialto. Carter’s cafeteria was one of the sites inspected by Farook as part of his duties as a San Bernardino County health inspector.

But officials have been stymied trying to get into Farook’s primary cell phone.

Apple was “shocked and outraged by the deadly act of terrorism in San Bernardino last December,” Cook wrote, adding his company has complied with other federal requests related to the investigation.

“When the FBI has requested data that’s in our possession, we have provided it. Apple complies with valid subpoenas and search warrants, as we have in the San Bernardino case. We have also made Apple engineers available to advise the FBI, and we’ve offered our best ideas on a number of investigative options at their disposal,” he wrote.

But what U.S. Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym ordered Apple to do Tuesday is something else entirely, according to Cook.

“The FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession,” Cook wrote.

“The FBI may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a back door. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control.”

The American Civil Liberties Union and Electronic Frontier Foundation have both come out in support of Apple’s stance.

“If the FBI can force Apple to hack into its customers’ devices, then so too can every repressive regime in the rest of the world,” Alex Abdo, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, said in an ACLU statement. “Apple deserves praise for standing up for its right to offer secure devices to all of its customers.”…

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: FBI, Featured, Jihad in the U.S. Tagged With: Rashfeen Malik, Syed Rizwan Farook, Tim Cook


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. marc says

    Feb 17, 2016 at 6:25 pm

    I’ve been discussing this with my peers in the security industry all day, the feeling is (although many of us hate apple) apple are 100% right, however justified it might be, the precedents it sets and the vulnerability it would create are far too great a risk to take.

    Mark Maunder puts the case well here in fairly non-geek speak
    https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2016/02/wordfence-supports-strong-encryption/

    The WH claim thats not what they asked for, but that is very naive of them (that or they are lying).

    But apple say they want to have a discussion, but where? free discussion has been blocked in the popular forms, coincidentally only recently.

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/twitters-new-safety-council-makes-a-mockery-of-free-speech/
    http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/02/05/facebook-censorship-and-the-war-on-free-speech/

    • David Scoltock says

      Feb 18, 2016 at 6:15 am

      If the government has that software, they will use it every chance they get. It’s a license to go on fishing trips through the phones of private individuals.

      Arrest a journalist on some pretext, then go through their phone for sources and information on anti-authority stories.

      There is a real danger of governments using the fear of terrorism to attack civil liberties.

      • Al Fabeech says

        Feb 18, 2016 at 10:17 am

        Here’s an ironic twist….. Are the people that are more afraid of the government and loss of privacy, the same people who are more afraid of the government and gun control? …………………Privacy or Guns? What’s more important?

      • Bukkdem Jizheads says

        Feb 18, 2016 at 3:56 pm

        This is nuts. Apple can examine the phone, determine the passcode for this one phone, and tell it to the investigators per the judge’s order. It’s not the same as developing software that will be disseminated to hackers worldwide.

    • Keys says

      Feb 18, 2016 at 11:39 am

      “Apple” and its CEO will not hack in to the terrorist phone because of privacy conerns, the potential for enemies to use the hack against us, the potential for our own government to use it against citizens of different political persuasions, it’ the right thing to do, etc.

      Suppose a terrorist group kidnaps the Apple CEO, several key Apple employees, and loved ones. These people are tortured to give up “the hack”. That doesn’t work so the terrorists begin killing previously kidnapped loved ones, etc. until they get what they want. Is that a possibility?

    • marc says

      Feb 18, 2016 at 1:30 pm

      Saying apple should unlock it privately and supplying the unlocked phone or just the content of it. Anyone have a legal view if this is even possible?
      I don’t know what the case is in the US, but when I have assisted authorities on a court order in the UK and Canada, I have to provide a highly detailed chain of custody report, which lists the exact method used to extract data, I am sure no one bothers reading it in my presentations to the court as they are standard well known tools that I’ve used, and when i have written my own tool, i supplied that source code within the CoC. But in this case, that detail is the issue…

    • Jerry Roderick says

      Feb 19, 2016 at 1:37 am

      If for example, info was on an Apple device containing info that would destroy a multitude of people, would Tim Cook feel compelled to release data to the FBI, CIA or whomever to stop this event?

      I seriously doubt it. Tim Cook ,and his ego, is more interested in selling his product more then making it “really secure to the multitude”.

  2. Rev g says

    Feb 17, 2016 at 6:42 pm

    Apple is right. The,FBI is mad because they can’t hack the phone.
    The government wants to erode our rights to make their jobs easier, and to appease islam, etc…
    No.

    • Bukkdem Jizheads says

      Feb 18, 2016 at 3:58 pm

      “appease islam”??? This is to prosecute the islamists jizzheads associated with the worst terror attack since 9/11.

      • Rev g says

        Feb 18, 2016 at 6:48 pm

        Our government has been bending over backwards to appease islam. In doing so, eroding our rights has gone hand in hand. Have you not been paying attention?

  3. jihad3tracker says

    Feb 17, 2016 at 6:53 pm

    HELLO MARC — You and I ( as “Steve”) have exchanged emails over the last few months — and also today about a GNU + text temporary problem.

    With the disclaimer that I have not yet read your posted links about the encryption situation, and assuming you continue to follow this post, how about answering my paraphrase of Robert’s proposal:

    WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH APPLE AND THE FBI GETTING TOGETHER IN AN ULTRA-SECURE LOCATION, CREATING THE HACK, USING THE HACK TO OPEN THE JIHADIST PHONE, THEN DESTROYING THE HACK ???

    Why specifically would that leave any software trail that compromises other Apple users ?

    • marc says

      Feb 17, 2016 at 7:06 pm

      It’s a technical impossibility to-do this without a sizable risk of opening vulnerabilities for all apple users, and the bad guys have access to plenty of resources that would defeat any future hacking by an authority, so they will be secure in future, while we would not.

      • jihad3tracker says

        Feb 17, 2016 at 7:22 pm

        Thank you for the quick reply — I will now parachute out of this comment thread.

        We are probably going to see a fast track zoom to the Supreme Court, with major 4th Amendment implications.

    • umbra says

      Feb 17, 2016 at 7:59 pm

      Mr. Spencer’s suggestion to develop, use ad than destroy such a technology is full of problems. While software (and source codes) can be deleted, the knowledge gain from such an exercise cannot be readily expunged from the technology world. Those who worked on such a project would have gained the knowledge to replicate parts of or the entire technology. Unless all those involved in the project get deleted too, there is no guarantee that this technology will not be resurrected after it is destroyed.

  4. Mark Swan says

    Feb 17, 2016 at 7:05 pm

    Apple may think it has a monopoly on security concerns…but apple is not responsible
    for the safety of 320 million people in America and others worldwide…
    Our NSA can crack Apples Security if they are given the directive…
    then what will Apple or anyone else have to say.

    I am sure many ACLU staffers do not want their phones accessed…The Enemies of
    our freedom such as the ACLU have Plenty To Hide…I have nothing to hide on any
    device…No One Should…enough covert nonsense with privacy…do the right thing…
    and You don’t need it…Our FBI is law enforcement…
    if they are operating within the Law…cooperate.

    No One is suggesting the fundamental right to personal privacy should be taken away…
    Never…Just don’t get in the way of national security investigations.

    • Rev g says

      Feb 17, 2016 at 7:30 pm

      What you claim NOT to be saying is really exactly what you are advocating.
      Privacy is not nonsense. Your spiel above however, is nonsense.

    • Arthur says

      Feb 17, 2016 at 7:35 pm

      >>No one is suggesting the fundamental right to personal privacy should be taken away…just don’t get in the way of national security investigations.

      What does it mean to claim you have privacy on the one hand, but that you aren’t allowed to keep secrets from your national government (an organization employing 2.7 million people)?

      Should the government ever seek to jail anyone who spoke up for “personal privacy” on the basis of “national security”, are you going to report to the local police station to surrender your freedom?

      Is keeping secrets not a form of freedom?

      And, besides, do we consider that all information technology companies are now working for the federal government, subject to delivery new software products to the federal government without getting paid for their work? I suppose in a tyranical system of government, you would expect this.

    • William says

      Feb 17, 2016 at 8:52 pm

      It would be very naïve of me to say that I don’t have a problem with the government’s having the capacity to access private information because I have nothing to hide. I hear people say it often. But it shows naïveté. Naïveté of the fallibility of man, whether he occupies high office or not. Naïveté of one’s vulnerability to the myriad collection of laws. Can a man be so sure that he has nothing to hide when he does not know he may be in violation of some ordinance, often obscure but liable to be resurrected when expedient?

  5. JawsV says

    Feb 17, 2016 at 7:19 pm

    Apple v FBI. Brought to us by Islam.

    I’ve never used Apple. I think we should know what’s on the phone.

  6. gravenimage says

    Feb 17, 2016 at 7:29 pm

    Apple refuses FBI request to hack San Bernardino jihadi’s iPhonenal Center, saying the order endangers privacy for millions of customers.

    “People use (smartphones) to store an incredible amount of personal information, from our private conversations to our photos, our music, our notes, our calendars and contacts, our financial information and health data, even where we have been and where we are going,” Cook’s open letter, posted on Apple’s website Wednesday morning, reads in part.
    ………………………..

    This is all true–but in rare cases, they also use smartphones to plot violent Jihad–this is almost certainly what Syed Farook did.

    This isn’t about safeguarding privacy–not in this case.

    How many lives have potentially already been endangered by the FBI being unable to access this information?

    • Rev g says

      Feb 17, 2016 at 7:33 pm

      Freedom and rights have inherent dangers, but the alternative is worse. Freedom gives you the chance to look out for yourself.

    • Rev g says

      Feb 17, 2016 at 7:37 pm

      You are doing the jihad I’m work for them, subjugating natural rights that they would prefer you don’t have, that they would take away.
      Cutting off your nose to spite your face.

      • gravenimage says

        Feb 17, 2016 at 7:44 pm

        Rev g, protecting privacy and other rights is *extremely* important to me.

        In the same way, I very much believe in and defend property rights.

        But if a criminal mass murders people, I very much believe that law enforcement has the right to search their home for weapons and information about other planned crimes.

        This smartphone, despite its high tech nature, is just another piece of property. Few would be so concerned if this were just a notebook or planner.

        • Rev g says

          Feb 17, 2016 at 7:49 pm

          Nobody is stopping the fbi from looking in the phone.
          But just like a warrant to search an apartment, it does not mean the other apartments are subject to search as well, or that the building owner has to aid in the search.

        • marc says

          Feb 17, 2016 at 7:51 pm

          @gravenimage you are still ignoring the great risk that this makes all apple phones potentially insecure for everyone else in the future.

        • gravenimage says

          Feb 17, 2016 at 8:40 pm

          Rev g wrote:

          Nobody is stopping the fbi from looking in the phone.
          ……………………..

          Rev g, the FBI has been unable to access the information on the phone–that is the whole point.

        • rev g says

          Feb 17, 2016 at 8:48 pm

          Sucks to be them.

        • gravenimage says

          Feb 17, 2016 at 8:48 pm

          Marc wrote:

          @gravenimage you are still ignoring the great risk that this makes all apple phones potentially insecure for everyone else in the future.
          ……………………..

          Dear Marc, I have the greatest respect for you. I have no doubt that you are much more knowledgeable than myself about the technology involved in such phones.

          But National Security has had to enlist the expertise of civilian specialists many times before–generally it can be done in a discreet manner that only pertains to the case in question.

          You are right that the possibility of compromised privacy on smartphones is a potential threat–but Muslims finding they can use smartphones with absolute impunity to plot violent Jihad without any fear of discovery is also a serious threat.

          I believe on balance that accessing the information of *known* Jihadists here trumps more abstract concerns.

          You may, of course, disagree.

          All the best to you.

        • marc says

          Feb 17, 2016 at 8:59 pm

          @gravenimage I understand the frustration, personally i’d have them waterboard all his friends and family if it could avert a single threat. But with pretty much all involved in IT security are saying this would have a high chance of causing a disaster on a global scale with the potential cyber threats against maybe finance or government agencies that rely on what today are pretty secure devices.
          I am seeing a lot of normally right thinking people having your PoV. I assumed they thought that there was already a backdoor there, and apple just have to hand over a single key for one device.

        • gravenimage says

          Feb 17, 2016 at 8:51 pm

          Rev g wrote:

          Sucks to be them.
          ……………………..

          Rev g, I’m afraid it also sucks to be us if Jihadists are planning further attacks that law enforcement has no way of learning about, as well.

        • rev g says

          Feb 17, 2016 at 9:08 pm

          Attacks will happen until we either submit to Islam vanquish it. Submitting to gov does not change that. Once upon a time, we wrested ourselves a manner of control over both. Today panderers wish to submit meekly to one or the other, thinking it in their best interests.
          It isn’t.

        • gravenimage says

          Feb 17, 2016 at 11:16 pm

          Well, I respect both Marc and Rev g a great deal, and hate disagreeing with them here.

          That good Anti-Jihadists are in disagreement as to what approach to use to oppose this aspect of Jihad just gives me another reason to hate Islam. In a world free of Jihad terror it would probably not be necessary to make these kinds of devilishly fraught choices at all.

  7. Peggy says

    Feb 17, 2016 at 7:33 pm

    How did FBI build a case before Iphone?
    I believe that if our security agencies can’t build a case if this part is not available to them then they are not that good.
    We have given up enough of our freedom already.

  8. Islam :- the hateful religion of idiots says

    Feb 17, 2016 at 7:57 pm

    So ….. how long is it going to be until some muslim idiot lets off a bomb inside or even in the carpark of Apple before they understand the gravity of whats going on,

    How’s Cook going to feel if his beloved employees, wife, kids get killed because he said No … ?

    Does anyone understand the FBI are the good guys and they are here to protect us …!!!

    Normal law abiding people shouldn’t have a problem with this, personally I would be happy if the FBI could pull data remotely, 130 people, in SanBerdino would have loved for the FBI to have a heads up ……….

    • rev g says

      Feb 17, 2016 at 8:09 pm

      The FBI are the good guys? Trustable? LOL! (face palm).
      Feel free to surrender your privacy, but not mine.

  9. Angemon says

    Feb 17, 2016 at 8:19 pm

    First of all, Apple should keep it down when it comes to keeping user data secure – remember the leak of celebrity nude pics a couple of years ago?

    Second, this seems contradictory to me:

    “People use (smartphones) to store an incredible amount of personal information, from our private conversations to our photos, our music, our notes, our calendars and contacts, our financial information and health data, even where we have been and where we are going,” Cook’s open letter, posted on Apple’s website Wednesday morning, reads in part.

    “For many years, we have used encryption to protect our customers’ personal data because we believe it’s the only way to keep their information safe. We have even put that data out of our own reach, because we believe the contents of your iPhone are none of our business.”

    (…)

    “The FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession,” Cook wrote.

    It’s not that they can’t do it, they just don’t want to out of principle. Meaning that there’s (theoretically) a way they can access the data that’s supposedly secure and out of their reach. And if there’s theoretically a way, who’s to say a group like ISIS, or hackers in China or Russia or Pakistan won’t try to figure it out?

    Third – and here’s something I never expected to say – I’m with Apple on this. It’s not a “one-time thing”, it’s a precedent. You’re not giving a person a tool to get to the info stored in one iPhone, you’re giving the government a tool to get ALL the info on ALL the iPhones, and setting up a precedent to make ALL other companies create tools to give the government ALL the data on ALL their machines. Maybe these guys are honest and trustworthy (just kidding – it’s the Obama administration) but what about the next guys (what if Hillary wins)? Or the guys after them?

    Now if you’ll excuse me, I have bleach to chug down – although I don’t think there’s enough bleach in the world to take that bad taste out of my mouth. Bleargh…

    • marc says

      Feb 17, 2016 at 8:26 pm

      I am sure Apple can hack it, the work involved maybe extreme, which is why too many humans involved… humans are in nearly every leak the cause, not the technology.
      The precedent, not just concerning the current administration (Hilary and her insecure email server anyone?), but what about other countries demanding access in the future from Apple.

  10. Zondra says

    Feb 17, 2016 at 8:21 pm

    Question: How r androids encrypted? My sense is that the FBI could access them. If so, how r those with androids compromised?

    • marc says

      Feb 17, 2016 at 9:18 pm

      Well, they don’t have hardware encryption built in, but any modern android could use any number of techniques to employ a similar level of security, and as it’s open source maybe more secure, ironically, the FBI would have no one to demand they reverse engineer it for them, which if the FBI get their way here, the jihadis will switch to androids.

  11. mccode says

    Feb 17, 2016 at 8:41 pm

    A bit of a sticky wicket here.

    And it would be intensely tragic and ironic if Tim Cook, any of his loved ones, or any Apple employee becomes the victim of a jihadi attack that might have been avoided if the data on the phone was revealed.

  12. mortimer says

    Feb 17, 2016 at 8:52 pm

    Apple would gain a lot of friends if they would work with the FBI and help them catch the criminals behind the murders.

    They could have done it quietly and discreetly, but now it’s a BIG DEAL. Sheesh.

    • rev g says

      Feb 17, 2016 at 8:59 pm

      I am pretty sure Apple knows it would lose more business than gain by cooperating.
      Lots of people, and businesses, appreciate privacy, worldwide.

  13. John Johness says

    Feb 17, 2016 at 9:05 pm

    So Apple are beyond the law.
    They use the security as a feature to sell the phones. You can guarantee that they could hack the phone if they wanted. How about people don’t use their phones for secrets. How did people do it before Apple? What about those who do not have an iphone. All us non Iphone users seem to get by with our secrets and freedom.
    If it was a moral issue for Apple of ‘freedom and privacy’ they would be helping everyone – not just Apple buyers.
    It smacks of commercialism parading as ‘concern’.

    • rev g says

      Feb 17, 2016 at 9:19 pm

      Apple is upholding the law. The FBI wants an exception.

    • Mark Swan says

      Feb 17, 2016 at 11:04 pm

      John Johness…I Agree…Thank You for Your Comment

  14. Wellington says

    Feb 17, 2016 at 9:06 pm

    For all those who think Apple is correct here in denying the information to the FBI, imagine this scenario: An Islamic terrorist shortly before he dies conveys that there is detailed information on his iPhone about using a biological or chemical WMD that is going to wipe out a huge portion of a major American city’s population (at least hundreds of thousands)—-and the city which he didn’t name is, according to him, mentioned many times on the iPhone and this event is going to happen soon. For argument’s sake, let’s also suppose in this scenario that the FBI has no other solid information on this at the time though it has picked up vague “chatter: about this recently.

    Still think Apple should not comply? Sure, the now dead Islamic terrorist may have been bluffing but what if he wasn’t? Want to just assume he was? Is such guarded encryption worth hundreds of thousands of lives? Should privacy rights extend this far? Perhaps, and I’m not saying an argument for such extensive privacy rights can’t be made——-but I wouldn’t make it. No I wouldn’t.

    BTW, damn Islam again for forcing America and Americans to make very difficult decisions about freedom, security, etc., which almost certainly would not have to be made but for Islam. For instance, does anyone think we would have such extensive, costly and admittedly sometimes ludicrous security at airports nowadays if Islam did not exist? Yes, perhaps we can all agree on this much: Damn Islam to Hell. Islam deserves to be despised. Yes it does.

    • rev g says

      Feb 17, 2016 at 9:25 pm

      Oh my….let’s play “What if?”
      That pretty much proves you have no valid argument. What if someone said the earth was going to explode tomorrow? Then no other “what it’s” would matter.

      • Wellington says

        Feb 17, 2016 at 9:43 pm

        It is you who is devoid of validity in argument. You proffered a ridiculous “what if” versus a realistic “what if” and drew an equivalency between the two. That in itself is pathetic but also woeful is that you refused to answer my query.

        The military plays “what if” games all the time. It has to. In fact, it would be immoral not to. Hypotheticals are perfectly legitimate in sundry fields in order to be better prepared for extremely unusual, even dire and exigent occurrences. The same is done at law schools with all kinds of legal hypotheticals. Wake up.

        • gravenimage says

          Feb 17, 2016 at 10:45 pm

          I agree entirely, Wellington.

        • Rev g says

          Feb 17, 2016 at 11:09 pm

          The military uses plausible “what if” scenarios to assess and improve readiness, it does not create flimsy excuses to violate the natural rights of citizens. We need you for those. The Bill of Rights does not create those rights, it merely enumerates them, and the few exigencies and manners of encroaching them. Liberty can be perilous, cowards think pandering away their freedom will protect them But, what if?…

        • Rev g says

          Feb 17, 2016 at 11:12 pm

          You are probably a fan of the security theatrics at the airport as well
          You need to wake up, not I

        • Wellington says

          Feb 17, 2016 at 11:20 pm

          You still did not address my “what if” that I posited in my 9:06 P.M. post, which is not just some “flimsy excuse.” And are you actually sinking so low as to suggest that anyone who thinks Apple is wrong here is therefore a “coward pandering away their freedom?” If so, you can stick it where the sun never shines. Try true argument for a change, that is if you’re capable of doing so, which I rather doubt.

        • Rev g says

          Feb 17, 2016 at 11:38 pm

          Wellington, I did answer. It is a flimsy excuse of a reason to justify further erosion of privacy rights. It is pandering away of rights in search of elusive “safety”. What next? Flying nude, chained to our sears, for safety? We can continue pandering away our natural, inherent, God-given rights, or we can act like,we have a pair. This phone will not be the straw that takes down islam. Only a fool would sacrifice their rights for such a useless reason. Even if Apple did breach this phone, all it would do is drive consumers to another brand, one that has not compromised, and hurt Apple’s business. If gov. rules to require snoop access, it is a step back to pre-Snowden government violation of the people. Bad either way.
          If you cannot see that I pity you.

        • gravenimage says

          Feb 18, 2016 at 10:22 am

          Rev g wrote:

          Even if Apple did breach this phone, all it would do is drive consumers to another brand, one that has not compromised, and hurt Apple’s business.
          …………………………….

          Rev g, it has now been revealed that Apple has unlocked phones for federal security on seventy previous occasions–I don’t believe this has hurt Apple’s business before.

        • Rev g says

          Feb 18, 2016 at 9:19 pm

          And yet Apple is continually upgrading to better security provisions in order to maintain market share?
          That implies otherwise very strongly. Hacking last year’s products is not the same as destroying your state of the art technology. Our government even sells our old military tech to questionable nations.

        • Wellington says

          Feb 18, 2016 at 12:52 pm

          No, you didn’t answer it. You dodged it several times and didn’t answer it.

          t is possible to argue that Apple is right in this case, though I don’t think it is, nor do I think this jeopardizes privacy in general/ For instance, the NSA cannot use any information it gathers and turn it over to the IRS. It is prohibited under law to do so. Want to do away with the NSA or severely limit its technology to gather information? BTW, I consider Snowden to be a traitor. Anyone who praises him and is an American I deem at best a fool——–and with no pity extended by me whatsoever.

          And in the hypothetical I gave in my 9:06 P.M. post of yesterday, would you still say Apple would be right in such a hypothetical to refuse the FBI? Don’t tell me that that hypothetical would lead to this, that or the other problem. IN THE SPECIFIC hypothetical that I gave, what would you argue in this instance, where hundreds of thousands of lives could be lost? Considering that many Islamic terrorists are zealous barbarians who want mass death and would, it should be assumed, use a WMD it possible, to claim that my hypothetical is off the wall in any way is itself off the wall.

        • Rev g says

          Feb 18, 2016 at 9:02 pm

          You not liking my answer is not the same as me not answering. You can’t negate my answer, you can disagree.
          You aren’t all powerful. The world will never revolve around you.

        • Wellington says

          Feb 18, 2016 at 9:33 pm

          You gave a non-answer in effect. I posited a legal question and were you in a law school class and asked what I asked you wouldn’t be able to go on about “what if the world ended tomorrow”—–or you’re some kind of coward or as good as the jihadists (as you said to gravenimage), or other rubbish along these lines if you don’t support your point of view, blah, blah, blah—–no, none of this damn prevarication by you would you be allowed.

          You simply won’t answer my hypothetical (which is fairly realistic considering the world nowadays) and this is total wussy-ass stuff on your part. You dodge and you dodge and you dodge again and yet think you have answered. Well, you haven’t. You’re a modern Artful Dodger.

          And I have to wonder where one can disagree with “rev g” and not be name called. In my original post of 9:06 P.M. last night I said that an argument could be made for Apple’s position but I wouldn’t make it, leaving the legal door open for someone to make such a legal argument and without invective by me. But you, by contrast, rather in totalitarian mode in the sense that if one does not agree with you then that person is abetting jihadists or is a coward or is to be pitied, etc., just went on and on and on about how you are right and to the extent that someone disagrees with you then they are wrong and deficient, even bad.

          And you remain clueless, utterly clueless, that your mode of arguing is not arguing at all. It’s just all dictate crap. You don’t argue. No you don’t. You only preach and I am quite tired of your preaching. Done here.

        • Rev g says

          Feb 18, 2016 at 11:35 pm

          Oh my……now it’s “what if we were in law school?” HINT: we aren’t. I gave you an answer. You didn’t like it. That does not change that it is an answer.
          The rest of your rant is petty as well. I based my statements on fact, facts often presented by others here regularly. Facts that our cowardice, our surrender of rights to seek some false sense of security, is playing right into the jihadi’s interests. They don’t have to win to subvert our values, they say “boo” and people fall over each other to surrender our rights.
          Don’t go away mad……

        • Rev g says

          Feb 19, 2016 at 1:19 am

          I took your hypothetical as hyperbole, or just common bs, either works. You claim this phone data so important that “hundreds of thousands of lives could be lost”. You joker you. Or blatant liar. Point out to me please, where ANY terror event has claimed such number of lives? You really think this phone, from this small-time operative, would have info on dozens, or tens of dozens, of future ops? You are that unfamiliar with the organizational structure of these organizations?
          See, your hypothetical was a flimsy excuse, not a credible scenario. No reason to take it seriously. So I won’t

    • marc says

      Feb 17, 2016 at 9:34 pm

      Yes damn them, even if i thought the purpose of accessing the phone wasn’t to prove how the attack had nothing to do with islam, and it wasn’t going to take potentially 6 months to develop the required OS if that was possible (so wouldn’t help in your urgency scenario).
      I’d still go with waterboarding all the regulars at his mosque, and interning anyone with a bruise in the centre of their forehead, that would get results much faster.

    • Mark Swan says

      Feb 17, 2016 at 10:31 pm

      Yes it Does

      • Mark Swan says

        Feb 17, 2016 at 10:35 pm

        Wellington says

        February 17, 2016 at 9:06 pm

        Yes it Does Wellington

  15. Rob says

    Feb 17, 2016 at 9:44 pm

    Wasn’t there collaboration a couple of years ago to unscramble an image of a pedophile abusing children in Asia somewhere?
    No doubt the abuser purchased the scrambler in the expectation that it would never be hacked.
    Does the privacy of a pedophile who could have gone on to abuse countless young men have a lower threshold than terrorists?
    Seems to me if you can consider that some anti social activities are so monstrous that privacy is trumped (bad word that nowadays) then Robert’s suggestion is eminently sensible.
    Phones with encryption should be sold on the basis that right to privacy is set aside if that particular piece of hardware is subject to the San Bernardino factor.
    BTW I bet some geeky kid is hacking away in his bedroom right now.
    When he presents his software to the FBI, i wonder if he will be invited to the White House?

    • Rob says

      Feb 17, 2016 at 9:48 pm

      To clarify, I mean that phones used in the commission of mass murder should have a lower privacy threshold than sex crimes.

    • marc says

      Feb 17, 2016 at 9:54 pm

      If that image unscrambling technology leaked out, there is little risk to anyone on anything like the scale of this phone encryption becoming vulnerable, anyway it’s vastly simpler technology and would not need the assistance of the developer.

    • Rev g says

      Feb 17, 2016 at 11:16 pm

      I bet phones sold with that caveat would sell like hotcakes, not!
      You guys can’t run fast enough to cede your rights Pitiful

      • Rob says

        Feb 18, 2016 at 2:36 am

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

        Only mentions Interpol etc – not software developer.
        Hard to believe developer would not have been contacted.
        As to mention that phones wouldn’t sell if there was a San Bernardino caveat I have no regard for this concept.
        Encryption to hide commercially sensitive info I can understand. To hide mass murder by people who are pledged to destroy the West I’m less convinced about and is a sign the West is finished.
        ‘And all the Muslims laughed and laughed’.

        • Rev g says

          Feb 18, 2016 at 2:56 am

          You did notice that interpol is cited, not the developer, or any commercial entity.
          If the FBI can hack it, that is up to them.
          Phones, like other consumer items, have no conscience. Cars won’t mysteriously refuse to go fast, or disable themselves if a crook is driving it.
          Try selling a car that will only do 40, because criminals need to be caught!
          Neither can Apple be expected to abet making their product obsolete and their customers data at risk. Those people have a legitimate expectation of privacy.
          Do you shop Target? How did you feel when the payment card data was hacked?
          Or any other similar breach. Why worry right? The bank will cover it. Or it was just medical data, or passwords, or i.d. numbers, etc….. you have nothing to hide.

  16. Mark Swan says

    Feb 17, 2016 at 11:02 pm

    Wellington… I did respond to your comment on the middle east…and Champ’s also…
    thanks…happy surfing.

  17. Nelson Taylor Sol says

    Feb 17, 2016 at 11:26 pm

    Thank goodness the government in USA doesn’t always has the last say. Freedom can’t be compromised in the short term without long term, and perhaps permanent, damage for society at large.

    • Mark Swan says

      Feb 18, 2016 at 3:49 am

      I believe discretion is something We must all work on…the freedom or authority to judge something or make a decision about it…must be ours…that is freedom We can never surrender.

      I appreciate Your point…I hear You when You say the Government needs to respect privacy…but this
      did not have to happen in the first place…Apple surely could have had a contingency software made and guarded…through the same encryption approach and saved a lot of nonsense…apple has always been an aggressive hardware peddler…but software seems to be some thing they have to share with other suppliers…I find it hard to believe they compiled this Frankenstein…which makes a popular tool for terrorist…and say they just don’t want to compromise…don’t worry about poor old Apple…they know their way to court…all too well…the competition knows this is so…and there is real competition breathing heavy on them always…Apple has every right to be concerned…But National security overrides intellectual. property concerns…which are surely inflated to their advantage…I am glad this came up…it needs fixing.

      The Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) algorithm is used worldwide to encrypt electronic data on hard drives…email systems…and web browsers.

      We are still young in this field because of the huge rush to get it done and make a product to sell…it is a extremely fast growing child…with parents who need to be there for it all the way.

      • Rev g says

        Feb 18, 2016 at 3:58 am

        This small-time jihadi’s phone hardly qualifies as a national security concern worthy of meriting such measures.

        • Mark Swan says

          Feb 18, 2016 at 3:21 pm

          Law enforcement after 9/11 has tried very hard in terms of what is going on in terrorism…but they have been stifled by special interest…Homeland security is controlled from the White House…and the people who are there now have put-up every conceivable stumbling block to protect special interests…this Muslim Phenomenon is one project…they have nourished an environment of absurd allegations of prejudices…America has been endangered from those Machinations…and suffers still from this…Mr. Spencer can tell Us first hand…He was a Respected Expert Advisor…able to help us in such a unique and fruitful way…Our Law Enforcement and Law Makers lost a master piece of the puzzle…when the madness rejected this Man.

          Cleverly Named Entities have been strengthening and entrenching in our country for a while now…to promote their agenda they will be bold and driven…the environment in our countries leadership is nourishing these entities…destabilizing so much that is vital and strong about this Great Nation.

          The ACLU…NAACP…and so many other special interests have colluded in this assault on our Law Enforcement…Security…Rights…Intelligence.

          Maybe an attention getting President will be elected soon…maybe things will come to a head…on some of this…maybe.

  18. John Johness says

    Feb 17, 2016 at 11:34 pm

    Rev G; “the natural rights of citizens”

    There are many areas that one can keep secrets and many that one can not – like talking on the bus. So Apple should now be put in the latter category. Like Gmail – there are no secrets.
    I don’t see any invasion of rights, restriction of freedom or anything. The confusion of “rights” with commercial decisions is absurd. Just move your secrets somewhere else. if it was in any way a ‘rights’ issue then everyone would be affected. Well here is one person who couldn’t care less if they hacked Iphones. FBI, tafadhal (Go for it).

    • Rev g says

      Feb 18, 2016 at 12:02 am

      A telephone and the records it contain are not public domain, they cannot even be searched by police without a warrant, a recent ruling. A phone is your private device, part of your effects.
      Hardly the same as speaking aloud in public.

      • John Johness says

        Feb 18, 2016 at 2:12 am

        Rev; “A phone is your private device, part of your effects”

        Not any more. Years ago the party line was just that. CB and Hand held radios are the same. There are no “rights” that dictate that a telephone is part of privacy and freedom. You’ve just got used to it and assumed that it is an inalienable “right”.
        The only interesting thing to come out of this is the usual secrecy quandary. If the FBI wanted to break the Apple phone they should have just found the developers and asked them. Why bother with the MD. Once it was hacked then it is in the interest of the FBI to pretend that it is impossible to hack. As the bad guys will still use it.
        May be they already do that and your secrets are out there, but no one is interested…… that would be sad 😉

        • Rev g says

          Feb 18, 2016 at 3:07 am

          Wrong. Ham, CB, other public radio services are just that, public. Even then, the data you store, you can encrypt if you really wanted, and the manufacturer is not beholden to help police decode stored data. There are amateur rigs that are little more than computer peripherals, is the data on your pc “public domain” because that pc is used to control a ham rig? Of course not!
          You don’t remember when it was made illegal to scan cell frequencies? It still is illegal. Not public domain.
          Oh, I am an extra class ham, by the way.

  19. ECAW says

    Feb 18, 2016 at 3:16 am

    “So create the technology, get the contents of this criminal murderer’s phone, give it to the FBI, and destroy the technology.”

    Hmmm…when did you ever see a genie put back in its bottle?

    • Rev g says

      Feb 18, 2016 at 3:19 am

      Major Nelson?

  20. Allan Mandrowski says

    Feb 18, 2016 at 5:17 am

    For all those wanting us to throw away our privacy rights, even more than already is the case under the Patriot Act, need to think really hard about the implications.

    I, for one, am glad that Apple does not easily cave in to government demands about privacy hacks. Yes, the San Bernardino case is a troubling one, but it doesn’t warrant the potential security breach world wide of apple and other technology companies’ phones.

    Robert’s suggestion of developing this technology and then destroying it doesn’t make sense. Once the technology has been developed it will remain within possession of several people, ready to be exploited.

  21. Pumbar says

    Feb 18, 2016 at 5:36 am

    Anyone who thinks that an exploit like this could be quitly binned and forgotten about must be out of their tiny minds.
    I’d bet that within days of this phone’s encryption being bypassed the code would be all over the ‘net.
    I am no fan of apple by any stretch but I still can see that this would be commercial suicide for them and another death blow for privacy for us.
    By way of a thought experiment we could all but eradicate domestic violence and other crimes if we all were fitted with go-pro cameras that transmitted everything we do.
    If you’ve got nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear..

    • gravenimage says

      Feb 18, 2016 at 10:34 am

      Pumbar wrote:

      Anyone who thinks that an exploit like this could be quitly binned and forgotten about must be out of their tiny minds.
      I’d bet that within days of this phone’s encryption being bypassed the code would be all over the ‘net.
      …………………………..

      Pumbar, it now turns out that Apple has unlocked phones for law enforcement on seventy other occasions. And yet, the information on how to do this was not all over the ‘net.

      I’m not saying this is not a potential concern–but clearly it is not the given you assume it to be.

      • pumbar says

        Feb 18, 2016 at 8:27 pm

        I have read that Graven, but it seems to refer to a particular version of their software which has been updated to secure the gaps (I can’t believe I’m supporting Apple!) in their suspect encryption.
        Apple have peddled software and hardware that has locked out the user from any kind of security configuration of their device and yet is possibly the most exploitable peice of junk on the market;
        http://venturebeat.com/2015/12/31/software-with-the-most-vulnerabilities-in-2015-mac-os-x-ios-and-flash/
        It was, is, and always will be over the ‘net Graven.
        Apple’s paternal idea of ‘looking after your security’ was always an idle boast.
        If you want to secure your data then do it yourself.

  22. More Ham Ed says

    Feb 18, 2016 at 6:34 am

    Read the unholy ko ‘ran. It’ll be pretty close to the “contents” of Syed Farook’s iPhone.

    • gravenimage says

      Feb 18, 2016 at 1:11 pm

      More Ham Ed, I doubt anyone here is expecting any surprise in Syed Farook’s motivations being based in Islam, whether they support Apple’s stance in this case or not.

      It is more the question of whether there is information on the phone about accomplices or future planned Jihad terror attacks.

      • Mark Swan says

        Feb 18, 2016 at 3:59 pm

        Absolutely

  23. gravenimage says

    Feb 18, 2016 at 10:14 am

    OK–now new information puts a very questionable twist on Apple’s sudden ethical qualms in this case:

    “Apple won’t unlock San Bernardino jihad killer’s iPhone, but unlocked phones for the Feds 70 times before”

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/02/apple-wont-unlock-san-bernardino-jihad-killers-iphone-but-unlocked-phones-for-the-feds-70-times-before

    Why is Apple suddenly balking when the phone in question belonged to a violent Jihad terrorist?

    • marc says

      Feb 18, 2016 at 10:26 am

      It’s a different lock, in this case one there is no key to it, the fact that the bbc was pushing Apple with this as the top story on their home page yesterday http://i.imgur.com/v11q294.jpeg, story here http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35591988, from morning till night confirms to me that the non techies are being played by the leftist tools

  24. Jim Campbell says

    Feb 18, 2016 at 10:18 am

    There is no right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights. It’s inferred under the Fourth Amendment. Apple is completely right. As usual the government is wrong.

    Would the real solution be for Apple to open the phone for the FBI?

    Do tell, the FBI couldn’t hack the iPhone? LOL of course not, they are a branch of the federal government which does nothing right.

    • Wellington says

      Feb 18, 2016 at 1:51 pm

      “There is no right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights.”

      Well, not exactly. In the famous 1965 Griswold case, Justice Douglas, writing for the majority, “noted that a general right to privacy is nowhere explicitly set out in the constitutional text, in contrast, say, to the right to free exercise of religion, acknowledged in the First Amendment or the right against self-discrimination set out in the Fifth Amendment. But, said Douglas, the real point of many of the ‘various guarantees’ of the Constitution was precisely to ‘create zones of privacy’ protected against state interference.” The Oxford Companion To The Supreme Court Of The United States p.673

      Later on in the very long article on privacy in The Oxford Companion, the article concludes with this statement:: “American constitutional jurisprudence is deeply embedded in the liberal political tradition. This assures that the public-private distinction will continue to be a central part of our constitutional schema. There will always be a constitutional ‘right to privacy,’ whoever the members of the Supreme Court might be or whatever the particular intellectual trends of a given political moment. But its meaning and scope will always be in flux.” p.678

      I think this second quote accurately sums up the whole issue of privacy where the Constitution is concerned. Thought I’d pass it on. No doubt that arguments on the matter of privacy via the Constitution will be a never ending debate, which is not a bad thing at all. I would close here by noting a maxim about the Constitution, to wit, that it is not a suicide pact. This maxim and the matter of privacy are sometimes at loggerheads with one another but again I would assert that this is not a bad thing for a free people.

  25. David Pimentel says

    Feb 18, 2016 at 10:34 am

    Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
    ~Benjamin Franklin

    In recent years, too many people, a group which seemingly includes Robert Spencer, have been convinced that safety is worth trading one’s liberty. The terrorists have apparently won. We must always remember that safety is elusive, and no centralized organization (i.e., government) cares for the interests of anyone/anything except its own. Such government interests are exclusive to perpetuating its own power and wealth.

    • Rev g says

      Feb 18, 2016 at 9:09 pm

      I was hoping that quote would find its way here.

  26. Carolyne says

    Feb 18, 2016 at 1:13 pm

    My post didn’t come up and it was darn good, too.

    Essentially what I said was that we cannot trust the government with any more private data since they have violated the laws to use IRS, the Justice Department, even the Bureau of Land Management to prosecute those who do not agree with them and say so openly.

    Someone said we were “Ditto heads.” I said that those who agree with violations of civil rights are more like “Bobble Heads,” nodding their heads at everything a Democrat says or Hillary Clinton barks.

    Microsoft should, IMO, open this one phone, not in the presence of government agents, and return it to them opened, but not affecting any other person’s phone

  27. Rachel Cohen says

    Feb 18, 2016 at 2:26 pm

    This is good–if the lawless American government is given an inch–they will steal a yard, every time. If these two Godless Muslim terrorists were not allowed to be in America–they would not have been able to commit Islamic terrorism on America! The problem is not American privacy or encryption–but rather an evil and lawless American government who are hell bent upon flooding America with Godless third world dregs who hate America and want to destroy it.

  28. no_mo_jihad says

    Feb 18, 2016 at 5:51 pm

    I don’t think the majority here understands what’s going on and what FBI is asking for. The iPhone has a security feature whereby if you enter the passcode over 10 times the contents of the phone get erased. The “hack” in this case would be very small, from programmatic point of view Apple would have to reset the incrementer on each attempt and simply let FBI brute force the password afterwards. Once the contents of the phone are unlocked and downloaded Apple can have the iPhone back. I am sure FBI is not asking for Apple to write a hack for FBI’s use. Read the article again and you will see. Apple is just using this chance to advertise their product and come off as the ‘good guys’ who uphold the constitution.

    • Rev g says

      Feb 19, 2016 at 1:29 am

      Obviously you didn’t read the article. A new OS is not a small hack.

  29. Jerry says

    Feb 19, 2016 at 4:05 am

    A small problem, if at all Apple has the resources and the knowledge to create such broken and insecure version of the OS, is, that in the current, Obaminated regime, the security forces and organisations are inundated with Muslim Jihadist sympathisers, and their their leftist facilitators, who are more likely to gain access to that technology, not yet existent, and use it against the rest of the world, while it would naturally be denied to the general public, who are the victims of the Jihadists, the democ rats and the Obaminists.

    It is like compelling a victim of terror to build weapons tom be used by the enemy against himself.

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • iconoclast123 on India: Police make first arrest for ‘love jihad’ under new law
  • gravenimage on Greece, Cyprus, Egypt, France and UAE conduct joint military exercises amid rising Turkish threat
  • Brando on New study reveals that Muslim religiosity strongly linked to hatred towards the West
  • gravenimage on Audio: Robert Spencer on Muslim Brotherhood influence in a Biden/Harris administration
  • Boycott Turkey on New study reveals that Muslim religiosity strongly linked to hatred towards the West

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.