FBI uses Cellebrite technology to access would-be Trump assassin’s phone

Click to find out more information

Post Views: 491

New, faster phone-cracking technology from Cellebrite was used to access the phone – unconfirmed reports say it was an iPhone – of the would-be assassin of former President Trump at a rally in Butler, PA on Saturday that killed one person and critically injured two other attendees, The Washington Post reports citing “people familiar with the investigation.”

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

Officials said Monday they were able to access a cell phone belonging to Thomas Matthew Crooks, of Bethel Park, Pa., but they did not describe the technology behind that effort. Investigators are also exploring the possibility the gunman may have used two phones, after agents recovered a cellphone in Crooks’s house with a dead battery, according to the people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe details of an ongoing investigation.

After the shooting, investigators approached Crooks’s body and found he was carrying a cellphone. That device was first sent to the Pittsburgh FBI office, which did not have the technology to open it quickly, according to the people familiar with the investigation.

Officials sent the phone to the FBI’s laboratory in Quantico, Va., on Sunday, these people said.

At Quantico, FBI agents used technology from Cellebrite, a company well known among law enforcement companies for helping them access data on phones seized or recovered in criminal investigations, to get into the phone quickly, the people said.

The phone was a relatively new model, which can be harder for law enforcement to access than old phones because of newer software, according to technology experts. In many federal investigations, it can take hours, weeks or months to open a suspect’s phone.

In the Crooks case, which was an urgent priority for both the FBI and Cellebrite, the contractor’s technology was able to open it in less than 40 minutes, the people said.

Cracking the phone did not crack the case, the people said. It offered some leads to pursue, but did not hold any immediate evidence of motive or what agents call “derogatory information” — clues to criminal plans or associates.

Via: The Washington Post