Digital forensics firm with iPhonecracking technology lists ED as one of its clients
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) is a client of a cyber forensics firm that has access to iPhonecracking hardware, according to the firm’s website. Nextechno Gen, a Delhibased firm, lists the ED as a client. It also has a section on its website dedicated to Cellebrite, an Israeli tech firm that has acquired a global reputation for being able to break into Apple Inc.’s iPhones, which are advertised as secure.
Nextechno Gen’s connection with the ED comes at a time when the financial law enforcement agency has stated in court that Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has refused to cooperate in unlocking an iPhone that was seized from him; lawyers for Mr. Kejriwal, who has been in custody since his arrest last month, defended that refusal, arguing that investigators might leak the contents of his phone and serve partisan aims. Apple has told investigators that the company is by design unable to unlock a pinprotected device.
“As a practice, out of respect for our relationships, we do not divulge specific customer information,” Victor Cooper, a Cellebrite spokesperson said in a statement to The Hindu. Mr. Cooper confirmed that Cellebrite had an India office to “assist our customers”. He said Cellebrite’s products were required to be used by law enforcement agencies with transparency safeguards and agencyspecific standard operating procedures.
Nextechno Gen did not respond to questions from The Hindu, and neither did the ED. The Indian Army, the police forces of Bihar, Kerala, and Kolkata and Delhi’s Forensic Science Laboratory are also listed as Nextechno Gen’s clients.
Advocate Prasanna S. said that while people are generally protected against giving up passwords to their devices under Indian jurisprudence, the police generally have a wide berth in terms of finding such information themselves. Mr. Prasanna is assisting petitioners in the Ram Ramaswamy v. Union of India case, which is one of multiple petitions calling for restrictions around device seizure. “Our argument is that [inspecting seized devices] requires a warrant, and even if you break in, you can’t completely clone all the data, and if you do, you can’t inspect everything except what you want,” he said.