The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
The ACLU’s December 2020 lawsuit sought records about the FBI’s Electronic Device Analysis Unit (EDAU)—including its policies, device-access capabilities, and software used or sought to bypass encryption. It did not establish that the FBI can unlock every phone or defeat every form of encryption.
What did the ACLU sue the FBI for?
On December 22, 2020, the American Civil Liberties Union said it had sued the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The suit asked a federal court to require the agencies to produce records about the FBI’s Electronic Device Analysis Unit, a unit associated with examining electronic devices. The ACLU said it had previously submitted FOIA requests and that the FBI refused to confirm or deny whether records about the unit existed. ACLU lawsuit announcement
The requested records concerned three areas:
- Policies that applied to the EDAU.
- The unit’s technological capabilities to unlock or access electronic devices.
- Requests for, purchases of, or uses of software that could help bypass encryption.
Those requests were aimed at learning what the unit could do and how it operated—not at documenting a single phone-unlocking incident.
Recommended Free Tools
What did the public information suggest about FBI capabilities?
The ACLU said publicly available information indicated that the EDAU had acquired, or was seeking to acquire, software capable of unlocking phones and decrypting information stored on them. It also cited public court records that, in the ACLU’s account, described cases in which the unit appeared able to access encrypted information from a locked iPhone. ACLU account of publicly available information
#1 Best Overall
These are descriptions attributed to the ACLU, not an independent technical assessment of the FBI’s tools. They do not establish which phone models, operating-system versions, security settings, or encryption methods the unit could handle, how reliably it could do so, or whether those capabilities remain available today.
Accessing a locked device is not the same as breaking all encryption
“Unlocking” a device can describe gaining access to a particular phone, while “decrypting” refers to making encrypted information readable. A tool may work only in particular circumstances or on particular devices. The ACLU’s cited examples do not show that the FBI can defeat encryption universally or access every locked phone.
Rank #2
A job posting was not proof of operational success
The ACLU also pointed to an EDAU job posting for an electronics engineer whose responsibilities included “perform[ing] forensic extractions and advanced data recovery on locked and damaged devices.” That wording indicates the kinds of work the posting described; on its own, it does not prove the unit’s success rate or the range of devices it could access. ACLU account of the job posting
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Why did the ACLU object to the FBI’s response?
A Glomar response declines to confirm or deny whether requested records exist. The ACLU argued that this response was inappropriate because, in its view, public information already indicated that records about the EDAU existed. That was the ACLU’s position as a party challenging the agency response, not a court finding that the FBI’s use of Glomar was unlawful. ACLU explanation of its Glomar challenge
Rank #3
The ACLU’s article characterized valid Glomar responses as rare and appropriate only in limited circumstances where the existence or nonexistence of records is itself exempt under FOIA. That statement reflects the authors’ argument in support of the lawsuit; it should not be read as a ruling in this particular case.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What is known about the case’s outcome?
The available account establishes that the ACLU announced the lawsuit and described the records it wanted in December 2020. It does not establish the lawsuit’s final disposition or its current docket status. Without a reliable case-specific docket or later court record, it would be inaccurate to say the ACLU won, lost, settled, or that the case remains ongoing. ACLU lawsuit announcement
Quick Recap
Best Value
What the lawsuit can—and cannot—tell readers
- It can show what the ACLU sought: records about EDAU policies, technical capabilities, and related software procurement or use.
- It records the ACLU’s account of public evidence: the organization cited court records, information about software, and a job posting as indications of the unit’s work.
- It does not establish universal phone access: the cited material does not prove the FBI can unlock every device or defeat every encryption system.
- It does not supply a judicial resolution: the reported challenge to the Glomar response is the ACLU’s argument, not a documented court conclusion here.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
