This is the best summary I could come up with:

This request concerns legal experts who argue that powerful technology like the one Cellebrite builds and sells, and how it gets used by law enforcement agencies, ought to be public and scrutinized.

“We don’t really want any techniques to leak in court through disclosure practices, or you know, ultimately in testimony, when you are sitting in the stand, producing all this evidence and discussing how you got into the phone,” the employee, who we are not naming, says in the video.

“The results these super-secretive products spit out are used in court to try to prove whether someone is guilty of a crime,” Riana Pfefferkorn, a research scholar at the Stanford University’s Internet Observatory, told TechCrunch.

“The accused (whether through their lawyers or through an expert) must have the ability to fully understand how Cellebrite devices work, examine them, and determine whether they functioned properly or contained flaws that might have affected the results.”

“And anyone testifying about those products under oath must not hide important information that could help exonerate a criminal defendant solely to protect the business interests of some company,” said Pfefferkorn.

“It’s super important to keep all these capabilities as protected as possible, because ultimately leakage can be harmful to the entire law enforcement community globally,” the Cellebrite employee says in the video.

The original article contains 821 words, the summary contains 217 words. Saved 74%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

I remember back before smartphones when we used Cellebrite machines in store to just transfer customer contacts and maybe photos when upgrading their device in store. When the devices supported no way natively of that sort of thing. Of course once memory cards were an option and eventually automatic cloub backups that’s no longer necessary so they would have to pivot to something like this instead.