I don't think they would need to?

Cellebrite sells law enforcement an on-premise method to unlock devices. At that point it's no longer Cellebrite unlocking the phones, it's Law enforcement who is unlocking the devices.

Since they (at glance) only sell to law enforcement I think it's reasonable to assume that they expect their device to be used legally (they aren't selling it to @xxXRUSKI1337Hax04xXX who we all no is up to no good.)

Disclaimer: My understanding is mostly of US law, the company is Israeli and I'm not familiar with Israeli law, or the laws of other countries Cellebrite contracts with, although I think this would similarly apply to most jurisdictions

They may sell to law enforcement, but they can end up in private hands: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20080814

That device turned out (way down at the bottom of the thread where it's easy to miss) to be a non-law-enforcement model used by e.g. cellphone stores to transfer data between unlocked phones.

> The device bought in the thrift store appears to be a device to copy data from phones already unlocked and open, in other words, not the most interesting device they have, and it's from 2014.

It is not law enforcement grade, just simple copier Cellebrite made for mobile phone stores to copy data from old phone to new one.

Police officers conducting a search of a suspect's premises must present a valid search warrant. Police officers requesting that a telecom company aid in surveillance of a suspect must present a valid search warrant. Google, despite of late being the butt of all jokes, will not cooperate with police officers unless a valid warrant is presented. Thus it follows that Cellebrite isn't somehow excluded from following the law just like all those other companies, and cannot support unlocking of iPhones or other devices without being shown a valid search warrant.

Celebrate doesn't need to know anything about warrants. They sell a physical device to law enforcement agencies. They don't validate individual uses of the equipment. Seems to me no different than a gun manufacturer selling guns to law enforcement and not needing to validate individual firings of the gun.

First, police officers conducting a search do not need to present a warrant; they can certainly ask for you to volunteer access. Companies that require law enforcement to provide a warrant may be obligated to do so by some kind of data protection legislation, but I doubt this is generally the case; more likely, we would consider this a courtesy to their customers.

Finally Cellebrite does not seem to actually do any unlocking; rather, it sells it's tool to the government. As long as that sale is legal, they are out of the picture.

You have more than enough information on your phone to enable a parallel construction.

> What are the chances that Cellebrite requires clients to supply a warrant for each device they unlock?

Why would they need to?

They supply devices to clients that can be reasonably expected to have access to warrants at need. The US legal system, at least, does not consider it reasonable for Cellbrite to actively monitor and police every use of its products by its legal customers to ensure full adherence to surrounding legal requirements.