Saying that the vendor was "90 percent of the way toward a solution" could mean anything; for example, they had the hack, but were testing it to see if would work for all iPhone models.
If you're going to throw out a conspiracy theory, you should have something to back it up.
For some of these agencies I would almost expect them to, let’s say embellish or fabricate, under oath to protect highly classified information. Does that not make them a tainted witness if they have to speak in half truths under oath?
The only way to get an absolutely fair trial would be if all of the information were declassified, or the judge, jury, and lawyers had security clearance. And who without a high clearance could judge what is pertinent to the case?
I think we have always known that justice and secrets clash, which is why we have (had) watchdog groups as a compromise.
In fact, if you read the report, which includes these statements, "In the (FBI elite hacking unit) Chief’s view, the fact that he was not asked for help sooner was not a mistake in judgment or communication breakdown on CEAU’s part, but rather the result of a long-standing policy that the ROU Chief understood created a “line in the sand ”against using national security tools in criminal cases." -- which if true, given the events were a known terrorist attack, would have made the events a national security matter.
I would guess that coming from a company selling security solutions to law enforcement, it'd be more like the latter (ie, it basically works and needs polishing).
The two are very different.
And still people would say, when asked if they were done done done, “yes, but...”
At some point the developer is done with a task even if the task isn’t done with them. And they will make any rationalization necessary to take partial credit for completion.
Sadly, this has been the EFF's Mo in recent years. They have an ongoing series of blog posts where they try to make hay out of some patent or copyright court ruling that they deeply misinterpret.
The situation is a bit different where an organization like the EFF is talking directly to the public.
It's not a fair fight by nature. Why hold the only defender in the arena to a higher set of standards?
I feel the same way about marijuana supporters.
They write At the same time, according to the OIG report, the chief of the FBI’s Remote Operations Unit (the FBI’s elite hacking team, called ROU) knows “that one of the vendors that he worked closely with was almost 90 percent of the way toward a solution that the vendor had been working on for many months.”
90% finished with no definitive end in sight? That doesnt sound like a solution.. then the EFF concludes:
March 1, 2016: Comey testifies... The OIG report concluded that Director Comey didn’t know that his testimony was false at the time he gave it. But it was false, and technical staff in FBI’s own ROU knew it was false.
No it was not false. It was completely true at the time. 90% is not a solution. Comey does not have a time machine to see when/if the exploit would be completed.
March 16, 2016: An outside vendor for the FBI completes its work on an exploit for the model in question.
Now they have an exploit.. and what does the FBI do? They drop the their alternative approach involving the courts and apple.
Making weak, clearly disingenuous (or worse, technically clueless if they really believe 90% is the same as 100%) arguments do not help the EFF. This will be the first part that their opponents latch on to and attack.