I agree with the EFF.. but:
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.
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.