> I'd have though that extra context wasn't necessary.
New to the internet?
Unless you lawyer every possible comment against the most uncharitable reading while combining it with the kind of source research that would make a Harvard law professor weep a tear of joy you'll get called on it.
The point is that the people who would be in a position to provide concrete evidence one way or another are very unlikely to make a public account. "All public accounts to date" that I know of are basically hearsay.
I was just being charitable. If I had to bet, he has no idea and no way of knowing (because the FBI isn't going to go around disclosing whatever intel they got from the phone). But maybe he had a way of knowing, so I asked. Turns out he didn't.
We can't. That's the problem! The government just spend a million fucking dollars to access a phone's contents, and we have no idea if it was worth it. This lack of accountability is what's causing them to flaunt civil liberties so brazenly and shamelessly. If cornered, they always use the "it's a matter of national security!" excuse.
I'd have though that extra context wasn't necessary.