I completely agree with your interpretation, particularly because in these cases the 90-90 rule would apply: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninety-ninety_rule h

I completely agree with your interpretation, particularly because in these cases the 90-90 rule would apply: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninety-ninety_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninety-ninety_rule BUT, IMHO another needed consideration should be about what was (reasonably) expected to be found on the device, and since - one way or the other it was unlocked - what was actually found on the device. My personal guess is nothing-nothing, some of the often forgotten news about the specific case: [1] The AppleID was changed after the phone was already in Government custody, thus self-sabotizing some possible recovery ways [2] The couple went into an extensive and thoroughful destruction of all the other electronic devices, exception made for the (county issued, i.e. "work only") iPhone [3] An actual statement by an investigator saying that most probably the phone contents (if any) were useless [4] The DA mentioned a mysterious "lying dormant cyber pathogen" among the reasons why it was vital to obtain access to the iPhone [1] https://www.wired.com/2016/02/apple-says-the-government-bungled-its-chance-to-hack-that-iphone/ https://www.wired.com/2016/02/apple-says-the-government-bung...? [2] http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/apple-must-help-hack-san-bernardino-shooters-phone-1.3451123 http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/apple-must-help-hack-san-ber... [3] https://theintercept.com/2016/02/26/farooks-iphone-is-probably-useless-even-the-police-say-so/ https://theintercept.com/2016/02/26/farooks-iphone-is-probab... [4] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/04/san-bernardino-da-baffles-security-community-lying-dormant-cyber-pathogen-iphone https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/04/san-berna...