The "other methods" is the curious facet of this story to me. With stuff like this [1] [2] I wonder if the FBI really "needs" USA Today to comply to get this information or rather, this is part of a long-term strategy to get legal precedent on their side. The same dynamics were in play with the San Bernardino shooting, where they made a big deal out of getting data they didn't seem to actually need.
I hadn't considered the precedent angle. That's an interesting one.
I was thinking along the lines that evidence already exists that would provide much the same value as the access logs might, but the access logs would either provide cover for introducing that evidence, or provide the value without disclosing other surveillance methods.
I this case, I think it's a genuine mea culpa from the FBI, without explicitly admitting they were wrong.
The subpoena, and USA Today's response [1] paints a picture of an incompetent and/or inexperienced FBI agent, who is unaware of existing Justice department guidelines specifically prohibiting her from serving such a subpoena.
Reading between the lines, citing "other methods" is the FBI's way of quietly withdrawing a subpoena that should never have been served.
I think describing this as a "mea culpa" when the FBI has refused to admit any wrong doing or mistake and also has issued nothing like an apology, is not reasonable.
> "The subpoena is being withdrawn because intervening investigative developments have rendered it unnecessary," an FBI spokesperson said.
I think this is nothing like a "mea culpa", but instead has absolutely everything to do with managing the establishment of precedents to work in the favor of the FBI whenever possible.
1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center
2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A