It's not a coding error. It's built to do exactly what it looks like it's supposed to do: diminish any ordinary person's claim of total control over the behavior of the system, such that, should the need arise, a trained hand can lift the proper latch and intervene, to gain the upper hand, ostensibly so "the good guys" win.
The good guys being those that ordered Intel into compliance with such requirements.
There is vast case law surrounding our first amendment right to refuse this kind of coercion. No one can force you to present something as yours against your will (at least, if they want it to hold up in court).
What is more likely is that Intel won a great many more government contracts by doing this. They'd make tons of money doing it, so they did it. And if they didn't do it, their competitor would. That's how the system works in this country.
We shouldn't excuse them so readily.
Dell sold laptops with this as an option until they were asked not to.
It would be pretty easy for a sizable country or even a wealthy US state to demand that these ‘secure’ co-processors can be disabled at the user’s discretion, via regulation.
From the NSA’s perspective, having the keys to the backdoor is an asset, but having a backdoor at all is a huge liability, now they’re not the only game in town. US businesses and citizens simply have more to lose.
Honestly, I think it’s laziness and inertia more than conspiracy.
You're assuming (fully) rational actors. It's fairly easy to have blindspots when they are (at least temporarily) useful.
Nation states already paid google employees to target gmail etc. now they targeted an apple employee to make this mistake which allows any targeted attack into those companies that gives mbp to developers very easy to carry out remotely, as this probably leave the remote capabilities put in place for the NSA wide open.
Source?