It is odd that you criticize those you allege haven’t read the court order at the same time as you misstate what the court order requires. Apple can write the software onto the phone while the phone is in Apple’s possession, keep the phone while the FBI forces the password, and then delete the software. Or Apple can…

The word you are looking for is “precedent.” And I think it is those running around screaming “dangerous precedent” that either do not understand or crudely misrepresent what a legal precedent means. Just because Apple may be compelled to act in this case does not mean that it or another company would be compelled to…

That is essentially what the court order says Apple can do.

That is not even remotely accurate. There is a legitimate, but very narrow and technical, question about the applicability of the All Writs Act in this case, but it far, far from a massive overreach. The All Writs Act is routinely used to supplement the execution of search warrants, which is what is happening in this…

I’m not sure a non-lawyer relying on sources like Popular Mechanics is in a good position to write about, let alone editorialize about, the meaning of the All Writs Act. Nonetheless, much of this article is accurate. I have a few objections:

I agree to disagree. Although I think I agree with more of your responses than you might expect, I read the court’s order and the underlying memorandum differently than you do regarding whether Apple has to create a “master key” or even a “key” at all. Thanks for an intelligent exchange.

I was not accusing you of relying on the article alone. I was merely responding to your criticism that I was disregarding things said in the article. We both have demonstrated our knowledge of information outside the article.

1) If Apple has the way to get the information without creating the so-called “master key,” then Apple could produce the information and the court order would be satisfied.

I did not disregard, but I did dismiss parts of the “article” that are contrary to the facts. For example, where the article makes claims about the court order that are simply not supported by the court order, I dismiss those assertions. Anyone capable of critical analysis should do the same when reading any article.…

1) The law in question has already survived scrutiny by the U.S. Supreme Court! Not this specific application, obviously, but the law is not in question and all the hand-waving about it being an outdated law is specious.

At least as to these points, the implications are not staggering because this same law has been used many, many times to require third parties to aid in recovering information covered by a search warrant. The Supreme Court has specifically allowed it more than once. The only allegedly novel issues are the specific…

I care very much about the 4th Amendment. In this case, the government is bending over backwards to comply with its protection of privacy and private property.

key words: “example” “GUIDE” “subsequent SIMILAR circumstances”

This seems silly. The court order very specifically provides for Apple to make code that works ONLY on the one phone, for Apple to be the ONLY one ever in possession of the software, and for Apple to destroy the ONLY copy of the code after it is used. The phone stays in Apple’s possession while the code is present.…

If the software is written for one specific phone AND Apple is the only one who ever has the software AND Apple deletes the software after it is used, how is something that “WILL get out into the wild” and “WILL become a master key” to everyone’s data. (And, yes, the government has not asked for more than what I just…

Explain how what the government is requesting violates the 4th Amendment, because I’m not sure those questioning Apple’s defiance of a federal court order are ignorant.

There is this thing called the 4th Amendment. It protects the privacy and security of things in, for example, a safe. But, if the government proves to a judge that it has probable cause to believe the safe contains evidence of a crime, the judge may issue a warrant allowing the government to search the safe. If the…

That is exactly what the government has asked Apple to do. It is expressly provided for in the court order. Funny that Apple and the critics of the government never mention this.