> No, you appear to be purposely taking my words out of context.
Purposely? You didn't provide much context. Apparently you include some large exceptions whee you do trust the government.
> you do too.
I've already told you I don't, because the government has a pattern of behavior that suggests otherwise. What is the basis for your trust that they wouldn't go after Apple's signing key? (or any other key)
Did you forget that the government forced Lavabit to turn over their private key?
> they could make their own firmware change
I've already addressed that, but I'll add that they could still take that route in the future.
> Now that is some tin foil hattery
Insults like that do not help your argument.
> It's a big leap from where we are now.
Perhaps. I don't think it's a very big leap at all to suggest that the government might repeat tactics they've used in the past.
> Is your problem that you don't like the ability of the government to get and execute a search warrant against a person?
Of course not, that's stupid. I have no problem with most warrants. I do have a problem with the general warrants being used by the FISA court, which were the reason we have the 4th Amendment.
> they can demand for example that your landlord grant physical access,
That's correct. However, this case isn't about Apple simply granting access to some of the property they own.
> make it so the phone can't be unlocked by Apple.
In the future, that would be a good solution (zero-knowledge techniques are always a good idea.
Purposely? You didn't provide much context. Apparently you include some large exceptions whee you do trust the government.
> you do too.
I've already told you I don't, because the government has a pattern of behavior that suggests otherwise. What is the basis for your trust that they wouldn't go after Apple's signing key? (or any other key)
Did you forget that the government forced Lavabit to turn over their private key?
> they could make their own firmware change
I've already addressed that, but I'll add that they could still take that route in the future.
> Now that is some tin foil hattery
Insults like that do not help your argument.
> It's a big leap from where we are now.
Perhaps. I don't think it's a very big leap at all to suggest that the government might repeat tactics they've used in the past.
> Is your problem that you don't like the ability of the government to get and execute a search warrant against a person?
Of course not, that's stupid. I have no problem with most warrants. I do have a problem with the general warrants being used by the FISA court, which were the reason we have the 4th Amendment.
> they can demand for example that your landlord grant physical access,
That's correct. However, this case isn't about Apple simply granting access to some of the property they own.
> make it so the phone can't be unlocked by Apple.
In the future, that would be a good solution (zero-knowledge techniques are always a good idea.