I don't think it is the job rather the scrutiny you have to go through to even get to the nominated point.
Brutal is such and understatement.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Political Will for Encryption Law Has Weakened Since Apple-FBI Dispute
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't think it is the job rather the scrutiny you have to go through to even get to the nominated point.
Brutal is such and understatement.
Lol, fair enough.
& I agree.... ALL other policies aside; I feel Benie would be more apt to protect our privacy than Hillary and obviously Donald (who publicly called for an Apple boycott without even vaguely understanding the underlying issues).
This is true.
To be a successful US presidential candidate, you either have to have zero skeletons in the closet, or be friends with the media to keep those skeletons in the closet. Although I think after Trump this rule is out the window.
I think about Mitt Romney, he was about as straight laced as you can possibly be, but the news media tore him a new one. Not even on policy, or political views, but on silly stuff like "binders of women". He had an excellent point during that debate, having hired many women in high level positions while the White House was lacking. But that didn't matter, because he used the term binders.
I can understand why no one wants to run, brutal is right.
I forgot to mention, the US doesn't need a womanizer or a bigot or pathological liars either for a president. Trump would be equally the worst president along with Clinton. They are extremely poor candidates in both directions.It'll always be corrupted because man is corrupt. It's that simple.
[doublepost=1464374115][/doublepost]
Sorry dude, but you need to get a much better understanding of both the US political system, the US Constitution, and US culture before making pithy comments like this. The USA is a land of opportunity; that's why an ex wrestler, an Austrian bodybuilder, a peanut farmer (who by the way is well known for sucking as a president), and a movie cowboy can all make it as leaders here. Unlike the Old World (i.e., western Europe where you reside) where the sheeple do what they're told (I lived in Germany for 7 years, so I can have an opinion), America has always held the idea of bucking the trend, of stepping out of line, in high regard. You don't like it, go pound sand.
[doublepost=1464374540][/doublepost]
Less and less people want the job. Would you?
[doublepost=1464374935][/doublepost]
Obama was "new and different", and look where that got us.
And by the way, I don't see how you can come up with the conclusion that Trump has "deep seated establishment blood lines". He's been voted in by Republicans precisely because he's NOT establishment. If the general Republican voting bloc desired an establishment candidate, they had plenty to choose from 6 months ago.
...and what's worse is that the scrutiny is often misplaced. The media is far more interested in turning the nomination and election processes into a circus to attract viewers and hence add revenue over having a serious vetting process.
[doublepost=1464396864][/doublepost]
So socialism is the answer? No, just no. There are plenty of options for you out there, go move to one.
+1 I was thoroughly enjoying your apt and eloquent description of the current situation (Comrade Sanders, haha) when slowly the gravity of the situation we're in, seemed to loom large, which instantly wiped the smirk off my face.
2016, the year we're really screwed. Only a miracle can save us from at least four disastrous years.
It's gotten to the point where you need to either be a billionaire or work for billionaires (by bending over politically) to even RUN for President (at least with any chance in hell of getting anywhere) as I just saw an estimate that the main election campaign for Trump could easily exceed 1 Billion dollars and so unless Trump is willing to sell several buildings and lose perhaps 1/4 of all his assets, he is not going to be able to "go it alone" without any outside help (read you OWE them so BEND OVER) so it should be no great shock that we've got a Billionaire that's rethinking all his policies so he doesn't have to give his money away (for nothing if he loses) and was part of the corporate bribing (ahem lobbying) end of the establishment, a multi-millionaire that SERVES the establishment (i.e. Wall Street, Corporations, etc.) and therefore represents the Corporate Establishment (we truly are the Corporate States of America since Corporations dictate almost everything these days) and then there's Comrade Bernie that wants to spend my money on other people even if I get zero benefit (a lot like my property taxes already do with public schooling seeing as I have no children). Still, Bernie at least appears to have more credibility, but then he hasn't really had a real steady day job his entire life from what I've read other than from politics in his 40s. There's nothing like someone else spending my hard earned money when they were handed theirs wrapped in a golden retirement package (that all Congress members get even for only serving one term).
The fact that Bernie could get as far as he has based almost entirely on the backs of average everyday citizens should have shown that America hasn't completely lost all its citizen power, but of course we all know that the Party system is RIGGED to pick whomever THEY want (OK, it worked for Trump, but the Republicans never saw that coming in a million years and so didn't have enough of the system rigged like the Super Delegates do for the Democratic Party. Bernie could be winning with the elected delegates and Hillary would STILL be the candidate (don't kid yourself otherwise) because the Super Delegates are worth enough to allow her to win even if she lost every single state (since most Democratic primaries aren't winner takes all). The average citizen has NO SAY WHAT-SO-EVER in the process, 10x more so if you aren't a member of the Democratic party (as many states won't allow Independents to vote in primaries).
Some say that's fine. It's a PARTY System, after all (even though we know many of the Founding Fathers really didn't want it that way but failed to outlaw it) and so if you aren't a party 'member' why should you get a say in which candidate is running to represent that party? The reason is simple. There are only TWO parties and it's darn near impossible to get a 3rd party to work the way things are set up in the USA. I say parties should have a say in who can TRY to run for their party (i.e. you wouldn't let a Republican run), but why shouldn't THE PEOPLE have a say in who the final candidates are? Why should I (as an Independent) get to try and limit my choices to candidates that are worth voting for? I can pick from either party in the General Election, so why not the primaries that determine who is running in the general? It's a load of horse manure. By REFUSING to play sides in this stupid arse "party" system, I get NO say in who runs for President. I only get to choose between Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Even Dumber.
Throw in the fact that Congress is almost entirely in the pockets of special interests and corporations (rather than representing the people they are sworn to represent) and the Supreme Court is appointed by this same CORRUPT politicians to the point where they make ASININE RULINGS like "Corporations are People" that even a 3rd grader could explain why it's not so and you truly, TRULY can see that the USA is CORRUPT BEYOND REPAIR and our Declaration of Independence spells out WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE in order to fix a union that is BROKEN. We broke from Britain over taxes without representation. Well WHAT THE FRACK DO WE HAVE NOW IF NOT TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!?!?!?!?!?!? We've got a Congress that votes its own pay raises, takes BRIBES under the legal word "lobbying" has like a 3% approval rating and yet your choices to replace corrupt candidates are Corrupt Replacement #1 or keep the same corrupt arse you already have. Some "choices".
"If you don't vote, you don't have a right to complain!" The problem is even if I do vote, I get fracked over anyway (same bend over result, different face staring down at me). I always wondered how someone as fracked up as Hitler ever got into power in Germany in the 1930s. I've read the history books. I've watched his speeches. I never bought into it. The guy comes across like a megalomaniac yelling crazy nutter. But then I watch the Trump supporters and the Hilliary supporters and yes even the Bernie supporters go BALLISTIC at each other online and in the streets when ALL the candidates are horrible (Bernie seems somewhat more honest, but the guy never worked a real job a day in his life and yet he wants me to pay for even more kids that aren't mine to go to school even though my property taxes already send half my nearby neighbors to school) while my road tax doesn't even fill a single pot hole on my street.
I just got back from Europe. I never saw a single significant pot hole or even "fill jobs" anywhere I went in the UK, Ireland, France, Belgium and Germany. The roads were damn near perfect. People I know at work call the UK and the European Union in general "Commie Land" while the UK tour driver filled me on what taxes he actually pays (something like 0 on the first 12k pounds, 25% on the next 30k pounds and 35% above that with 2% more for health care (for which they have no co-payments or deductibles and all prescriptions are paid for) and all sales taxes are already figured into the price of goods so no 10 Pound item actually costs 10.90 like we get here with our 99 cent items meant to trick us into thinking it costs less than a dollar when it's virtually no difference (wow one penny; our pennies cost more than 1 penny to make but we won't get rid of them). Everyone in the EU is guaranteed 25 annual leave days a year MINIMUM as well (we are overworked in the US with sky high productivity, but we pay our people squat for it).
Yes, gas was sky high over there (about the equivalent of $5-6 a gallon in most places while it was around $2-2.50 here), BUT they mostly drive diesel cars that get 40-60MPG so compared to my car that gets 24-26 on average, they end up paying something similar per mile (never saw so many stick shifts as in Europe; I'd estimate 70% at least; I'd bet 70% of Americans don't even know how to drive a stick shift, let alone own one. Until last year, I had never even owned a car that wasn't a manual, but many cars don't even offer it anymore as Americans would rather try and text with their other hand than drive it seems...). Speaking of communications, my hotel WiFi in London was 30% faster down and 500% faster up than my "broadband" at home. I tend to believe the stats that say we are behind and paying more are true as well. It's sad because the USA used to be leaders in this world and all the people screaming to "make it great again" seem to have odd ideas about how to go about being "great" when getting RIPPED OFF seems to be the only true American way these days. Let's pay 5x as much for health care and still have co-payments and sky high prescription costs. That's what makes us GREAT. Let's have ONE choice for Internet that isn't slow as dial-up. That's GREAT too. Let's have roads that are disintegrating and bridges that are falling apart but don't do anything about it and lower the funding for roads even more while you're at it. Let's have 3 hour waits at major airports because we don't want to pay enough TSA agents to do the job (given they let 95% of the test "contraband" through, I'd say you might as well just get rid of them and all that equipment PERIOD as clearly it's a waste of time and money).
Pissed? I wish I was pissed. In London, that means I would be drunk. Here it means just waking up and smelling the country rot away into oblivion as the top 1% "legally" make more than the so-called "mafia" or "drug lord" types in countries like Russia, Mexico, etc. We have made corruption and extreme greed LEGAL here rather than just swept under the rug. That is the only major difference I can see. Keep weed illegal, but sell as much brain rotting liquor as you can stand to drink. Thus, it occurs to me we are a nation of extreme hypocrisy. Don't abort those babies, but we don't want to pay for or even allow birth control! Make us get a license to fish in our own backyards, but allow any moron with an IQ of 70 to father children and then run off from any responsibility for it. Let people run across the Southern border, but make your own citizens go through hell at the airport coming back from a fellow NATO country like England. It would have been simpler to go to Mexico and just walk across the border.... We are a nation of LAWS except when they aren't enforced. We are a nation of private prisons so put non-violent mild offenders behind bars for smoking a joint while the President of the country admits to having smoked it. Put people in prison for avoiding taxes (unless that "person" is a corporation of course) but allow people to freely enter the country illegally and then give them free schooling and a job for breaking the law and scream at people who think that's not OK as others are waiting to enter it LEGALLY that they MUST be racists to expect people to not break laws and wait in line like everyone else from around the world that wants to come here. God bless America! Home of the brave, the greedy and the perpetually ignorant.
I realize I'm sounding like I'm painting a glowing picture of a Europe that other than better roads (hey Arizona and other states have that by defacto they don't wear out like in the North) didn't look or feel all THAT different to me (admittedly the buildings were prettier in Paris). It's still people working their daily lives while "other" people work to screw those lives up (witness the push for the "Brexit" which strikes me as bad on the one hand and yet I can understand why the UK wouldn't want to have Syrian refugees (among whom there are sure at least SOME Isis terrorists hiding) quite literally crammed down their throats by a government headquartered in another country. If you are going to make bad decisions, better you do it than someone else, after all. But the problem here in the USA is that we've got entire organizations making a living (witness talk radio) on SPINNING THE LIVING HELL OUT OF THE TRUTH to make MONEY. The problem is that in the process the truth is so distorted that it might just say the opposite. Other crap they just make up. You then end up with people who have precious few brain cells to spare in the first place believing utter nonsense. The truth is bad enough sometimes. Turning mole hills into mountains only serves to piss people off and angry stupid people often do crazy arse things. Meanwhile, the Corporate Masters keep paying BOTH parties and it's business as usual for them (i.e. they don't care which "party" is there as long as they keep getting their will done).
+1 I was thoroughly enjoying your apt and eloquent description of the current situation (Comrade Sanders, haha) when slowly the gravity of the situation we're in, seemed to loom large, which instantly wiped the smirk off my face.
2016, the year we're really screwed. Only a miracle can save us from at least four disastrous years.
Sad thing is when I look back over the last 7 years to see what could have vs. what actually happened, could the next four be that much worse? I don't think so.
This Bill hasn't been derailed, only back burned until some crisis brings it back to the forefront.
On the subject of encryption, is encryption really a privacy issue, or is it an issue of secrecy?
We have a right to privacy, not a right to secrecy. The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society. The Government, with a warrant has the just power to search your person, papers, and affects, your right to privacy ends when the Government obtains such a warrant, a Judge has weighed the value of your privacy vs. the common good of justice for society as a whole, and your privacy was outweighed in the interests of justice.
Through the use of unbreakable encryption, at this point, you don't seek privacy, you seek secrecy. To obfuscate potential evidence that may tend to point to your guilt.
That's not to say that everyone who uses encryption is a criminal, but everyone who uses encryption is trying to hide something from someone. Usually it's a benign use, a user trying to hide sensitive data from hackers, but in cases where law enforcement gets a warrant to search computers or cell phones that are encrypted and the person the the keys refuses to provide them, more often than not they are not stand up for their right to privacy, they are relying on the secrecy that the hope that encryption will provide to hide evidence of their guilt.
In the case of the San Bernadino attack, Syed Farook's work phone was only phone the FBI has to search as the both he and his wife destroyed their personal phones. Farrow was dead, and the FBI botched the iCould backup, so the FBI trued to Apple to help decrypt the phone. Apple decline, so the FBI sought a court order to compel Apple to help decrypt the phone.
The FBI wanted Apple to make a custom firmware for the phone so they could enter in the passcode more than 5 times before the phone erased itself. Apple's contention was it could/should not be forced to break the security of a device it sold, and that doing so could have disastrous consequences should such a hack leak out into the wild, positionally affecting the security of 100's of million of iPhones.
The FBI won the first round in court, Apple appealed, in a case that seemed on a fast track to the Supreme Court, but just days before the ruling on the appeal, the FBI found another company that could hack the iPhone and dropped the case against Apple.
Leaving a glaring open question of law, can a US company be forced to intentionally break a product it makes, by the US Government, if in dong so, that may cause unintended grievous harm to millions of innocent people?
Could the US Government order GM to write code for one of it's car's so the air bag didn't deploy on impact, knowing that if that code fell in the wrong hands it could effect all the cars that used that software?
Even if they tried to write the code to be VIN specific, so it would only work on one car, how hard would it be for a hacker to find the VIN in a Hex editor, or decompile the code into source files?
Some of you maybe thinking having my phone hacked and having my airbag not deploy aren't in the same ballpark, and those are the people who never think about having their identity stolen. In a car you still have a seatbelt if the airbag doesn't deploy, if you get your phone stolen and some hacker gains access to your personal information stored on the device because the Government made the maker of the phone create a backdoor that a hacker gained access to, you'll relies both will cause you grievous harm.
So, as we can see it's a complex issue. Here's where I come down, it's inherent upon law enforcement to find a way to hack there way into an encrypted device, but without the help of the maker of the encryption. The court in ordering a software/hardware vender to break it's own encryption is compromising the security of all the people who legally and legitimately use that encryption. That that legal and legitimate use outweighs any single prosecution, when considering the side effects of widespread data breaches should encryption makers be forced to compromise the security of that encryption.
On the subject of encryption, is encryption really a privacy issue, or is it an issue of secrecy?
We have a right to privacy, not a right to secrecy. The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society. The Government, with a warrant has the just power to search your person, papers, and affects, your right to privacy ends when the Government obtains such a warrant, a Judge has weighed the value of your privacy vs. the common good of justice for society as a whole, and your privacy was outweighed in the interests of justice.
Through the use of unbreakable encryption, at this point, you don't seek privacy, you seek secrecy. To obfuscate potential evidence that may tend to point to your guilt.
That's not to say that everyone who uses encryption is a criminal, but everyone who uses encryption is trying to hide something from someone. Usually it's a benign use, a user trying to hide sensitive data from hackers, but in cases where law enforcement gets a warrant to search computers or cell phones that are encrypted and the person the the keys refuses to provide them, more often than not they are not stand up for their right to privacy, they are relying on the secrecy that the hope that encryption will provide to hide evidence of their guilt.
In the case of the San Bernadino attack, Syed Farook's work phone was only phone the FBI has to search as the both he and his wife destroyed their personal phones. Farrow was dead, and the FBI botched the iCould backup, so the FBI trued to Apple to help decrypt the phone. Apple decline, so the FBI sought a court order to compel Apple to help decrypt the phone.
The FBI wanted Apple to make a custom firmware for the phone so they could enter in the passcode more than 5 times before the phone erased itself. Apple's contention was it could/should not be forced to break the security of a device it sold, and that doing so could have disastrous consequences should such a hack leak out into the wild, positionally affecting the security of 100's of million of iPhones.
The FBI won the first round in court, Apple appealed, in a case that seemed on a fast track to the Supreme Court, but just days before the ruling on the appeal, the FBI found another company that could hack the iPhone and dropped the case against Apple.
Leaving a glaring open question of law, can a US company be forced to intentionally break a product it makes, by the US Government, if in dong so, that may cause unintended grievous harm to millions of innocent people?
Could the US Government order GM to write code for one of it's car's so the air bag didn't deploy on impact, knowing that if that code fell in the wrong hands it could effect all the cars that used that software?
Even if they tried to write the code to be VIN specific, so it would only work on one car, how hard would it be for a hacker to find the VIN in a Hex editor, or decompile the code into source files?
Some of you maybe thinking having my phone hacked and having my airbag not deploy aren't in the same ballpark, and those are the people who never think about having their identity stolen. In a car you still have a seatbelt if the airbag doesn't deploy, if you get your phone stolen and some hacker gains access to your personal information stored on the device because the Government made the maker of the phone create a backdoor that a hacker gained access to, you'll relies both will cause you grievous harm.
So, as we can see it's a complex issue. Here's where I come down, it's inherent upon law enforcement to find a way to hack there way into an encrypted device, but without the help of the maker of the encryption. The court in ordering a software/hardware vender to break it's own encryption is compromising the security of all the people who legally and legitimately use that encryption. That that legal and legitimate use outweighs any single prosecution, when considering the side effects of widespread data breaches should encryption makers be forced to compromise the security of that encryption.
Why not just bring the phone, that has a court order placed on it, to Apple and have it unencrypted there?
At least that way they haven't released any keys/doors/accessibility outside of their walls and still effect the judgement for the greater good of national security. I don't agree with giving code to Law Enforcement because that's not their purview but I do believe if a terrorist has come inside of our borders and killed our citizens, should be able to access their media.
Not a bad write up though I have one aspect of it I do not agree with; your assumption that unbreakable privacy via encryption is secrecy. Patently untrue unless you are trying to define it in a very narrow scope.
My HDD is encrypted. Heck, all my devices are. On it I have personal data, peer data, financial data, customer data, contacts, work information, etc... This encryption is to protect the privacy and confidentiality of the data. It is not a secrecy issue.
In the event I am served with a warrant that says I have to unlock my HDD you can firmly believe I will seek legal help. Warrants are specific. The demand to unlock my HDD allows the requesting agency "one stop shopping" into a plethora of data. Smartphones are potentially worse. They are even more of a one stop shopping. What are the warrants terms? What is being sought? Sorry, fishing expeditions are not allowed. That is what almost all search warrants for smartphones and similar devices are in their current form: fishing trips. Stated or not.
Technology has significantly evolved however the method of search and warrants to handle this evolution as it pertains to our civic rights has not. Authorities are trying to take full advantage of it.
This does need to be addressed and fixed. The fact that our authorities (all branches) have done their utmost to avoid this or to put in place personal agendas does not mean we should just say "oh well" and plod on. I have not even delved into the black hat / criminal hacker / nation state / criminal enterprise side of things.
On a side note, 2/3 of the commercially available encryption is non-US.
Apple's engineers don't know how to hack iPhones, if they did they'd be obligated to patch them. It's not reasonable to expect a private company to divert resources to hacking, then patching it's own encryption each time law enforcement has a need.
Good points, I was really just posing the questing between privacy and secrecy and playing devils advocate, rather than asserting it as fact.
Going forward Apple and the other smartphone manufacturers have much more to gain if their devices are secure. As it is now, when I leave my house I need to take my keys, sunglasses, phone, and wallet. The phone itself has the ability to do everything but what the sunglasses do, but it must be secure. It's easy to envision a day when your drivers license, passport, social security card and all the other items in your wallet are stored on your phone, as well as the phone unlocking and starting your car and unlocking your home. Plus if you use an ID badge at work that must be scanned, the phone can replace that too.
Backdoors into these devices undermines not only their use today, but their potential use in the future.
This isn't Twitter, not everything can be boiled down to 140 characters. If thinking makes your brain hurt, don't get involved in heady discussions.
However, in addition to all the economic and environmental problems we face, the world is also becoming an increasingly dangerous place with the cancer that is ISIS who are determined to terrorize the 'satanic' and 'non-believing' west into submission by their barbaric actions, and perhaps even more so by autocratic strongmen in places like North Korea, Russia and Iran, who have been emboldened lately by what they perceive to be weakness and lack of resolve by the west.
So here we have Clinton who in my opinion can not be trusted, and who also will not get any respect from either the terrorists, or the aforementioned expansionist regimes, and Trump who will get respect, but could potentially bring us to the brink of the unthinkable. Enough to keep any sane person awake at night.
In all (true) democratic countries there are both left, middle and right wing political parties (we have several of left parties in the Netherlands: PvdA, CP, Groen Links etc), in the US you only has right and a bit more right; anything close to communist was expelled 40 years ago.
Political Will changes his opinion every three nano seconds.
Support for encryption legislation in the U.S. has flatlined and the push for changes in federal law following the San Bernardino shootings has petered out, according to sources in congressional offices, the administration and the tech sector (via Reuters).
On February 16, a U.S. federal judge ordered Apple to help the FBI to unlock the iPhone owned by Syed Farook, one of the shooters in the December 2015 attacks in San Bernardino that left 14 people dead.
Senate Intelligence Committee leaders Richard Burr and Dianne Feinstein.
The FBI asked Apple to create a version of iOS that would both disable passcode security features and allow passcodes to be entered electronically, allowing it to then brute force the passcode on the device.
Apple announced that it would oppose the order in an open letter penned by Tim Cook, who said the FBI's request would set a "dangerous precedent" with serious implications for the future of smartphone encryption.
Apple claimed the software the FBI asked for could serve as a "master key" able to be used to get information from any iPhone or iPad - including its most recent devices - while the FBI claimed it only wanted access to a single iPhone.
Apple's dispute with the FBI ended on March 28, after the government found an alternate way to access the data on the iPhone through the help of "professional hackers" and withdrew the lawsuit as a result.
During the controversy, a Senate Intelligence Committee encryption bill was announced by committee leaders Richard Burr and Dianne Feinstein, which aimed to force companies to provide "technical assistance" to government investigators seeking locked data.
A released draft of the encryption bill in April revealed the scope of the proposed legislation, which was heavily criticized by security experts and the wider technology community, and described variously as "absurd", "technically inept", and "dangerous".
An open letter expressing "deep concerns" about the draft bill was subsequently signed by four coalitions representing Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and other major tech companies. At the same time, the White House chose not to offer public support for the legislation, and the administration remained deeply divided on the issue.
The CIA and NSA were also ambivalent, according to several current and former intelligence officials, because agency officials feared any new law would interfere with their own encryption efforts.
Now, despite Burr repeatedly insisting that legislation is imminent, no timeline exists for the bill, Democrats and Republicans on the Intelligence Committee have apparently backed away from the issue, and the political will to support its advance no longer appears to exist.
Despite the change in the political landscape, however, the FBI remains adamant that litigation over the encryption of mobile devices will continue.
In a briefing with reporters earlier this month, FBI director James Comey called encryption an "essential tradecraft" of terrorist organizations like ISIS, suggesting that the debate over whether the government can compel tech companies to unlock personal devices in the interest of national security is far from over.
Note: Due to the political nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.
Article Link: Political Will for Encryption Law Has Weakened Since Apple-FBI Dispute
Yes, five or six paragraphs must seem like a novel or "journal" to some people so let's all dumb the world down to "Build a wall!" or "Torture them!" or "Keep them out!" so today's youth don't get bored and people with a low IQ can comprehend what's being said!
Hey, it works for Trump. Perhaps we could get an Emoji of Santa Claus with pointing finger for the Bernie fans and a snoring prune for the Hillary fans and a bad toupee for Trump fans while we're at it.
Then Apple gets served with a gagged warrant to turn over all the info. This puts Apple in the middle of the legal COC. Not a place to be.