3 ms·

I think, as a society, it boils down to this: "And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such

I think, as a society, it boils down to this: "And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control." Can a private, for profit, company deny the will of an elected government working to solve a heinous crime based not on what they say they will do but because they cannot give a 100% guarantee that this is the only time/way it'll be used? Apple acknowledges that the government is saying it's limited to this case but because there's no guarantee (100% certainty) they feel they can deny it? If yes, what does that mean as a broader precedent. Are we comfortable with private companies denying an elected government based not on what they agree to, but instead because there's a chance it'll be used in other ways? As terribly flawed one might feel about government very few would think it has less accountability than a private company.

tdaltonc 11y ago
I see your point. Defying a order from a democratic government is a big deal. But Apple isn't saying they wont do it. They just want to make it really clear that they're not happy about it and they want the government to change their mind. The government still has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.
- jusben1369 11y ago
```Opposing this order is not something we take lightly. We feel we must speak up in the face of what we see as an overreach by the U.S. government. We are challenging the FBI’s demands with the deepest respect for American democracy and a love of our country``` I read into that that they are in fact fighting this? And I agree, I think it's great that Apple is forcing this discussion into the public domain. These are key issues for us all.