Would you agree that having a device to torture someone, and using a device to torture someone are different things? Apple doesn't want to build a device to to

Would you agree that having a device to torture someone, and using a device to torture someone are different things? Apple doesn't want to build a device to torture people. They're worried that if they build a device to torture people, that they will be told to torture people all the time, and will be barred from disclosing the fact that they're torturing people. > The fact is that each time this tool would be used would require a federal district court to specifically order it. That eliminates the slippery slope risk. I can't imagine why you think this. Getting a wire tap used to take a warrant. Then it took a warrant in a secret court. Then it took a warrant in a secret court, which could be granted after the fact. Then blanket permission to wire tap every overseas phone call was taken. Then blanket permission to wire tap every domestic email. I just don't see how you think you've ELIMINATED a slippery slope, by starting at requiring a federal district court order. Congressmen are already gearing up to write laws. McAfee is already volunteering to do it for free. > or any other blatantly illegal purpose Torture is blatantly illegal. Waterboarding is torture. So is forced anal feeding. I haven't seen any prosecutions, under military code, or otherwise, of people who admit to authorizing torture. If the courts aren't punishing blatantly illegal government action, what's to stop the government from more blatantly illegal actions? > Apple already has the capability to do this. I have the capability to torture someone. I don't care if the courts order me to do it.