I see your point. In the case of countries without a strong rule of law one doesn't want to rely on legislation to protect data. Better to possess a technical m

I see your point. In the case of countries without a strong rule of law one doesn't want to rely on legislation to protect data. Better to possess a technical means then. Where my opinion differs is regarding "[people] who care about privacy must take care of themselves." I don't think an activist should have deep technical knowledge of cryptography in order to do activism. Doing so establishes a de facto barrier to entry. (Cryptography is hard, and not everyone has the means to acquire the expertise.) I would actually go a step farther and advocate a responsibility of knowledgeable hackers to provide activists (whose objectives they agree with) with the tools needed to communicate securely. In the age of media ubiquity, privacy rights are sacrosanct. Something along the lines of what Open Whisper Systems is doing. As for the terrorists case, I won't defend them or their actions. However it's still a provable fact that the FBI was in possession of a means to access the data they are seeking, yet they chose to deliberately reset the passcode and create a need for this additional access. Viewed in the kindest light possible, it's incompetency. Assuming the worst, it's an attempt to manipulate the media and the public into giving them more invasive tools to surveil citizens.