> Ok, sub in that it would be a valuable tool in carrying out their mission for the making their job easier. The point is that it isn't extraordinary for law en

> Ok, sub in that it would be a valuable tool in carrying out their mission for the making their job easier. The point is that it isn't extraordinary for law enforcement to want investigative powers. Sure. Then I'd just circle back to my original point which is there is disagreement over how to keep the public safe. That's the cause of the problem, and we're missing someone who can bridge that communication gap. > If you watch some interviews with Michael Hayden, you'll see him saying just what you want, and I think someone who is a former director of both the CIA and NSA counts as a high level player. I've watched several. The one you cite is actually a bit old. In more recent interviews, he sides even more with Apple. Hayden definitely brings a lot of credibility to Apple's side. Unfortunately he's not in a position to call a meeting between the tech industry and the DOJ plus Obama to settle their differences. In fact, nobody is except the public. The public will ultimately decide this through their voice and vote. If we sit back and do nothing, I imagine we would see backdoor legislation pass quickly. So far, we've been vocal enough to prevent Feinstein's bill from being released. Let's keep it that way and start pushing back against the DOJ. We can play offense too by asking the FBI to share its technique with Apple.