Apple used the FBI hearings as a public relations project. They lost all sympathy from the Feds after that. They really should have played their card differentl

Apple used the FBI hearings as a public relations project. They lost all sympathy from the Feds after that. They really should have played their card differently but instead wanted to rally the public against a federal law enforcement agency so they can prove to customers that they take privacy seriously. I'm not sure if Apple intended to rile up the Snowden/tin-hat wearing crowd who thinks the government is out to get everyone, but that sure didn't leave a nice aftertaste in the FBI's mouth. Looking at this objectively, Apple shouldn't expect the curtesy of responsible disclosure. If this makes the public wary of Apple ability to protect their privacy, well, so be it. The FBI's duty is to actually protect the public, not to protect the customers of a single corporation. I think this is brilliant counter-marketing on the part of the FBI and a real "fuck you" to Apple for turning a criminal investigation of a mass murder in to some fucking sideshow circus where they could show the public just how much more they care about privacy than the government. EDIT: I'm sorry, but I have a rate limited account because my conservative opinions are not valued by the HackerNews community. I have some follow ups to your comments: --- > That includes protecting the public's communication from criminal eavesdropping, which they are undermining when they keep an exploit secret instead of responsibly disclosing it. I'm sorry, but this is not how the courts see things. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine As far as I'm concerned and as far as the US government is concerned, as soon as you broadcast radio and electrical signals from your private person or property, it's been published. That's how it's been since the beginning of the country and that why Apple and Facebook are even allowed to sell your information to third-party marketers. Everything that leaves your devices legally has to be made public so our data can be legally sold. This is also related to credit reports, doing-business-as, and many other kinds of public record keeping. You should not expect privacy when buying and selling goods in a public marketplace. How could you possible stop someone from monitoring what you're buying and selling? Consumer reporting, public record keeping, and public census data are incredibly important parts of our institutions. We're going to need a newly defined set of laws and regulations to actual define what I've been calling "privished" works, that is, information that a third-party is liable to both the individual as well as the government, to make sure that the 4th amendment is still a two-way contract. I suggest you brush up on some of your constitutional and common law interpretations of what privacy actually means with regards to mass communication. I think most of the HN threads are missing half of the social contract and fail to see the importance of granting the government the right to warranted search and seizure.