Is that really the story? When the USG requires Apple to access something on the basis of legal intercept then Apple will comply, as they did with the FBI and t

Is that really the story? When the USG requires Apple to access something on the basis of legal intercept then Apple will comply, as they did with the FBI and that mass shooter guy: Apple granted the FBI access to the iCloud account, the FBI botched it and then wanted access to the data on the physical phone, which Apple couldn't provide due to not knowing the encryption key. The only other "big stance on privacy" that Apple has is that, unlike their main competitor Google, they are not an advertisement business. So they have no real financial motivation to add tracking to their devices and software vs a Google were advertisement and user tracking are pretty big pillars of their financial income. Infrastructure like that is trivial to hijack for surveillance once in place, which privacy wise makes Google devices and software by default the worse choice unless using specifically cleaned and hardened custom roms. So while these two issues are related, legal intercept and privacy, they are not as easily conflated as you make it sound when you claim Apple is having "double standards" when they really are not "double standards" but simply abiding by local laws and regulations.