> doesn't that mean that all new device manufacturers need to make everything difficult for law enforcement by default or else lose their ability to decide othe

> doesn't that mean that all new device manufacturers need to make everything difficult for law enforcement by default or else lose their ability to decide otherwise later? I would ask why they're specifically designing their devices to make it impossible for law enforcement to collect evidence. In general, I want to be secure from people who would do me harm, and at the same time I want law enforcement to be able to bring anyone who does do me harm to justice. Preventing the police from lawfully collecting evidence shifts the burden entirely on me to defend myself and allows criminals to act without repercussion. I like to read cyberpunk, but I don't want to live it. It's my firm opinion that it's possible to design systems that adequately secures a user's data from unauthorized access (to include both criminals and law enforcement acting without warrants) but at the same time allows access by law enforcement under lawful conditions (i.e. a warrant). When a major device manufacturer like Apple claims that the inability of law enforcement to access your data is a feature, I think that sets a very dangerous precedent. I want to make sure my data is protected from criminals; I don't want criminal evidence protected from the cops. I'll turn the question around - is it right for a major consumer device manufacturer like Apple to decide that the police should not be able to collect evidence from their customers?