<i>&quot;Apple also provided a mechanism by which one can have weak passwords and still have strong security via a max-attempt mechanism. It is a circumvention of security features, and &quot;backdoors&quot; are about security, not encryption (which is merely a subset of security).&quot;</i><p>I don&#x27;t deny any of that, but there&#x27;s still a bright-line distinction between &quot;circumventing security features&quot; for a single, badly protected phone, given a warrant, and weakening security across-the-board for everyone. This is a case of the former, not the latter.<p><i>&quot;I also think the legal fight is not circumscribed around narrow parameters with predictably narrow legal outcomes.&quot;</i><p>The legal fight is, factually, centered on the question I stated. It doesn&#x27;t involve any of the other technical stuff that&#x27;s being tossed around this debate. That was my point. But like I said: I think it&#x27;s a legitimate question, so I&#x27;m not sure who you&#x27;re arguing with right now?