&gt; You&#x27;re contradicting yourself.<p>No, you appear to be purposely taking my words out of context.<p>I said the government should not be trusted with a carte blanch skeleton key to access any phone.<p>Then you said I&#x27;m trusting the government not to get access to Apple&#x27;s signing keys. Which of <i>course</i> I trust, and which you do too. If the government could get Apple&#x27;s keys, they could just make their own firmware change, sign it, and install it on any phone they want. They wouldn&#x27;t need this case.<p>&gt; No I&#x27;m not. The keys will be acquired when necessary, if they haven&#x27;t already.<p>Now <i>that</i> is some tin foil hattery. <i>That</i> would be reason for outcry. It&#x27;s a big leap from where we are now.<p>If this case sets a precedent in either direction (pro or anti privacy), then the battle is already lost because nobody understands what&#x27;s going on. This is in no way the same as the government circumventing privacy. If people don&#x27;t understand that, then they&#x27;re not going to understand a more principled argument of a company impeding a perfectly legal request to get access to the data on a phone.<p>Is your problem that you don&#x27;t like the ability of the government to get and execute a search warrant against a person? You don&#x27;t think they should be able to? If they <i>can</i> search your property, and they <i>can</i> demand for example that your landlord grant physical access, then I see no problem with this request. The responsibility is Apple&#x27;s to make it so the phone can&#x27;t be unlocked by Apple.