&gt; No, you appear to be purposely taking my words out of context.<p>Purposely? You didn&#x27;t provide much context. Apparently you include some large exceptions whee you do trust the government.<p>&gt; you do too.<p>I&#x27;ve already told you I <i>don&#x27;t</i>, because the government has a pattern of behavior that suggests otherwise. What is the basis for your trust that they wouldn&#x27;t go after Apple&#x27;s signing key? (or any other key)<p>Did you forget that the government forced Lavabit to turn over their private key?<p>&gt; they could make their own firmware change<p>I&#x27;ve already addressed that, but I&#x27;ll add that they could still take that route in the future.<p>&gt; Now that is some tin foil hattery<p>Insults like that do not help your argument.<p>&gt; It&#x27;s a big leap from where we are now.<p>Perhaps. I don&#x27;t think it&#x27;s a very big leap at all to suggest that the government might repeat tactics they&#x27;ve used in the past.<p>&gt; Is your problem that you don&#x27;t like the ability of the government to get and execute a search warrant against a person?<p>Of course not, that&#x27;s stupid. I have no problem with most warrants. I <i>do</i> have a problem with the <i>general warrants</i> being used by the FISA court, which were the reason we have the 4th Amendment.<p>&gt; they can demand for example that your landlord grant physical access,<p>That&#x27;s correct. However, this case isn&#x27;t about Apple simply granting access to some of the property they own.<p>&gt; make it so the phone can&#x27;t be unlocked by Apple.<p>In the future, that would be a good solution (zero-knowledge techniques are always a good idea.