For those of us with a healthy skeptical demeanor we might say that Apple is apparently "fighting the FBI to protect"... something. Wouldn't it be a nice corporate win-win if the FBI would somehow get what it wanted and, at the same time, Apple would be denounced by the FBI for protecting its clients' privacy? But then one must not become too cynical in a weary world?

"In 2013, the Edward Snowden revelations of dragnet surveillance by the U.S. government opened up a rift between the government and Silicon Valley"

1. Edward Snowden is a spy.
2. What Snowden revealed, was pretty well known. The NSA for example has for decades recorded all tele communications coming into and out of the United States. Technology has always been a dual sword, for mass communications but also for major eavesdropping.

What was shocking was the depth of NSA and US Gov't program to swallow up huge amounts of data, and building facilities to suck up pretty much all global communications.

3. All of Edward Snowden's actions after he did his media interviews are those of an agent controlled by another power, i.e. the power is Russia. He lives in an Intelligence gated community outside of Moscow, his handlers are part of the FSB. He isn't coming back.

4. Snowden isn't a whistleblower, he was a spy.

How lazy is the author that they totally missed the NSA position on encryption, which is counter to that of the FBI?

https://theintercept.com/2016/01/21/nsa-…

and, @3 should read more, cuz ferret got it wrong

https://theintercept.com/2015/10/23/u-n-…

@6 oh gee the Intercept, a really unbiase source on all things Edward Snowden..

Whistleblowers don't take 1.8 million documents/files. I guess Jonathan Pollard was a "whistleblower" because he took something like 900 thousand documents.

Just read some of Snowden's interviews. What he states and his actions are very different. Besides how he boast some of his skills and importance. Ditto with his whole "fair trail" reasoning. He doesn't want a fair trail, he doesn't want any trial, because he isn't coming back to the US. Much like his Ron Paul Libertarian ways was most likely a cover, as John Walker's cover as a John Birch supporter.

I'm all for privacy, but does "privacy" really extend to being able to keep information from law enforcement who obtain a valid warrant based on probable cause? Should the ability to encrypt data really mean a legal right to avoid legitimate disclosure pursuant to law?

Apple doesn't need to give the FBI an algorithm to unlock phones, they need to unlock this specific phone for the FBI, hand it back to them and say "Here you go. Buh. Bye."

@8: It should. Encrypted information is data, not contraband. Not does it imply intent, which a prosector must prove to get a conviction. Kudos to Apple and Tim Cook!

@9: Only the owner of an encrypted iOS or OS X device knows its password. The only way to unlock it is by knowing the password. The only algorithms are guesses and trying every possibility.

@10 should be "... nor does it imply intent, ..."

Apple knows that if they let the US government put a known backdoor into the iphone, their European and overseas market immediately goes to shit. Who over there is gonna buy *that*, much less over here? It's sure convenient when principle and capitalistic pragmatism go hand in hand.

C'mon, Ansel, you're not actually BUYING into that ruse, are you? Apple ALREADY allows the spyfreaks/secret society/shadow government to illegally peep at your email. --- http://www.wikileaks.org & http://www.abovetopsecret.com & http://www.full-spectrum-dominance.com & http://barrytaff.net & http://www.jimmarrs.com & http://www.eff.org & http://www.alternet.org .