I probably was a bit belligerent at first since I was in a bad mood yesterday from something personal and totally unrelated. My apologies to you for that. However, I am interested finding out what should be the solution in this discussion in a dispassionate way. My own particular prejudice is (as i have stated before) that apple should not be compelled into some corporate form of involuntary servitude, not to mention servitude of the type to violate the integrity of a key feature of one of its flagship products. Beyond 13A concerns, it has to me a taste similar to that of smart trigger identification for guns. And this does not even include all the (imho) numerous potential software security pitfalls that most folks will simply not ever take the time and effort to try to understand— not that they are necessarily stupid, but that it can be somewhat involved.
I'll have to plead something similar. Since I have voiced my opinion on the issue, the Freeper contingent of the Apple fan club has verbally assaulted me from every direction. (Not to mention all the Super-Libertarians)
At some point, you just assume anyone attacking you is an @$$, and you just lash out without bothering to find out for sure.
My apologies to you for that.
No worries for that. Like I said, if getting denounced and criticized turns you into a whimpering mass of flesh, then the internet is the wrong place for you. :)
My own particular prejudice is (as i have stated before) that apple should not be compelled into some corporate form of involuntary servitude, not to mention servitude of the type to violate the integrity of a key feature of one of its flagship products.
As I posted earlier, Dan Abrams (GMA legal consultant) addressed this "undue burden" legal issue, and asserted that the courts have been using this test to determine if a court order for cooperation is legal or not.
Apple is trying to argue that this an "undue burden", among other things, so a great deal of the argument is going to revolve around how difficult it is for Apple to comply.
I personally think Apple is lying and their objection is not so much to how difficult it is, (Indeed, I think i've read an admission that they can do it) but to the fact that they can be compelled to do it at all.
But according to Abrams, the court will not see this as an "undue burden" on Apple inc. I interpret this to mean that Apple is likely going to lose this case.