[warkdarrior]

> apple will simply [...] hide behind their "lawful obligation".

Not sure why you expect Apple to fight your legal battles, since they are simply selling tools (iPhones) that have to comply with the local laws. Would you want random OEMs to skip the local laws they do not like?

If you do not agree with the laws in your country, you need to work to change them.

[Macha]

It's a little more than "expecting apple to fight your legal battles", when apple's demonstration of their capabilities is the motivation for the legal changes to begin with.

[warkdarrior]

We should take the evolution of facial recognition as a model. The technology improved and capabilities were demonstrated and put in practice. But thanks to sufficient pushback from the society at large, many places are passing laws against facial recognition.

[renlo]

Would you support a feature that made your car report you to the authorities every time you drove over the speed limit? Or, would you support listening devices installed in your car, with specific filters in place, which only report you to the authorities if you, say, threaten to kill the president? If the above sounds creepy or invasive (which they do to me), then Apple's actions should seem creepy or invasive to you as well.

Also, many laws are routinely broken by convention. If you drive in the US for example you will see that the speed limit, by convention, is most often the minimum acceptable speed, with a 10-15 mph buffer; ie, a speed limit of 65 means the majority of cars will drive at 65-75 mph. Also, laws are routinely added but rarely removed.