[misnome]

> assuming that privacy = breaking the law is something you are foisting on, and is in poor form.

What privacy do you have that isn't subject to the law? Outside of your own brain, can't literally everything be subject to a legal order to gain access?

It seems to me that your definition of absolute privacy is extreme, extremely specific to you, and renders the word essentially meaningless; This does of course make it very easy to argue in bad faith and rant about companies that you don't like.

[kelnos]

I think the GP's point is that Apple's marketing may make it seem (to many people) like Apple's security is set up in such a way that the law isn't relevant, and that users' data is encrypted and handled in such a way that even if Apple is ordered by a court to divulge something, they are simply unable to do so.

And that's true, to some limited extent, but (some) people believe it's true to an absolute extent.

Apple doesn't need to tell people they will break the law in order to maintain their privacy; they just need to insinuate that user data is handled in a way such that it's out of the law's reach.