Re: It's not often I agree with Apple but...
I strongly object to the use of the strawman acuusation here. It implies 2 rhings, namely that :
a. I disagree with the OP, and
b. I am doing so on the basis of a false argument, or even a lie.
Both are incorrect. First of, I do not per se disagree with the OP. But a lot has been written and said about this case so far, and none of the arguments seem to hold any water in a legal context. Now, you may disagree with the law, and at this point I'm not sure I like it very much, but It seems to me the case and the car analogy are not very different, namely, in both cases a Judge requires the examination of a system locked by an alleged perpetrator to determine if evidence can be found. In both cases it is not sure the evidence is to be found inside of the system (be it a locked Phone or a locked car) or even if such evidence exists at all.
I can not however but observe that a big stink is being raised in the case of the Phone, while the opening of other posessions of alleged perpetrators is conducted on a daily basis.
At this juncture I do not understand the difference between the opening of a physical safe to extract analogue information or the opening of a digital safe (read Phone) to extract digital information.
Which is what I was trying to sollicit an opinion on. Unfortunately, in vain.