Cognitive Dissonance Blah Blah
"While Apple has been listing the briefs filed with the court on its website, we note one missing: the 18-page argument in favor of the FBI's position..."
Of course Apple doesn't list this brief. What Apple lists is, to quote:
"Amicus Briefs in Support of Apple".
The critical phrase is 'in Support of'.
Pointing out quotes from New York District Attorney Cyrus Vance is incoherent, seeing as he just lost a court case demanding Apple help crack an iPhone in a drug crime case. Or didn't you know that?
You state: "The crux of the law enforcement argument is pretty simple: in order to do their jobs they need to be able to get at relevant evidence." NO. In order to do their jobs they have to protect and defend both the law, including the US Constitution, and the citizens of the USA. That includes defending The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. Breaking the US Constitution is NOT their job. Subverting US citizen's rights to privacy, including as much and any encryption they choose to use, is NOT their job.
Immediately, this article comes off as a hit piece with no adherence to facts, little understanding of the subject and meagre background in US law, including the US Constitution. Did you expect this issue to be a mud puddle you could splash about in? You've drowned yourself.
Why did you bother to write this cognitive dissonance diatribe and why did The Register publish it? Try again, without attempting to enable, excuse or support totalitarianism.
Speaking of which, don't UK citizens have their own more offensive problems with governmental totalitarianism to route out and end?
Reminder: When we nations of the world subvert citizen's rights in response to terrorism, the terrorists WIN.