Comment by croutonwagon

In years previous, take the San Bernadino shooter for instance, Apple argued in the court of law that creating backdoors or reversible encryption was insecure and also subject to exploits by malicious actors, and thus not reasonable and was "unreasonably burdensome". As well, they made the argument that compelling them to do write back doors also violated the first amendment.

It was most likely a winning strategy that the FBI actively avoided getting rulings on and found a workaround.

What apple is creating here is an avenue for the FBI/NSA/Alphabet agency to create a FISA warrant and NDL to mandate hits on anything. The argument its gotta be pre-icloud upload or subject to manual review or on some arbitrary threshold is something is just the marketing to get the public to accept it.

All of that can easily be ordered to be bypassed. So it can be a scan, single hit for x, report.

Ill take the downvotes, but if anything, someone more conspiracy minded could easily take this as a warrant canary. Given the backlash apple ahs faced and ignored, it doesnt make much good business sense for them not to back off unless they are

A) betting on it being a vocal minority to resorts to action (which is entirely possible, especially given the alternatives and technical hurdles to get to a suitable alternative)

B) Being pressured by governments now. (also entirely possible given their history with the FBI and previous investigations).

[1] https://www.rpc.senate.gov/policy-papers/apple-and-the-san-b...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93Apple_encryption_d...