Apple isn't refusing the warrant, that would be obstruction of justice. They're appealing it and it is still in that process.

2. According to Maria Bartaromo on Fox Business News, Tim Cook's fight is all theatrics and he will comply as soon as the legal objections are exhausted, but to save face both in the industry and internationally, to make it clear that govt doesn't control corporations as they do in China.

A well stated explanation!!

Apple's point in this case is that they can't just decrypt that one. It must be a general solution to the decryption technique and they will not do that because they have promised all their customers they would not.
This is another case of government using a situation to do something that destroys liberty and privacy, and again terrorism is the excuse. This time they are using Apple as the actor to cover the crime. It makes me wonder if this wasn't another NSA false flag.

In 1991, I served on the White House Conference on Libraries and Information Systems. I see that we are common ground again. We just disagree.

AJAshinoff wrote: "Apple had done this very thing 70 times for the fed gov in the past. Why take a stand on this instance?..."

Apple is taking the producer's stance. Remember that Hank Rearden employed Wesley Mouch as his lobbyist in Washington. Why should Rearden later refuse to sell his Metal at the market price to the State Science Institute for their Highly Important Project? Why object to the Gift Certificate? He went along "70 other times". Why draw the line here? Why draw it at all?

I was referring to McAfee saying that he will decrypt the iPhone. That is something he can not do.

I setup the network for a library here in Phoenix. One step further, I've setup networks for many companies here in Phoenix (including corporate smart phones). On several occasions, the library in particular, someone locked themselves out of their system, a library patron hacked the system and put in a password, or a disgruntled employee left and encrypted a workstation (event he cataloging server once (really sucked)). I was called in to hack to recover data or a void or reset password or to decrypt a system at the behest of my client. I did so without hesitation (yes, a bit of code needed to be written) because they were the legitimate owners of the machines and everything contained therein. This situation is no different, except that a government entity if the owner and Apple the vendor. The fedgov is trying to gain time critical information and (because a terrorist act HAD been committed) evidence. These phones are the property of that government entity.

Frankly, were I the one pulling the strings, I'd pay someone to hack the phone, keep the program to myself for future use and then find another vendor for my phones.

ps

A library is just a committee which runs like a business. Every machine on those networks is open to scrutiny and forensic examination. Gates was a real **ick about unfettered websearch, uncovered a lot of stupid kids and adult pervs.

Libraries are whole other domain. Librarians are very firm in their refusals. If I had to choose between police forces and libraries to protect my freedom, it would be libraries hands down. I even contribute extra money to my city library. Libraries are the sine qua non of civilization. Everyone has technology. Everyone has rites of passage. Only civilized cultures have libraries.

You must be referring to some instance that I do not know of.

I'm not sure how you see this.

A government agency owns the phones. (their property)
A government agency is seeking their phones to be hacked to obtain potentially critical and time sensitive information (their phones, their property)
A vendor of that government agency is denying them service, a service needed to collect potentially critical information - obstruction.

Apple had done this very thing 70 times for the fed gov in the past. Why take a stand on this instance? An instance where terrorism is confirmed, lives have been lost, and additional terrorist actions could be prevented."

I do not see how this targeted instance equates to the flood gates opening UNLESS the fed gov has to get someone like McAfee to create a hack, which they or he will then own (creating a vulnerability). Apple should provide this as an internal service for a large client with a very good need. Just as I would hack a client server to get by a lost password.

Are library computers private property too?

Aligned once again with the authorities, Alan? I am so disappointed... You know, a thousand years ago, I read a science fiction story called "Classicism." On a spaceliner, the passenger catches the eye of the flight attendant and she is interested. He tells her of his latest victory, a scam on a bureaucrat whom he tricked into believing that he actually had developed a transdimensional transporter. "That's horrible!" she says. He is taken aback. "I thought that you, too, are a Classicist." She says that she is: Her family's Middle Classicism is all about manicured lawns and neat communities. "What do you practice?" He replies: "Neo-classicism."

I dunno. I am just a technical writer, but I am active in the computer security community here in Austin.
(I am on the planning committee for BSides Austin 2016 http://bsidesaustin.com/). It seems pretty clear to me that (1) this is about more than just one iPhone (2) the County IT manager is at fault for not requiring the necessary features (3) the folks with mohawks and pierces can do what the FBI cannot and (4) on the anniversary of the Robert Hanssen case, (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime..., it is important remember that the FBI has been hacked time and time again since the days of dial-up modems; therefore, they cannot be trusted to keep this secret, even if it were given to them.

Lets look at this rationally as well as logically. The cellphone in question was not owned by the individual, it was owned a a government entity (his employer). Apple has used their tools to break into 70 phones at the governments request, they are refusing to hack into this known terrorist work phone. Why?

If that government agency wants a back door into the phones it provides its people and are willing to pay for it apple should provide it (or the business should find other phones). The fedgov, following a successful terrorist attack, subpoena's apple to do something they've readily done before and they refuse - obstruction of justice.

This is not about privacy, the terrorist was not the owner. This is about politics and defiance.

Apple should comply TO SPECIFICALLY keep the hack out of the fedgov hands. If the fedgov gives McAfee a phone to hack they or he will own the backdoor (hack) and have it for future use, to use on whoever they want.

I wonder if he intends to do this just to get his hands on it to brick it and blow the wind out of this standoff.

Mike must be on the same tiger blood regimen as Mr. Mcafee :)

In principle agreement.

Hollow, unfulfillable promises for publicity.

I wonder how funny the elections will be when Kanye West runs in 2020.

Yowza!