More on the Apple vs FBI imbroglio, from L. Gordon Crovitz. (Apple is refusing to unlock the iPhone used by a dead terrorist).
The US public is somewhat more in favor of the FBI case than Apple's, though the commentariat appears evenly split.
There's talk of the "cult of secrecy" vs the "cult of security", eg on Sam Harris' Twitter.
I'm on the FBI side. Apple should help it get to the iPhone in question, for reasons spelled out, amongst others, by Harris and Crovitz.
Though I don't accept being a member of be "cult of safety" by this support (and neither does Sam).
Note some of Apple's "reasoning": that it would be "too burdensome", and that it would "hurt the brand". Now, as an Apple shareholder, I find these excuses risible and appallingly ill-judged.
Apple's refusal to help investigate terrorism has rekindled interest in legislation. Congress holds hearings this week, with most Americans saying Apple should comply with the court order, according to a Pew Research Center poll. Microsoft's Bill Gateslast week observed that the issue in the Apple case is "no different than 'Should anybody ever have been able to tell the phone company to get information? Should anybody be able to get at bank records?' " Phone companies and banks must ensure that their equipment makes it possible to comply with court orders, and if AT&T and Citibank can't promise customers privacy by evading court orders, why should Apple be able to?