How do you know that? Similarly to the UK, USA has a process to force companies to add back doors. For all we know it might the USA wanting access and using its five eyes allies to get it done.
> Compelled speech, and compelled work, are both disallowed by the US constitution... Apple successfully used this argument several years ago when the FBI tried to demand that they break a phone for an investigation.
I'm not sure this is how the San Bernardino case actually panned out:
"Apple declined to create the software, and a hearing was scheduled for March 22. However, a day before the hearing was supposed to happen, the government obtained a delay, saying it had found a third party able to assist in unlocking the iPhone. On March 28, the government claimed that the FBI had unlocked the iPhone and withdrew its request."
The arguments were never actually tested in court, the whole thing was quietly put away once the FBI found another way to unlock the phone.
The expectation was that FBI would lose in court. But that was not guaranteed, certainly.
FBI had multiple reasons to abandon the effort, but one was that if legal precedent was established at that time, for that case, it would be harder to bypass in future cases.
I expected the FBI to win in court because the FBI had precedent on its side. The judge had asked Apple to provide reasonable technical assistance to access data on the phone, and modifying one line of code fits well within the judge's request.
Heres an example of when Apple got caught giving the US government all users push notifications, and then quite openly said they had been bound by law to keep quiet about it.
Apple has a history of giving the US government whatever user data they want, lying about it, then when it leaks publicly they are able to say 'Well we couldnt tell you because it would have been breaking the law, sorry about that'.
Have an example, of when it leaked that apple was secretly syphoning off all push notifications to the US government:
Fundamentally not the same thing. Notifications aren't encrypted. Apple has made no claim that they're secret from the govt.
Apple has very loudly and prominently and specifically stated that their encrypted is ecrypted and not even available to apple. They list which portions of icloud this applies to and not.
Huge different between an omission and a large, positive lie.
They reason they have 'very loudly and prominently' proclaimed that they will never break encryption, is to make the general public believe their data is safe with Apple. Its purely a marketing stunt. The push message syphoning to governments is only one of many ways they willingly hand over data to governments on request.
