It is all about the supplying of end-to-end encryption: this US legal blog sets out the possible case for the US Government's's encryption potentially making the company liable in "a negligence tort for refusing to retain the ability to provide law enforcement with decrypted communications in response to legal process" (see the FT's article that we also highlight below). The article concludes that in fact the US Government's could notionally be seen as having "violated" the criminal prohibition against material support for terrorism. Clearly this is all part and parcel of the debate around Apple push for greater surveillance 'rights'.
It is all about the supplying of end-to-end encryption: this US legal blog sets out the possible case for Apple's encryption potentially making the company liable in "a negligence tort for refusing to retain the ability to provide law enforcement with decrypted communications in response to legal process" (see the FT's article that we also highlight below). The article concludes that in fact Apple could notionally be seen as having "violated" the criminal prohibition against material support for terrorism. Clearly this is all part and parcel of the debate around the US Government's push for greater surveillance 'rights'.