Tim Cook Reveals What Privacy Advocacy Really Is

[SteelCrysis]

http://www.neowin.net/news/apple-wont-co...modify-ios
I have to agree with the government on this one. Tim Cook is a privacy ideologue who doesn't want to help a legitimate criminal investigation. This just goes to show that privacy advocacy is not benevolence, it is an ideology.

Tell that to the privacy ideologues in the comments. To them, the cloud already has everything, and the FBI "just wants to set an evil precedent!" If they think that a person planning a criminal act would store incriminating evidence on a public cloud, they're morons. There's also the moron who claims

I hope people try to see your frame of thought here. For you, people are simply servants of the State in which their privacy can be violated at will. People who share your thinking are the antithesis to freedom.

You are the antithesis to government freedom to collect evidence for a legitimate criminal investigation. You just have a different idea of freedom. Abraham Lincoln talked about people like you when he said

The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and the American people, just now, are much in want of one. We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatable things, called by the same name—liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatable names—liberty and tyranny.

The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep’s throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty, especially as the sheep was a black one. Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of the word liberty; and precisely the same difference prevails to-day among us human creatures, even in the North, and all professing to love liberty. Hence we behold the processes by which thousands are daily passing from under the yoke of bondage, hailed by some as the advance of liberty, and bewailed by others as the destruction of all liberty. Recently, as it seems, the people of Maryland have been doing something to define liberty; and thanks to them that, in what they have done, the wolf’s dictionary, has been repudiated.

Then there's this perverted sense of protecting rights:

It is not about a terrorist attack. it is protecting the rights of a person. Of course the act he did was terrible, it gives you no right on threatening every Apple device in existence. You are telling me you would want Apple to make something to invade one persons rights, while risking millions more in the process?

Here's the truth: It is not about protecting the rights of a person. It is about obstructing a criminal investigation for the sake of your own feelings. Of course your feelings are hurt, but it doesn't give you the right to threaten every criminal investigation yet to come. You are telling me that you want Apple to obstruct one criminal investigation, while risking countless future ones in the process by "setting precedent," the exact same issue that you would have us believe is the bogeyman when the FBI's doing it?