Maybe you should read the Sedition act a little more carefully. . .it is applicable to any attempt of sedition when one criticizes the government while abiding by the constitution"to intimidate or prevent any person holding a place or office in or under the government of the United States, from undertaking, performing, or executing his trust or duty: and if any person or persons. . .by the powers invested to they/them [entity] by the U.S. Constitution. . ."

Look at the people arrested under the Sedition Act and the purpose with which it was passed. It was passed, and used, by the Federalists to suppress the more outspoken Democratic-Republicans, some of whom were arrested for doing nothing more than criticizing the government.

It's interesting that you point that out; Since the Sedition Act was passed by a Federalist dominated party it only further supports my premise of the U.S. Constitution having a purpose not a meaning for interpretation, which is what the Federalists were doing. . .they wanted to expand the Federal Government (Nationalize), Central Banking System and relationships with the British Monarchy (empire) for which was the complete antithesis of the purpose for the constitution. We are getting into the follies of going against the constitution *past and present (as Thomas Jefferson always argued); we are digging deep; and that is good. Now, why is the U.S.A a Democratic Republic and not a Democracy? Why is the power to coin money a job exclusive to the Federal Government? (article 1 section 8) (as opposed to the FIAT system of today? I ask you

I disagree completely. The constitution set very serious boundaries of what the government can do and its role. It may be empowering within that role, but it certainly was a leash.

The constitution sets forth very real protections for the accused, for defendants. I see very little that could be stretched to apply to a third party that chooses not to comply with a lawfully obtained order because they disagree with it.

Frankly I doubt the Founding Fathers would ever have conceived of a third party daring to issue a bare-faced refusal to comply with a lawfully obtained order. They would surely have expected that this would immediately turn that individual (or corporate person, as the case may well be in this age) into another defendant, for a new crime.

I really don't know what Apple is thinking. They should have set a line in the sand when they legitimately could do nothing to gain access to the data, as they're so close to having completed in recent hardware/OS revs. That would force congress to pass legislation outlawing secure crypto, or give up. That would be an interesting thing to see, no doubt.

But this? They're playing a very dangerous game for very low stakes, and the only obvious rationale for doing it is the one that the government can and probably will argue is at work, which is as a PR move.

And a judge's signature outweighs your stock price any damn day of the week. Stupid/reckless is my first impression, or maybe it is just brilliant PR. But as a general rule, don't fight city hall for bragging rights. The real fight will happen once you say "tough luck, nothing anybody can do, you want to break in, go talk to to the quantum cryptographers".

Apple's response addresses almost every point you bring up, so I'm guessing you didn't read it. Which is probably why you're posting with a throwaway account.

The whole purpose of this litigation is to determine whether the order was "lawfully obtained."

As for drawing a line in the sand, it appears that the limit that they will not cross in cooperating with law enforcement is in actively creating new features that make the phone easier to hack.