"Apple may think the founders would have been appalled, but honestly, they would have been appalled at the largest companies in the country working hard to protect criminals and terrorists who are bent on harming America, Americans, and the like."
Who is doing that? It can't be Apple, or they wouldn't have already provided the FBI and police a ton of assistance.
"Next, contrary to Apple’s stated fears, there is no reason to think that the code Apple writes in compliance with the Order will ever leave Apple’s possession. Nothing in the Order requires Apple to provide that code to the government or to explain to the government how it works. "
Outright LIE. The only way they could guarantee that the techniques and code involved in this exploit would not get out would be to never, ever, use any of the evidence obtained from the phone (if there's any even there to begin with, and there almost certainly isn't) in court.
Otherwise, any defence lawyer is fully entitled to quiz Apple thoroughly on how the evidence was extracted, to insist his own forensics experts review how it was done, and so on.
There's no way an Apple expert witness (and you guarantee one will be summoned) can go on the witness stand and say 'Sorry, how we did it is a secret. But trust us, it's all OK.'
Let's see that work in a court of law for 'ordinary' criminals. Maybe something like burglary ...
Lawyer : This is an outrageous abuse of civil rights, your Honor. My client is accused of breaking into the home of a local millionaire, but the only so-called 'evidence' the Police Department has is a video recording, from inside the property, of my client. That is tainted evidence, and must be excluded. My client was in a private property, and clearly had an expectation of privacy.
Judge : Not his own private property, however?
Lawyer : Doesn't matter, your Honor. Still not in public, so he clearly had an expectation of privacy!
Judge : How so? There were clear signs at each entrance to the property warning that, for security purposes, there were CCTV cameras recording.
Lawyer : Well, yes, granted - but earlier during the day, my client's accomplice had snuck in under the pretext of being an air-conditioning maintenance man, and had disabled all the cameras he could see. Therefore, my client CLEARLY in his own mind had an expectation of privacy as he was not expecting to be recorded.
Judge : But it would seem a hidden camera was missed?
Lawyer : Exactly, your Honor! A SPY camera SPYING on my client, who very clearly in his own mind had an expectation of privacy when he took his mask off. Ergo, being on private property and with his reasonable expectation of privacy fully intact, this evidence must obviously be suppressed.
Judge : Wow. Just ... wow. That's certainly a very novel argument.
"Um... well... I don't know the answer to that, George. Um.... All we know is that... um... this is effectively the official position of the British government"
Oh, really? It's the official position of the British government? You'd think that, if it were the official position, you'd be able to rely on named sources, and not ones who are only willing to provide anything if their anonymity is protected.
This is incredibly shoddy journalism, and any self-respecting journalist should be hanging their head in shame and promising they'll try to do better next time, not going on international TV and trying to defend the indefensible.
I can't help feeling that if there were any evidence to show that he had done this - or even could do this - in real life, he'd already have been deposited in a nice secure cell while some prosecutor somewhere spent a few months pouring through his or her law books trying to sum up every single thing he could possibly be charged with and seeing if they could get the maximum possible sentence to get into triple figures ...
On the other hand, as he's saying he was taken 'out of context', I wouldn't be at all surprised if he'd had a nice rambling conversation with some FBI agents during those interviews, mentioned what he thought the dangers might be, how interference could be technically possible, remarked how he might have had some initial successes in simulation etc ...
And then the FBI drew up an affadavit using the scariest-sounding bits they could find - with 'in simulation' omitted - to get a worried judge to sign off on things.
Mr CEO : Why, Mr. NSA. It's really nice to meet you too. This guy to my right? Oh, you haven't met. Now, I'm not saying he's with Chinese Intelligence and I'm not saying he's not. But he's awfully knowledgeable about your children, practically a trivia buff on the subject.
The article specifically stated that "hundreds" of photographs were taken. It's not unusual for one or two to be focused well out of a sea of badly focused shots.
By the way, why on Earth would this guy even try at this point to claim that he, not the monkey, took the photo?
1) It ruins the selling power of the photo. Suddenly it's gone from '1 in a million shot' to 'Meh, it's an OK picture of a monkey.'
2) It's devastating to any possible credibility should this ever go to court. 'So, Mr. Photographer, for many many years you've claimed that you should have the copyright on this photograph that you claimed a monkey took. Now, when it's quite convenient to your case, you claim that actually it was you that took the shot. Tell me, have you been lying for the last few years or are you lying now? Why should the jury believe a word you say?'
To which, they presumably point to their agreement ...
"Photographer agrees to execute all papers and to perform such other proper acts, as Amtrak may deem necessary or desirable to secure for Amtrak the rights herein granted, assigned and/or transferred. "
And say, "Right, we require you to transfer your copyright in writing, as agreed."
At which point, hopefully, everyone would laugh in their face and tell them they'd see them in court, but there could be some people out there intimidated enough by the legalese ...