[lqstuart]

If you don’t like the behavior of a company voluntarily doing something, your problem is with that company. If you don’t like a company complying with the law, your problem is with the law. It is unreasonable to expect anyone or any company to break the law or violate a court order to protect you.

If you don’t trust the institutions issuing those court orders, that is an entirely reasonable stance but it should be addressed at its root cause using our democratic process, however rapidly eroding that process may seem to be.

The fourth amendment protects against warrantless search and seizure, it is not carte blanche to fill up your hard drive with child porn and expect Microsoft to fall on their swords to protect you.

[Forgeties79]

> The fourth amendment protects against warrantless search and seizure, it is not carte blanche to fill up your hard drive with child porn and expect Microsoft to fall on their swords to protect you.

I was understanding and felt your points had validity until you threw out this gross, emotionally manipulative, horrible misrepresentation of my stance.

[synecdoche]

Only if you see it as that. More charitable is to see it as an example and clear case to illustrate of what might be beyond coverage of the amendment.

[shimman]

These are common tactics abusers of authority use to continue abusing authority.

[15155]

The ideal is that they have no ability to comply or not comply: they shouldn't have the keys to begin with.

[lqstuart]

The ideal is that Microsoft's customers are not idiots who will lose their keys. But that's just not reality, and those customers matter more than using what is arguably the objectively correct design in a certain light

[Forgeties79]

It is wild to me this has to be explained on HN