Why would I reread it?  Are you 'Consumers', or 'People'?  Or are you an individual person?  I said people and consumers, plural.  Whether you trust Apple or the Government doesn't really amount to much in the grand scheme of things, it's all consumers/people I was referring to.

Then, as I said, people are idiots.  The Government has at least a vested interest in its populace living, and being moderately happy.  Companies do not.  Companies only care about which countries have the cheapest and most lenient labor/tax laws they can exploit to increase their profits. 

As iterated in that article, and said multiple times already in this thread, Apple has had these keys in the past, and have retained sole ownership of these keys, in the past, w/o any leaks.  This is likely why their objection to this will fall on deaf ears, in regards to the courts.  Their hyperbole can be refuted with a simple look at history.

I would actually argue that there are probably a bunch of morons voting for Trump, but also a bunch of people who feel he's one of the few choices that are certainly not part of the establishment.  Hillary, Cruz, Rubio, etc... down the list, are part of the establishment, and there are many in this election who are entirely sick of the establishment.  Nevermind some of the things these candidates have said and done in the past that call them into question.  I'm certainly not voting for Trump, but there's no fucking way I'm voting for Hillary either.  I'll either go 3rd party or I won't vote.  I think our two party system is garbage, and widely prone to abuse.  So, I'll either vote for a candidate I can approve of, or I won't, sit back with a bag of popcorn and watch the country deteriorate further.  And no, it doesn't bother me to abstain from voting, Congress does it all the time.  I will not play a game of 'lesser of two evils'.  If both choices are shit, I won't play their game.

Apple already mines their user's data.  Apples....Principles....hahaha.  That's a good one.

Yes, they had the keys. Regimes all over the world were requesting Apple to use those keys, not just the US government. FBI previous requests may have been approved based on their merits but what about the requests made by FBI-equivalents in less progressive countries? Maybe, just maybe, those requests pushed Apple to go further and faster with their "stronger encryption" plans?

Well, without the benefit of researching these requests, I can simply say, since these requests would've gone through the State Dept. and the State Dept. approved their claim (or disapproved) it stands to reason said claims did or did not match up to the legal requirements/precedents set forth in the US legal system.  Just a thought.  Beyond that, it matters little, according to US Law, the Government CAN compel anyone (Corporations are people, remember) to do something if they are able.  Apple is able, the courts agreed, it's up to Apple to take it to the Supreme Court level (likely) to set precedent.

"As iterated in that article, and said multiple times already in this thread, Apple has had these keys in the past, and have retained sole ownership of these keys, in the past, w/o any leaks.  This is likely why their objection to this will fall on deaf ears, in regards to the courts.  Their hyperbole can be refuted with a simple look at history."

They didn't leak in the past, that doesn't mean they can't be leaked in the future, and it doesn't mean Apple should stop making their software more secure and more immune to possible threats just because "it was fine the way it was".

Fear for the future, without any clear example of why you're afraid now, isn't an argument.  There's a clearl history of Apple having the ability to access these phones, when ordered to do so under specific sets of circumstances.  They  never allowed these keys to reach the public.  To say 'well maybe someday in the future someone will' is absurd.  Someday in the future, every piece of technology or code written, will be hacked...so I guess we should just stop allowing advancements in technology?

"Apple already mines their user's data.  Apples....Principles....hahaha.  That's a good one."

Apple collects data, but they don't monetize the information they collect the way Google/W10 do, there is a big room for growth in that department, whenever Apple decides it's time to adapt new principles.  

Sure they do, maybe not as blatantly as Google or microsoft, but they most certainly allow your data to be sifted through to identify potential matches in music, news, etc.. things of that nature.  Apple does make most of its money on Hardware and Apps, so they can play 'some' of the high road, in this regard.  But, they still allow the collection and analysis of your data, which then certainly promotes certain companies/music/movies etc.. above others.

Principles also extend beyond user data.  Principles (which every electronics user in the world lacks) such as fair wage for work, paying actual taxes of their home country, and things of that nature.  Yes yes, I'm well aware of how they create products in China, sell them to a shell company in a tax haven at just below market value, then resell them to their supplier at market value so they're only taxed on a tiny, tiny amount.  Ahhh principles.

Sure they do, maybe not as blatantly as Google or microsoft, but they most certainly allow your data to be sifted through to identify potential matches in music, news, etc.. things of that nature.  Apple does make most of its money on Hardware and Apps, so they can play 'some' of the high road, in this regard.  But, they still allow the collection and analysis of your data, which then certainly promotes certain companies/music/movies etc.. above others.

Principles also extend beyond user data.  Principles (which every electronics user in the world lacks) such as fair wage for work, paying actual taxes of their home country, and things of that nature.  Yes yes, I'm well aware of how they create products in China, sell them to a shell company in a tax haven at just below market value, then resell them to their supplier at market value so they're only taxed on a tiny, tiny amount.  Ahhh principles.

Ahhh principles.

If we are playing that game...

Ok, and?  What does that have to do with the FBI's very specific warrant, for a very specific case, for a county who owned the phone and contract, for an ex-employee who's dead and isn't due privacy rights?

Pretty sure you won't find many outside of OPEC, and Congressional/House members/staffers who stand to gain from Saudi Arabia's prominence, who don't find Saudi Arabia to be a disgusting theocracy.  I'll go even further and point out that the UN is just as reprehensible for having them chair the Committee on Human Rights.

Ok and what do the legal tax evasion and the "fair wage" issues have to do with this very specific case and why should we widen the scope beyond privacy issues/freedom of choice to discredit certains parties but not others?