> We too often fall into the trap of thinking that people must understand technical details of some thing X in order to understand implications of related thing Y.
Is that what you got from my post? Because it's not what I meant at all. I don't believe people have to understand the technical details behind it, but they do have to understand that the FBI forcing an unlock sets a very bad precedent which would massively diminish the security of the iphone/next iphone and this would apply to everybody, not just the tewwowist, AND that they're using a super old obscure shady law to back all that. There is a lot of data to understand and you can't easily grasp that from a single, short sentence.
Ah, my apologies then. This explanation sounds very different from your original suggestion that people need a basic understanding of encryption/security. I think we are quite close in agreement here.
I can see how my comment was misleading. My point was that those with a ground knowledge of encryption/security would most likely easily deduce this - but that doesn't mean you need such knowledge to understand what's going on.
Is that what you got from my post? Because it's not what I meant at all. I don't believe people have to understand the technical details behind it, but they do have to understand that the FBI forcing an unlock sets a very bad precedent which would massively diminish the security of the iphone/next iphone and this would apply to everybody, not just the tewwowist, AND that they're using a super old obscure shady law to back all that. There is a lot of data to understand and you can't easily grasp that from a single, short sentence.