jensonb

For its part, the government maintains that its motion to compel relates to one iPhone -- Farook's -- and does not in any way represent a "master key" to iOS.

Doesn't the existence of another - substantially similar - request, pre-dating the San Bernardino case, prove that is completely untrue? Do they actually expect that claim to stand up to scrutiny? The Government appears to be attempting to have it both ways in its argument. They are claiming that they only require this to be done "one time", to deflect the criticism that they are seeking a precedent and a standing backdoor. But they are also implicitly claiming that compelling Apple to do this work is not unreasonably burdensome. Under a face value reading of their claim about these cases being individual, that is patently ridiculous since it would mean compelling Apple to repeatedly engage its staff in performing work (The same work, over and over) to undermine its own products against its will. Even if you accept doing it once isn't unreasonably burdensome (Which is itself pretty incredible), the implicit requirement to potentially repeat the work should similar instances arise later definitely is. And Apple has a perfectly reasonable justification to point to for destroying the work after it is used once: they do not want a vulnerability for their product to exist at all, even in their own hands. They have even publicly stated they sell devices with security even they can't break, so they are arguably legally compelled  to destroy it as retaining it might render them vulnerable to false advertising or bad faith claims. The government hasn't got a leg to stand on, aspects of its own case invalidate other aspects of itself.

"It is still our hope that they will see their way clear to complying with that order as thousands of other companies do every day," Lynch said.

That isn't simply misleading, it's not even close to true. Thousands of companies do not comply with Court Orders to produce crippled versions of their own products for the government's use every day. None do. This particular Court Order is unprecedented, and Lynch knows it. Pretending otherwise is outright intellectual dishonesty and she should be ashamed of herself.

We have been over this and over this. Wireless Charging is not currently, has not ever been and is not close to being deployed in a consumer product. The technology you are referring to is inductive charging - as Apple correctly states in their Apple Watch materials. It does not eliminate the wire. At best, it could be said to be "contactless."