I think the good District Attorney should step back and listen to what he's actually saying. His assumptions are a bit misguided (“They’ve eliminated accessibility in order to market the product") and quite honestly he doesn't represent the people, or at least me on this. As a public servant, his job is to protect and serve. If I'm doing a better job of 'protecting' my data than he is, by buying a better way to encrypt my data - then perhaps he should be talking about a tax deduction for money I'm saving the public coffers. And by the way, he can still get a court order to get to my data. He just can't go mining it whenever he feels his power justifies it. And for me, that's a step in the right direction.