I often wonder whether politicians and other government officials actually know what’s happening in the real world. At least, you would hope they read news from different sources, of different approaches, to get a balanced picture of the events of the day. This is particularly true of the U.S. Department of Justice, the FBI and the White House.

Worse, the media that is supposed to ask the hard questions of these people about the issues usually fall down on the job. Watch any of the cable news networks in the U.S. — it doesn’t matter which actually — and you will be given an online course in how to ask softball questions. All right, a few will ask something a little more nuanced, or question what someone says, but it doesn’t happen terribly often, and there are usually few followups because of time constraints.

When it does, the subjects of the interview will often complain about media “gotcha” questions, which means anything that attempts to divert them from their canned spiel.

With the Apple versus FBI case, the issues ought to be clear-cut, but they aren’t getting the proper coverage, nor is the government demonstrating they are even aware of the consequences of what they’re asking. Or maybe they are, which makes matters all the more troubling.

So Apple on Thursday filed an expected motion to vacate that court order that directed the company to develop software to unlock an iPhone 5c used by one of the San Bernardino shooters. Remember this gadget wasn’t even owned by the terrorist. It was actually a work phone owned by the employer. The phones these criminals actually owned were destroyed by them. They were smart enough to do that, but we are being asked to believe they would still leave incriminating data on a work phone.

Give me a break!

In its motion, Apple’s attorneys explain what would be involved in creating what they called a “GovtOS.” Supposedly it would mean developing a special version of iOS that would not just be able to install itself in a “tech mode,” meaning that it wouldn’t require a user login first to accept the download, but would defeat passcode security protections. So beginning in iOS 8, you have 10 chances to enter a correct passcode. As you continue, the delay between allowing the login requests increases. If, after ten tries, you fail to enter the correct passcode, the iPhone’s data essentially self-destructs. It’s erased.

Now ever since Apple released versions of iOS with encrypted data and the passcode protections, the authorities have made it clear they are unhappy. Early on the director of the FBI wanted Apple to make it possible for governments to access that encrypted data when it’s needed for a criminal investigation, and Apple said no.

It hasn’t helped that the authorities, including the White House press people, continue to misrepresent the essence of the request. Despite their claims that it’s all about retrieving data from a single iPhone, Apple’s response refutes the claim.

“This is not a case about one isolated iPhone. Rather, this case is about the Department of Justice and the FBI seeking through the courts a dangerous power that Congress and the American people have withheld: the ability to force companies like Apple to undermine the basic security and privacy interests of hundreds of millions of individuals around the globe.”

Their point is that the act of unlocking one iPhone creates a digital file that could then be used to unlock other iPhones. More important, it creates the legal precedent to allow such requests to be granted. Even as the FBI was claiming it was all about the unknown data on one work iPhone 5c, more than a dozen other requests have surfaced, according to published reports. In addition, other legal authorities in the U.S. are just waiting for the doors to open, for Apple to lose its appeal, so they can also submit demands to get access to Apple gear. And don’t forget other countries where such requests will also be made. Don’t forget what happened to BlackBerry in India, where they were forced to let the authorities have access to a smartphone’s data.

Apple’s claim is based on free speech interests, and also asserts that this effort to weaken privacy laws is “forbidden” by the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. That’s the amendment that bars “unreasonable searches and seizures.” Just as interesting, after what appeared to be some equivocation on the matter, Microsoft has announced it will file an amicus brief in support of Apple’s position. Clearly they see the threat. And remember that, if successful, the government will happily go after Android and Windows phones to unlock them as well. So it is also expected similar briefs will be filed by Face-book, Google, Twitter and other companies.

I mean it’s one thing to demand Apple provide the data from the iPhone. It another to demand that Apple create software, which does not presently exist, to accomplish that task. This is what is referred to as the “backdoor” that defeats iOS security.

While I wouldn’t pretend to understand the legal niceties, it has to be abundantly clear that the mere fact that demands to unlock other iPhones awaits a final verdict on this case demonstrates a deeper motive. So the San Bernardino case is being used primarily as an excuse to advance the interests of the government to defeat Apple’s encryption.

At the end of the day, it’s very possible that Apple will lose, although you cannot always predict what the courts might do. But it also means that the U.S. Congress ought to consider the matter and see if legislation is called for. But in a climate where the two political parties agree on next to nothing, it is doubtful anything will come of it.

So OS X El Capitan has been out for nearly six months. So, therefore, it must be time to talk about its successor. Before I get started, I am not going to speculate as to which California-based scenic landmark Apple will choose next. In the scheme of things, it really doesn’t matter what name is selected, so long as it’s something that will be reasonably memorable.

Now in theory OS X El Capitan was supposed to be the bug fix release, the one that would offer genuine performance improvements for all or most Mac users, and a greater level of stability, plus a smattering of improvements affecting the major Apple apps. There wasn’t much memorable, though it’s nice to be able to move a Spotlight window around. Wonder why that took so long?

Yet, as Apple works on the latest El Capitan bug fixer-upper, 10.11.4, it hasn’t quite gotten the love at the Mac App Store. It’s still saddled with just three stars out of five, and the complaints are all over the place. To be fair, online reviews of apps and operating systems will always be heavily weighted towards users with problems. For people who have no problems, they’re less apt to bother.

Still, the conventional wisdom has it that 10.12 will again be devoted to loads of new features, although I wonder just how many compelling capabilities Apple can add that would bring the numbers to 200 or more. Well, a new report speculates that Siri is at or near the top of the list.

Siri?

Now Siri first debuted in 2011 in beta form on the iPhone 4s. That was one of those alternate year iPhones that were regarded as insufficiently different as compared to the iPhone 4.

In any case, Siri has come a long way. Voice recognition is better, Siri’s ability to listen to your requests and respond to them has expanded. Mostly, I use it to get directions, or just to set alarms. It’s so much better than an alarm clock.

It would seem that Apple could have added Siri to the Mac long before now. While it may only support recent Macs, the technology has been there for quite some time, so why would Apple delay it? It may be a matter of marketing, waiting for the right occasion to make a huge push. No doubt there will be an API that will allow developers to add Siri support.

Assuming it really happens, of course.

When it comes to marketing, though, Apple might want to explain why Microsoft’s digital assistant, Cortana, became part of Windows 10 in the summer of 2015, yet Apple isn’t adding Siri until a year later. Apple risks being called a copycat again, just as they did when Split View appeared for both El Capitan and, for some iPads, in iOS 9. It just seemed a little blatant.

In saying that, though, I suppose some of you would love to see Siri on your Mac, that you’ve wanted it to happen for several years. For me, I say it’s not worth the bother. I have Windows 10 running, and never felt the need, aside from testing, to try Cortana. So I am probably not the target audience for Siri on a Mac.

As I’ve written before, a feature of this sort may be fine for the home, assuming you’re aren’t disturbing another family member, but not so much for an office, particularly when there are more than a few workers in open cubbyholes. The act of people randomly announcing directions to Siri would seem disconcerting at the very least, or downright rude. Even in an office where the front desk used Siri, such as a travel or doctor’s office, watching someone say a command, rather than just entering something on a keyboard, would also seem disconcerting.

As to other features, I’d like to see Split View allow more windows on larger displays, say four on the 27-inch iMac, or any Mac mini or Mac Pro with a large display. Still, I don’t use it, but see where some of you might.

When it comes to newer features, I’m more inclined to want to see edge enhancements, such as restoring the ability to change the order of your Mail accounts in the Preferences window. You could do that in earlier versions of OS X, and while I grant it can be done in Mail’s sidebar, that restriction doesn’t make sense. I could say the same for iOS, of course; Mail for iOS does give you the ability to edit the accounts and mail folders it displays and reorder them.

I would also suggest Apple go through the Finder interface, settings and behavior and clean it up a little bit more. The Open/Save dialogs are largely unchanged over the years, but Apple would do well to consider acquiring Jon Gotow’s Default Folder X and incorporating its most significant enhancements for these dialogs. Such programming brilliance should not go unrewarded, and I’m surprised Apple hasn’t considered that move.

But if Siri is going to be the tentpole feature of OS 10.12, color me bored.

Although there has been plenty of fear-mongering about Apple’s approach to security over the years, the fact remains that there’s still no compelling need to install antivirus software on your Mac. While there is security software for Android users, it’s not needed for iOS. If you are careful about the sites you visit, and you don’t click on every little thing in your email, you can probably stay safe with an Apple gadget.

As the Mac platform expanded after the release of OS X and Apple’s move to Intel, the theory had it that malware would increase sharply. Why? Because Macs had become more visible targets. While there have been occasional outbreaks, the actual Mac platform was usually not what was targeted. So we have the Flashback Trojan Horse in 2012 that impacted Java, not the Mac. Since then, Apple has pawned off support to Java’s owner, Oracle.

Another potential source of security threats is Flash. Adobe updates it regularly, but the newest version of the app that lets you create a Flash applet or site is really pushing you to use HTML5 instead. Aside from sites with older code, you’re going to see fewer and fewer Flash-based content online going forward. That’s quite a comedown from the days when Adobe attacked Apple for not supporting Flash on iOS, and Steve Jobs had to release a rare public statement as to why.

History has proved him right.

In the wake of the Edward Snowden revelations in 2013 about all the secret government documents he managed to acquire and release, Apple shored up security in iOS. For iOS 8 and iOS 9, your gear’s data is encrypted. If you want to try to open a device using the passcode, you have ten opportunities. You fail, the data is erased. That’s the crux of the problem facing the Feds as they try to find out what’s on a work iPhone 5c used by one of the terrorists in last December’s San Bernardino, CA attack.

I’ve already weighed in on the matter. Apple says that if you force them to create a backdoor for one iPhone, there is no way in the digital world to limit that incursion to a single device. It will open the door for any iPhone to be thus hacked. It has also been reported that more than a dozen other requests are out there from authorities for Apple to open iPhones. If the case is lost, that trickle will become an avalanche, and that’s before other countries get into the act and make similar demands.

Now in yesterday’s column I mentioned that a certain cable TV commentator suggested the FBI just give Apple the iPhone and let them do their thing. But that would merely move the backdoor to the Apple campus, which would thus open the company to massed attacks by outside hackers. Is it at all possible criminals would seek to go after Apple’s executives to force them to tell all? That would create a paranoid scenario that seems more inclined to play out in a TV show, such as “CSI: Cyber” on CBS. That’s a show that depicts a crew of former hackers who help the FBI deal with cybercrime. At least it’s less jarring on one’s sensibility than watching people revel on ripping apart dead body parts to solve crimes, as they did in the previous CSI procedurals.

Realistically, those San Bernardino terrorists destroyed their personal smartphones, which is where they would have likely placed incriminating information. This iPhone 5c is a work phone, and thus the chances that they’d be stupid enough to put personal information on there is, so far as I’m concerned, slim to none. It also appears that the perpetrators were individuals who were radicalized but never actually joined a terrorist organization. Thus they would have gotten ideas of what to do and how to do it, but they didn’t coordinate with anybody else. So the chances that even their own smartphones, had they been recovered and restored, would store any actionable information might also have been slim to none.

So the whole deal, assuming something might be on that iPhone 5c, is little more than a crapshoot. Were those terrorists that stupid? After all, that work phone could have been recovered at any time by the owner, even restored and prepared for reuse by another employee. That it was in the hands of a terrorist prior to the crime doesn’t mean it’s a critical piece of evidence.

Imagine a situation where Apple is forced by a ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court to create a special version of iOS that will remove the code that blocks brute force intrusions. The data is recovered, and there’s nothing there of any importance! It would all be a wasted effort, except for the fact that every owner of an iPhone or iPad will lose some of their privacy.

And Apple will merely modify iOS and firmware so that even backdoor recovery apps or operating systems can’t be created. Indeed, that may already be in the works.

This story has lasted several news cycles, which itself is unusual. Between fretting over who the Republicans can rally behind to stop Donald Trump in that crazy Presidential campaign, there are back and forth discussions about Apple. The main issue: Whether Apple should be forced to create a backdoor that would allow the FBI to use brute force logins to break into that iPhone 5c used by a terrorist.

The White House and the director of the FBI say no problem. Apple should be able to break into a single iPhone 5c without having to confront the possibility that there will be a master key that functions with any iPhone. Not mentioned is the troubling question of legal precedent. Once or if Apple is forced create a backdoor for the iPhone, other Federal and also State agencies may make similar requests. Governments in other countries, knowing that a backdoor existed, may demand that Apple provide it as a condition of selling their hardware in those countries.

As I said, once the genie is freed from the bottle, that’s it for Apple. All hopes of enforcing encryption on your iPhone or iPad will be history unless Apple comes up with a security measure that even they cannot unlock. To me it all seems clear as day, but there remains a wide gulf between Apple’s statements and those of the U.S. authorities.

I suppose Apple could decline to provide the update on those grounds, that it is not possible to create a backdoor that would function on only one iPhone and no other. But I’m not qualified to consider the legal niceties of the situation. The FBI could argue that Apple could do it because it’s, well, Apple, and it’s their operating system.

To make it more complicated, it appears that the authorities changed the Apple ID on that iPhone after they had it in their possession. Apple says that move only made it much more difficult to get at the iPhone’s data. In other words, it was a foolish mistake, and now Apple is expected to provide the tools to unlock the iPhone as a consequence of that mistake.

This is the sort of conflict that can drag on through the courts for a while. Even if a move was made to fast track it to the U.S. Supreme Court, the fact that it’s one justice short could be a problem, unless the remaining members managed to get five members to vote in favor of one decision or the other.

However, if the Supreme Court ruled that Apple must comply that would be the end of it, regardless of the merits.

Meantime the back and forth continues. The other day, Trump threatened to boycott Apple if it didn’t comply. Other critics said it was all about Apple’s ego and marketing strategy. Pretend to be fighting for the privacy rights of their customers while using it as a means to sell more gear. Some tech bloggers echoed similar sentiments, but it’s not at all clear why.

Even Apple’s biggest rival, Google, supported the move. Apple received support from other key players in the tech industry, including Face-book and Twitter. Such civil rights organizations as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the ACLU, and Amnesty International expressed their support.

As to the public, a Fortune magazine online poll showed 71% in favor of Apple. But such polls are clearly unscientific. A Survey Monkey poll from USA Today had 51% supporting the FBI, but it appears a larger portion of Android users, who just may hate Apple, favored the request. I wonder how’d they react if Google or Samsung were on the receiving end of such a court order rather than Apple. A Pew Research poll yielded similar results, but the figures I saw didn’t subdivide the respondents by the smartphone platforms they used or preferred.

At the end of the day, it’s clearly not known just what’s on that iPhone, or whether it would be actionable in any way against other potential terrorist plots. It may well be that incriminating messages would be written in someone else’s chatting software, such as Face-book’s WhatsApp, which would trigger yet another legal skirmish.

In other words, this request is being made on a wing and a prayer with no guarantee of the results. It didn’t help that the Apple ID was changed. Somebody must be beating their head with their fists over that unfortunate decision, which Apple says really complicated the situation.

To be fair, one cable news commentator suggested that the Feds should just hand the iPhone to Apple, let them do their thing in their own test labs, turn over the data and destroy the device and the software, so there are no copies anywhere of any backdoors. I suppose that might make sense, but it would still leave a dangerous legal precedent in place. That’s what these commentators aren’t talking about.

I wouldn’t pretend to guess how this will all end up. Will the courts actually understand the real consequences of forcing Apple to update iOS in a way that removes brute force protections? Will they truly weigh the rights of privacy of millions of smartphone users against the possibility that unlocking a single smartphone might yield data they need, even though that’s not at all certain?

Perhaps Apple’s suggestion is best, that a commission be formed to study the matter and come up with a set of workable solutions that are fair the government and the tech companies and, most important, to an individual’s privacy rights.