> Abridging the 4th amendment rights of users wasn't enough: they had to abridge Apple's 1st amendment rights to even say how many times it happened.
The other (potentially more important side) of Apple's 1st amendment rights to speak are the subjects' and everyone else's 1st amendment rights to hear / receive information.
In telling Apple that they cannot reveal the identity of these requests, they are saying that I am not allowed to learn whether I was subjected to ones of these searches. Without being allowed to know, I cannot challenge the search, etc.
The same contra-positive-analysis is helpful with claims of "foreign interference" in elections, where I may have little concern for a foreign adversary's right to speak, but also take serious issue with the idea that I should not be allowed to learn about matters that may be important to and relevant to my vote.
The other (potentially more important side) of Apple's 1st amendment rights to speak are the subjects' and everyone else's 1st amendment rights to hear / receive information.
In telling Apple that they cannot reveal the identity of these requests, they are saying that I am not allowed to learn whether I was subjected to ones of these searches. Without being allowed to know, I cannot challenge the search, etc.
The same contra-positive-analysis is helpful with claims of "foreign interference" in elections, where I may have little concern for a foreign adversary's right to speak, but also take serious issue with the idea that I should not be allowed to learn about matters that may be important to and relevant to my vote.