I agree, however for different reasons. "Decentralise" has several different levels, and what is in the article could be done badly or well — just like default browser options.
The problem here is one of politics. Apple can't refuse to play this game, nor can it use technology to think outside the box — if Apple removes the possibilty of assisting via decryption, they may find the demand becomes to perform screen recording.
As a non-sovreign multinational corporation, Apple is a servant of many masters. That used to work OK, but now it increasingly looks like it doesn't.
My current best guess, from an armchair and without multinational legal training, is one "decentralise" option that might work is changing the corporate structure, for each jurisdiction to get its own Apple — has to be the whole to avoid demand escalation — that is licensed the OS but cannot force locally demanded changes onto any of the other Apples.
The problem here is one of politics. Apple can't refuse to play this game, nor can it use technology to think outside the box — if Apple removes the possibilty of assisting via decryption, they may find the demand becomes to perform screen recording.
As a non-sovreign multinational corporation, Apple is a servant of many masters. That used to work OK, but now it increasingly looks like it doesn't.
My current best guess, from an armchair and without multinational legal training, is one "decentralise" option that might work is changing the corporate structure, for each jurisdiction to get its own Apple — has to be the whole to avoid demand escalation — that is licensed the OS but cannot force locally demanded changes onto any of the other Apples.