I think that quote is saying that if you modify your public key locally then the data you encrypt with it will no longer be decryptable by the private key you previously sent backblaze.
> If that's true, as an iCloud user you are exactly as likely to be charged with a crime based on your photos as you were before
Is this strictly true? I feel like the evidence that a photo was present on specific device is different from evidence that a photo was uploaded by a specific account (and a specific ip address probably).
It seems like it would be far easier for the government to justify a search warrant if they have evidence the photo they are looking for was on a specific device. Just having evidence that a specific account uploaded a photo seems like far shakier grounds to search a specific device, after all accounts are often stolen to be used for criminal purposes and ip addresses don't map cleanly to people or devices.
They actually can be forced to reveal sources, the choice not to force them to reveal sources was executive branch policy not law and this policy was rescinded by the Obama administration. I think they realized this was pretty bad optics though so Obama and Trump mostly just relied on using their broad intelligence powers to track down reporter's sources.
"Freedom of the press" in US law just means the freedom to create and distribute media (as opposed to freedom of speech which is specifically about the spoken word). "The press" references the printing press not the news media or journalists who are in modern times called "the press" also in reference to the printing press. Journalists have the same first amendment rights as everyone else (actually they could be said to have less because for certain purposes such as defamation they are actually held to a higher standard).
By the way, in the United States copyright is owned by the author of the work unless there is a written contract assigning it to someone else. The only real exception to this is an employee can assign copyright to their employer by mere verbal agreement. Since you were a contractor they don't have the copyright unless you actually have a written contract assigning it to them.
Some people do believe that non ionizing radiation has effects other than those produced by the added thermal energy (or that the thermal effects are in some way significant). The actual scientific evidence for this is minimal though.
But they shouldn't. The key you enter as a user is actually only half of the key needed to decrypt the data. The other half of the key is generated by the secure enclave when the device was first powered on. This part of the key alone should be impossible to brute force and is stored in tamper resistant flash memory on the secure enclave co-processor.
So you would need to break open the co-processor without destroying its contents and read the secure enclave key before any brute forcing could happen directly on the encrypted data.
And no you can't just try to brute force it by sending decryption requests to the secure enclave. The secure enclave itself implements a exponentially increasing lockout time and won't respond to decryption requests during it. [0]
The lockout delay is implemented in the chip itself in newer iphones (I think starting with iphone 5S). So no, taking the chip out buys you nothing.
> To further discourage brute-force passcode attacks, there are escalating time delays after the entry of an invalid passcode at the Lock screen. ...On devices with Secure Enclave, the delays are enforced by the Secure Enclave coprocessor. If the device is restarted during a timed delay, the delay is still enforced, with the timer starting over for the current period.
That's not entirely true. They ruled that silence in a non-custodial interview could be admissable at trial. Silence in custodial interviews is still not admissable and they didn't actually decide the question of whether or not silence can be taken as substantive evidence of guilt.