In Part I of this series, we listed the many designated foreign terrorist organizations (DFTOs) that seem to have overt Twitter accounts. In Part II, we looked at the material support law as interpreted by the Supreme Court and concluded that the company—at least in theory—may have a real problem under the statute.

A few months ago, we wrote a lengthy piece about the possibility that Apple could face civil liability for providing end-to-end encryption to criminals and terrorists. We got a lot of heat for this piece. But today it's looking pretty good.

In the first part of this series, we looked at the question of whether Apple could be held liable in a negligence tort for refusing to retain the ability to provide law enforcement with decrypted communications in response to legal process.