Correction: EFF asserts that the warrant should not, in this form, have been issued. EFF's certainly entitled to its opinion, but EFF is not the final arbiter, and is pushing an interpretation of shield laws which has a number of large drawbacks.
Yeah -- #3. Where are you getting this from? And what does your parenthetical "(Or Apple would have denied it and requested that they return the equipment.)" even mean?
It's true that the warrant was executed as part of the investigation into a crime involving Apple, but that doesn't imply that Apple has the level of control over the investigation that you're claiming they do.
Sorry, I didn't realize that was unclear. I meant that if the folks at Apple who had reported the crime had thought it was unjustified to seize the "reporter's" equipment, they could certainly have issued a press release saying that they regretted that the police had seized all his stuff, and hoped that the guy would get it back immediately. They might additionally have behind-the-scenes channels to make requests like that — as Adobe did in the Sklyarov case — but that hypothesis isn't necessary for my #3.
Wait a minute — is there some question about whether this has just happened? I thought it was clear that:
1. A police force just executed a warrant.
2. The warrant was illegal.
3. They executed it at Apple's request. (Or Apple would have denied it and requested that they return the equipment.)
So I don't see how that's an "enormous accusation". It sounds like a simple reporting of the known facts. Do you dispute one of those bullet points?