I'll buy the argument that the industry has a duty to protect users, and also that Safari could be designed to better warn about SSL.

> Your response is like saying when Facebook was privacy zuckering, the user clicks right through the settings that should have sounded an alarm.

This is a bit odd, though. On one hand we have a company directly attempting to trick users; on the other, we have a company whose product is being attacked by a hostile government. Drawing an equivalence between the two is a bit ridiculous, no?