Apple CEO Tim Cook just weighed in on Deflategate.

On Tom Brady’s side.

Not directly — but powerfully.

In essence, Cook has refused to search a terrorist's iPhone because of privacy, yet Roger Goodell is still trying to punish Brady for refusing to hand his over.

Deflategate is soon to be in the headlines again — Goodell’s four-game suspension of Brady was overturned by a judge last September, but the NFL appealed and next month, the case will be back before the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York.

Guess what the linchpin of the NFL appeal centers on?

No, not that the footballs were deflated — scientists have proved conditions that day would absolutely have lessened ball-pressure by halftime. All Goodell has left on that charge is the iffy claim that there was a “scheme” to deflate the balls — even though they weren’t deflated. That's "Count 1" of the appeal.

But the real basis of the case is "Count 2" — that Brady didn’t cooperate with the investigation, particularly because of one act.

Here’s the exact wording of the NFL's charge:

“Mr. Brady willfully obstructed the investigation by, among other things, affirmatively arranging for destruction of his cellphone knowing that it contained potentially relevant information.”

In other words, Deflategate at this point is all about Brady refusing to let the NFL search his cell.

Tim Cook this week put that in a whole new light.

Stunningly, Cook refused to help the FBI break into the smartphone of one of the San Bernardino terrorists.

It’s a hugely controversial stand. Many, including presidential candidates, say he’s defying an essential tool in law enforcement — a legal search warrant.

But Cook has plenty of defenders, including the head of Google. They claim smartphones are different because they contain our most intimate information, pictures, messages and secrets.

If Apple were forced to create software to break into a phone, says Cook, that could be used not just in criminal cases, but by government, industry and hackers to invade perhaps the single deepest source of our privacy.

Many say that in a case like the San Bernardino bomber, national security is more important than privacy.

Yet Cook understands how ruinous it could be to open up smartphones to fishing expeditions, so he's taking a stand.

It's the exact stand that Tom Brady took when he destroyed his phone.

A superstar like Brady keenly knew the danger of handing over his cell. Despite Goodell's claim he wanted only to look for Deflategate comments, Brady knew his most personal information would likely leak, and be twisted all over the web.

You don't have to be a superstar to feel the same way. Most people could be humiliated, or have their lives disrupted, if someone twisted their personal phone messages out of context. Would you want to risk it? Would Roger Goodell?

Whether or not you agree with Tim Cook, his stand is a reminder that enabling fishing expeditions in smartphones is so onerous that permission to do so even against a terrorist may well end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

And yet Goodell feels he should have had the right to take Brady's cell on demand — and is now trying to punish him for refusing.

That's what this crusade is now about — not deflated footballs, but mostly, Brady protecting his phone.

Tim Cook just made it clear that smartphones are at the highest level of our right to privacy and not just anyone should be able to breach that.

Here’s hoping the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals is paying attention.

mpatinki@providencejournal.com

(401) 277-7370

On Twitter: @MarkPatinkin

Follow on Facebook: Mark Patinkin