Here is the problem I have with this: First, the government wants to establish a precedent to compel private companies to create new software that makes it easier for the government to do their jobs. This is not merely about Apple giving the feds access to tools already created, this is the feds ordering Apple to create new software. Which is conscription (or slavery to be less charitable). Once that horse left the barn there is no putting it back. What limit would there be on the government to compel anyone to do anything?
Secondly, currently the government says that this is only to fight heinous crimes like terrorism or child pornography. Tomorrow it will be for things that aren't so heinous: non-mainstream pornography, soft drug use, and who knows what else. The sad fact is that there are so many laws that a typical American breaks many of them a week and they don't even realize it. In the past it was just too cumbersome for the government to utilize the manpower to go after all the inadvertent scofflaws. With a network a all-seeing computers that can sneak into all phones it won't be hard for the government to read your text messages, emails, and search your phone contacts for known drug dealers, tea-party subversives, socialist subversives, etc. I don't believe the 4th amendment won't stop them, because the NSA has established a precedent of mass surveillance of entire population to find terrorists (the needle in the haystack problem). It's for the good of the collective, after all.
Finally, it's important to realize that all social movements throughout history started with people breaking the laws of their era. Agree with them or not, the civil rights movement, gay rights, legalization of marijuana in some states, etc. were illegal in the past. Now they are not because enough people banded together and tried to change the laws. If these movements were snuffed out before they got rolling by a government that has a vested interest in keeping the status quo, would you say that's a good thing? I don't. I may not agree with other people on controversial issues but I do respect that they have a right to agitate for the change they want to see. Pervasive surveillance could strangle that in the womb.
“Pervasive surveillance could strangle that in the womb.”
True. But the order specifically addresses this phone, this mechanism to defeat the self destruct part of the system and they do not want the key itself. They have offered to pay for the cost - they are NOT demanding it be done free - and until there is a Constitutional amendment and search warrants are abolished, this isn’t going away. Tackling this in this manner is no easy way to do it. But fir now, I di niit imagine America having no ability to access the important (in my opinion) part of the fourth that protcts us. The bad guys will do what they do, but that doesn’t mean we should allow it.
“First, the government wants to establish a precedent to compel private companies to create new software that makes it easier for the government to do their jobs.”
Yes, of course. When you issue a legal court order, you expect to get compliance with the 4th amendment. It’s the basis of our freedom. Why is that news?