There is no reasonable argument to be made that people shouldn't have higher quality products when they _don't_ cost more^.
Apple only have to develop "unbreakable" encryption once and then it costs them no more to make it available in every iPhone than to only make it available in some of them. Indeed, it'd be cheaper than maintaining both breakable and "unbreakable" variants.
There are arguments to be made about the secure enclave hardware, since it presumably costs more to make it more tamperproof.
However, securing iPhones against this particular "attack" appears to be a software issue: iOS should never apply updates without an authenticated user approving them first.
^ For the avoidance of doubt, this includes externalized costs.
If you're using a breakable crypto , you're not protected at any given time.
If you're using a watch that's waterproof up to 100m, you're safe up to 100 meters.
To be pedantic, that's not exactly what is meant by 100m Water Resistant, but your point is valid.
Although no watch can be absolutely waterproof, not even at a given depth, there are levels of risk one can accept. A watch you can use at 100m for several hours a day is effectively waterproof if that's the harshest treatment the watch will receive.
Similarly, although no cryptographic system is absolutely unbreakable^, there are levels of risk one can accept. And, unlike with watches, we can design cryptographic systems which, except in the face of unforeseen mathematical breakthroughs, or bugs (or backdoors) in their implementation, cannot be broken in the next few hundred years even by a nation state-level attacker.
I think is it reasonable to describe a cryptographic system that can't be broken within the lifetime of anyone alive today as "unbreakable".
^ Except maybe one-time-pads, depending upon how "unbreakable" is defined.
Now, is a cryptography that can't be broken by anyone except maybe (that hasn't even happened yet) through a specific court order signed by a judge, reasonably secure? I think it qualifies as such. If you need even more security, I'm sure you can use specialized software to achieve it - I'm not saying you shouldn't be allowed to.
Assuming I agree that a security system that can be turned off remotely by its vendor is reasonably secure, it is only a specific court order now. If Apple are successfully compelled to produce a version of iOS that bypasses PIN security, it will be much easier for the FBI to request that it be deployed on phones in the future - after all, that version of iOS will already exist then.
If Apple do make it, I am certain there will quickly be a slew of court orders regarding other iDevices that the authorities have in their possession, all of which are likely to be harder to defeat than the court order they would just have failed to defeat.
However, I don't agree that a security system that can be turned off remotely by its vendor is reasonably secure, anyway. There is nothing technically requiring Apple to wait for a court order: the phone will accept their new software whether or not it comes with a court order. Apple could decide to make PIN cracking available to anyone who can prove they own a given iPhone. Given their attitude, they probably won't, but the actual security mechanism is reliant on their goodwill for it to remain unbroken. I don't consider that reasonable.
this would seem a rather scary precedent of forced, unwilling labor. i wonder if it could be construed as "involuntary servitude".
It depends, how many meters does it have to claim before I can make sudden movements and god forbid press the buttons underwater?