This is exactly what the FBI want's you to think and why they've carefully handpicked this case to try and set this legal precedent on - ridding us of our fundamental rights to privacy and security.

Out of all the 13 pending cases the FBI have with Apple using the All Writs Act (they've also said they have another 175 iPhones to unlock), this has the least chance of holding anything meaningful given it's his consent-to-monitor work phone, not his personal phone (which he destroyed), wasn't used at the scene of the crime, of which the FBI already have 6 week old iCloud backups of and would've had all the phones iCloud backups if they hadn't disabled them by instructing for the phones password to be reset.

Yet of all the pending cases under seal this is the one they've chosen to break character and go public on, exploiting this tragic event and using the fear around terror and emotions of victims for maximum PR and political effect to further their agenda of violating the security of millions of customers - which is both deceitful and clever, as apparently it's working.

I've always watched in bewilderment at the US Govt's response to terror, they're prepared to spend trillions fighting wars, billions changing Airport security, aren't prepared to do anything to change the easy access to the semi-automatic weapons that were actually used to kill all the victims, but are prepared to compromise the security and privacy of millions of peoples lives, violating 1st and 5th amendment constitutional rights for the theater of accessing useless data on a dead terrorist's work phone - for something which US citizens have less chance to die from than their own furniture? ...and the US public majority approves.

> trillions fighting wars, billions changing Airport security

That's only the means, not the goal, because...

> bewilderment

Spending massive amounts of money on wars makes a lot more sense once you realize that it's intended to channel money into their friends (and their jobs post-public service) in the military-industrial complex. Eisenhower warned[1] us, but the public didn't listen.

[1] his farewell address was amazingly prescient: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWiIYW_fBfY

> But in case of a true terrorist, the answer should not be not that hard.

In the cases of true terrorists, having access to phone records and even having the father of a terrorist report on his own son hasn't been enough to stop attacks.

So, you should be asking whether or not you should be giving up your right to privacy and awarding the government broad powers that, based on historical data, won't reliably help prevent terrorist attacks, but that will be used far outside the original scope for which they were granted.

You should also not just be asking about the current government, but all future governments, and be able to trust that they will only act in the best interest of their citizens.

> I didn't see anything wrong with 'Should Apple be forced to give the Terrorist's phone data to the FBI'

Thats really not even remotely a legitimate question in this instance. If Apple "had" the data Im sure they would give it up readily (and probably have already in this and other instances). But they physically or digitally do not have the data to give.

But the FBI's request isn't limited to only phones used by categorically proven terrorists. They want to be able to unlock and unencrypt phones that pass a much lower bar regarding evidence of criminal activity - arguably to the point where they have a backdoor to any phone they want to look inside of. That's why Apple has to fight this case. It isn't about terrorists, that's just the PR spin the FBI are using. It's about much more than that.