If the FBI is to be believed they can compell anyone to do anything. That is effectively the scope of the All Writs Act.

Which means a police state, by definition. (Which is not "jack-booted thugs," but rather "agencies of the state are above the law"). That is the actual reason for trying to establish "All Writs Act applies to anything we want, and allows us to do anything we want."

This will be the actual issue for the courts (and ultimately SCOTUS) to decide, the specific device is just a pretext. Hopefully the judicial branch will recognize how this can essentially cut off both itself and the legislative branch from any real control.

> ...hopefully the judicial branch will recognize...

Not a lot of hope on that front, as they've already demonstrated a willingness to abandon their duties: administrative subpoenas, tens of thousands, issued by federal law enforcement agencies - not courts.

I see "we'll routinely approve almost anything" as significantly different from "meh, do whatever you please; just stop bothering us already".

You are aware that administrative subpoenas don't need approval right? For example: the FBI takes an interest in me and sends a subpoena to my ISP requesting all opened email older than 180 days. No judge involved. Now one could argue that there is still judicial oversight, it simply occurs after the fact... But like I said, tens of thousands of such subpoenas go out every year - it is pretty unrealistic to think that any serious oversight is occurring.

So it is much closer to "meh, do whatever you please..." but more accurately it would be:

Executive branch: "Yeehaa! Get outta mah way checks and balances, we got bad guys to string up and no time for robe wearing slowpokes!"

Legislative branch: "Sounds like a great idea, white hats can do no wrong."

Judicial branch: "...blank stare...shrug".

That is an interesting question. "signing a binary" is a form of endorsement. If code == speech, as Apple is arguing, then compelling the endorsement of code is, quite literally, compelled speech, which may fall afoul of the 1st Amendment.

Apple made this specific argument in their motion to vacate. IMO it's a powerful one, because the potential implications for certificate authorities seem quite staggering.

Dick Clarke has been saying the same.

> Clarke explained that the FBI was trying to get the courts to essentially compel speech from Apple with the All Writs Act. "This is a case where the federal government using a 1789 law trying to compel speech. What the FBI is trying to do is make code-writers at Apple, to make them write code that they do not want to write that will make their systems less secure," he said. "Compelling them to write code. And the courts have ruled in the past that computer code is speech."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/former-cyber-czar...

The FBI is demanding the signing key along with the source code.