I asked for "even remotely equivalent" based on:

This is an opportunity for Parks v.2016 - if you're asked by Apple to do anything to comply with the court order, don't do it.

Seems fair?

Hmm, I think if you take that sentence in context, it's clear he's saying it's Parks v.2016 only in the sense of committing worthwhile civil disobedience -- an opportunity to do some good while risking legal consequences.

He wasn't saying that Apple's fight is as noble and necessary as Parks' was, nor was he saying that the government's goal of stopping terrorist attacks is as sinister as the goal of enforcing segregation. I think it was unfair for you to interpret his argument that way.

No I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree here: if he was not trying to draw an equivalence between segregation and this case, and instead was merely trying to say that civil disobedience would be appropriate, then he should not have mentioned Rosa Parks. Doing so clearly attempts to drawn an equivalence. If he didn't mean that, then why not draw it to eg the Oregon occupiers?

Why not draw a comparison to the Oregon occupiers? Because, as I said above, his point is about "committing worthwhile civil disobedience -- an opportunity to do some good while risking legal consequences". Everybody agrees that Rosa Parks' deed was good, thus it serves as a good example.