They are not asking for the ability to unlock any phone at any time for any reason.
When he was asked by Oregon Senator Ron Wyden, “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?”
Director of National Intelligence and Admiral James Clapper: “No, sir.”
Wyden: “It does not?”
Clapper: “Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently perhaps collect, but not wittingly.”
^These are the people you're saying "aren't asking" for the ability. They are asking for a universal lock picking kit and the legal authority to strong-arm any manufacturer into allowing access to the keys for their devices as well. If you honestly believe that they wouldn't use these tools for other cases beyond this one phone, I've got this amazing bridge you may be interested in.
And I never said anything about a single phone. I fully expect that the FBI would use this capability to unlock lots of other phones either with the owner's permission, or with a warrant. (Just as they do today, with every other type of phone.)
Then you do not understand the security model of the phone, and should take the time the learn the actual issue before making statements in support of the FBI.
The frustrating bit for me is that many people believe that a courts power is unlimited and that simply by virtu of the FBI obtaining a rubber stamp from a court it makes their demand A OK... makes their demand ethical, moral, or constitutional.
The frustrating bit for me is that many people on the side of the FBI believe because people died in a terrorist act that justifies any loss of privacy and liberty for anyone now and in the future.
>and asking for that court order to be executed, is very different from "an authoritarian surveillance regime". It is exact opposite
Actually it is not. Almost all Authoritarian Surveillance Regime are perfectly legal, and have the full blessing of the Law and Courts in their jurisdictions. In fact by having a courts approval, and the authorization under law that makes it a surveillance STATE the key requirement of a surveillance state is said surveillance happens legally.
>Whenever they come up against anything that was signed with an AES key, just go "oh well, can't get it"?
Yes. There seems to be an idea that the FBI is entitled to, has a right to all information at all times provided it ordered by a court somewhere. This flies in the face of historical fact. Never in human history has law enforcement had more information about its citizen, the needle is HEAVILY pointed in favor of the government, Encryption gives the citizens some limited authority to take that back. This idea that the government is entitled to know everything about you under court order is naive and not based in reality or history.