That's really not a fair summary of the situation. Apple took a stand, rightly in my view, to dig their heels in under the request to make a permanent back door for FBI (and likely other groups) usage. There is a massive difference.

> That's really not a fair summary of the situation. Apple took a stand, rightly in my view, to dig their heels in under the request to make a permanent back door for FBI (and likely other groups) usage. There is a massive difference

This is history rewriting, the request, in his least dangerous form, was to unlock a single phone from inside Apple labs by Apple people

Incorrect -- they requested an "instrument", which carries with it all sorts of legal requirements beyond creating an in-house tool.

Source: http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=5645

They made both requests. Apple refused both requests.

I respect that view. Here's where I disagree: I think Apple taking a similar stand for the illegal wiretapping makes sense (giant open door, no court oversight), but not for this case (could be clean roomed, court oversight)

Is a company that makes safes legally required to have a master key or to create a master key even when they don't want to? The question is whether or not a 3rd party can be compelled to create something which does not exist in order to aid in the execution of a search warrant. I think it's pretty clear based on prior All Writs Act precedent[1] that Apple should not be required to produce new software code for cases like this.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._New_York_Tele...

I think there's a strong case for first-amendment rights in code signing even in the case of a non-ephemeral signing key. In any case, look at the use of a search warrant with Lavabit—is it clear that the All Writs act was even their strongest legal suit?

yes, perhaps Apple is doing the right thing for the wrong reason. I also think so. However, it's still the right thing and therefore i support them. Even EFF supports them.

Why do you think they're doing it for the wrong reason? Apple has demonstrated many times their commitment to user privacy, it's not like this was a PR stunt.