I disagree. This is all about setting precedents. Once one of the dominoes falls, it's much easier for the others to start falling as well.
Apple is saying the FBI is using this law to expand their power to mandate a backdoor in all devices. If this is successful, then the FBI can mandate that all secure hardware/software companies backdoor their products.
Do we roll over and let the FBI do this because "oh, this is just one case, it's fine" or do we set a boundary? If a child does something wrong, you scold them immediately. You don't wait for them to do it the 10th time. By then it's too late.
Apple says the FBI is using this law to mandate a backdoor. And that's exactly what I don't buy. The FBI's demand here is merely to use an existing security hole, which Apple created.
I simply don't see the leap from "this device is insecure, pleas unlock it for us" to "all devices you make must be insecure."
Apple is saying the FBI is using this law to expand their power to mandate a backdoor in all devices. If this is successful, then the FBI can mandate that all secure hardware/software companies backdoor their products.
Do we roll over and let the FBI do this because "oh, this is just one case, it's fine" or do we set a boundary? If a child does something wrong, you scold them immediately. You don't wait for them to do it the 10th time. By then it's too late.