Ultimately the decision is up to those engineers. I'm just sharing my opinion. I've left former employers on moral grounds and later realized I could've resolved those differences within myself and effected change in ways other than quitting.
Quitting doesn't save Apple. Does it help your job prospects as a security engineer? I'm not so sure about that either, but then again I'm not a security employer.
Hypothetically, if I were, then as an employer I might be more interested in the guy who stuck it out working with the government at Apple. He'd be able to give me a heads up on what conversations are like with the government and what the government might be able to impose on my business.
Well, it kind of does. Right now we're approaching Poe's law with the use of AWA to compel the writing of code, but we're still just barely in the realm of keep-a-straight-face-defensible (largely because the bulk of the population is less tech literate than is ideal). If even a few of Apple's key security engineers quit at the same time, then it becomes very easy for Apple to make the case that they literally cannot do what is asked anytime soon (how long for a new team to cold boot with a new codebase whose domain is cryptography and no one around to provide guidance/tribal knowledge?). In any sane universe this would show that the request has crossed the line into overly burdensome. It is very hard to justify massive penalties to incentivize compliance with something that Apple may or may not be able to do anytime soon [0].
So that would basically leave them the option of stopping the insanity or going after the individual engineers and compelling them, which opens up a whole other heap of lunacy which might have to get resolved before Apple would again be on the hook for action.
If the court then decides that it will compel the individual engineers who are now no longer Apple employees to work.... They're forcing labor from unwilling non-criminal citizens (13th?); they're compelling code, which is speech, and compelling association between the engineers and Apple who would presumably need to be compelled to rehire them because you can't make someone work for free (double 1st); as someone has mentioned they could institute a draft (??) but I'm sure there would be legal contest regarding conscripting specific individuals against their will and this would require the cooperation of congress, the military, the NSA, and it still wouldn't get them the thing they actually want which is precedent.
[0] From wikipedia: "the [fined] party is said to "hold the keys" to his or her own cell" which justifies the lack of a trial for civil contempt fines. If you cannot comply, you lack the ability to escape the fines, you are not receiving due process. I think this little corner of the law might actually be the bulwark that makes zero knowledge systems legally safe as well, though if you have an auto-update system you still would need the code-is-speech, cannot-compel-speech protections to round this out.
> Hypothetically, if I were, then as an employer I might be more interested in the guy who stuck it out working with the government at Apple.
One of the principal drivers of the positive effect on career prospects is the publicity this sort of public gesture would generate. Sure, all else being equal, many may prefer the engineer that sticks with the company. But all else is not equal. This particular gesture would generate a lot of publicity tied to the engineers eligibility for hire. Sticking with the company ends the story and would not likely garner nearly the same level of personal publicity, if any.
I'm not making any sort of value judgement as to whether this would be an ethically good or bad thing for an Apple security engineer to do. I just don't think they will really be risking much because enough people will view it as an attractive public display of personal integrity that s/he would have her/his pick of jobs. It would also be an ideal opportunity to launch a security consultancy.
The move isn't completely devoid of personal risk, but the risk seems to be overwhelmed by the opportunities that it would generate in my estimation. That is to say, it would be a good bet, and far from a true self sacrifice.
Quitting doesn't save Apple. Does it help your job prospects as a security engineer? I'm not so sure about that either, but then again I'm not a security employer.
Hypothetically, if I were, then as an employer I might be more interested in the guy who stuck it out working with the government at Apple. He'd be able to give me a heads up on what conversations are like with the government and what the government might be able to impose on my business.