content: Can you guys help me understand this whole Apple vs. FBI debacle?  There's obviously some key information that I'm missing or misunderstanding. I've looked pretty far into this ordeal--down to reading a good chunk of the court order myself.  And from what I can tell, the appeal against the FBI's demands by Tim Cook is nothing but demagoguery to the masses when in reality there's nothing to be concerned about. So, here's the breakdown I've gathered: in the wake of the San Bernadino terrorist attack, the FBI has collected data on the culprit.  They have the iPhone in their possession, the property rights of it have been forfeited, and they can now do with it whatever they want.  The problem is that they can't figure out the passcode to unlock the phone, and so the data is inaccessible to them, and it could potentially be erased if they don't tread carefully.  So what the FBI has done is requested Apple to use their technology in whatever way they can to make this phone's data erase and incremental delay features be bypassed so that FBI can continue their investigation.  This seems like the type of request that is completely reasonable, since in this circumstance the government doesn't seem to have anyone else to turn to.  A couple of disparities that need to be cleared: This has nothing to do with the Fourth Amendment or unwarranted searches and seizures.  The software that the FBI wants Apple to create does not need to be turned over to them.  They can--and should--keep it proprietary.  They can even destroy it if they so desire.  I don't trust the government in the slightest, so if they were requesting Apple to create a back door that they could access at any time, then I'd be the first to advocate against that request.  But that's not what's being asked here.  Apple keeps thousands of secrets.  Every major computer company does.  I don't understand why this would somehow be different.  And if it happens that the software they developed started to leak, then I'm sure Apple would be quick to send out a patch that makes existing iPhones impervious to the keys that were inadvertently released. The All Writs Act does no such thing that Tim Cook suggested in his letter.  The All Writs Act only applies under extreme circumstances and after warrants have been made and subpoenas filed.  Each case will remain hand-picked and individualized and there will be no breach of individual privacy or overreach of government authority if this specific writ is met.  Will there be future occurrences where the government needs to access data inside of an iPhone that they can't unlock themselves?  Most likely.  But that doesn't mean that everybody's phone is vulnerable or automatically susceptible to government access. There are two cases which I haven't further looked into where Apple would be justified in not complying.  The first is if it turns out that the government doesn't need to turn to Apple to access the data in this phone.  However, given the fact that Apple made the software, they have a massive operational advantage in this field, and it wouldn't surprise me if they were the only ones capable of fulfilling the government's request.  I know that John McAfee has claimed that he and his crew will volunteer to get into the phone so that Apple doesn't have to, and if it turns out that they can do that then there's no reason for the FBI to bother Apple.  But I'm not confident that he's capable of doing that, and if he was, then Apple would definitely be able to as well.  That brings me into the second case, where the government request is literally impossible for Apple to perform--in a sense, that they've made that phone to be "Apple-proof," and that there's nothing they can do to bypass the security features.  This is what Apple is claiming, and in that case, then John McAfee is bluffing and he can't actually get into the phone either.  But even still, the All Writs Act wouldn't apply here because it would be too burdensome on the company, and the government would be shit outta luck. I'd like to make a small point, though.  The things that Cook is concerned about--that the government could reach into anyone's phones and capture their data if this follows through--are things that the government can already do with their technology.  THAT'S something I think we should be more concerned about, and it's wholly independent of the Apple case. Tell me there's something I'm missing or that I'm ignorant on, because I seem to be completely alone with my views in this regard.