> in the absence of a law that compels us to write software, which is unconstitutional btw
In their 2016 dispute with the FBI, the gist of Apple's 1A and 5A arguments were:
Writing software is a form of speech within the meaning of the First Amendment. Forcing Apple to create software would therefore be compelled speech and so the order to do so must be narrowly tailored to obtain a compelling state interest (see: "strict scrutiny").
The FBI has a legitimate interest in investigating and prosecuting terrorists, but their request does not pass strict scrutiny:
1. The government was only vaguely speculating that there might be something useful on the iPhone, but what was requested would have far reaching adverse consequences beyond just that single device.
2. Apple publicly values privacy and data security. Forcing Apple to create software (i.e. compel speech) that runs contrary to their values is a form of viewpoint discrimination.
3. Apple is a private party in the matter, far removed from the crime itself and the request is a lot of work. So conscripting Apple to assist the government in the matter would constitute an undue burden and therefore be a violation of Apple's substantive due process rights.
In their 2016 dispute with the FBI, the gist of Apple's 1A and 5A arguments were:
Writing software is a form of speech within the meaning of the First Amendment. Forcing Apple to create software would therefore be compelled speech and so the order to do so must be narrowly tailored to obtain a compelling state interest (see: "strict scrutiny").
The FBI has a legitimate interest in investigating and prosecuting terrorists, but their request does not pass strict scrutiny:
1. The government was only vaguely speculating that there might be something useful on the iPhone, but what was requested would have far reaching adverse consequences beyond just that single device.
2. Apple publicly values privacy and data security. Forcing Apple to create software (i.e. compel speech) that runs contrary to their values is a form of viewpoint discrimination.
3. Apple is a private party in the matter, far removed from the crime itself and the request is a lot of work. So conscripting Apple to assist the government in the matter would constitute an undue burden and therefore be a violation of Apple's substantive due process rights.