If the FBI forced you to help, what would you do?

Tech companies comply with warrants all the time, but what the FBI wants, Apple doesn't have--and doesn't think it should be compelled to create. Lost in the debates about privacy and encryption, however, is the real dilemma facing Apple here. Let me put this dilemma in more human terms with a thought experiment.

How would you feel if the government told you that they are prepared to take you to court in order to force you to create something for them which does not currently exist, that in the wrong hands could harm billions of people (even if they pinky promise not to use it on anybody else but the bad man up the street)

I'm sure you'd think really carefully before you called in sick and drove up to your friendly neighborhood FBI office. Now let's add some real-world pressure: the FBI next calls up the local news and soon enough the neighbors are protesting at your house accusing you of protecting the pedophile down the street because you haven't helped them the way they asked.

It would take a lot of guts to stick to your principles at that point. What would you do if this was you instead of Apple?

To understand what is being asked of Apple, let's compare the iPhone to the lock on a front door which has been re-keyed by a locksmith so the lock's maker no longer knows which key will open it. The FBI has a warrant, so they could always get inside the house by breaking the door but they're afraid of damaging evidence if they do that so they've decided to ask the court to force the lock maker to do something special for them.

Essentially, they want the lock maker to make a special cylinder that can be switched out by the FBI from the outside of the house, and they want that special cylinder to disable any of the protections in the lock mechanism that prevented someone from the outside from defeating the lock. And even though they likely have the capability themselves to defeat the lock by carefully drilling through the cylinder, they want this special cylinder so badly (because they have a bunch of warrants for other houses with this same lock that are hard to get into) that they tell the judge that having the lock maker create this special cylinder is the only way they are confident they can get past the lock.

By the way, none of this means the lock maker actually has this special cylinder in the first place, or even possesses the knowledge or ability to do what the FBI is asking and create one,  However let's not let that stop us - let's decide for now that whether any of this is technically possible doesn't matter and the lock maker is indeed able to make this special cylinder. At this point, the FBI will have in its possession the special cylinder and it uses it on the lock. Next, it takes the cylinder and uses it on the other locks with warrants, because it's got legal precedent now. Pretty soon, it's getting a lot of use, and a few agents are using it even when there isn't a warrant. 

At this point only the government has the special cylinder but at some point the value of the cylinder becomes so great that a few agents (who now have access to these cylinders whenever they ask) manage to "lose" the cylinders assigned to them, and they fall into the hands of criminal gangs. If the lock maker tries to make a new lock that can't be defeated with the special cylinder, the government now has precedent to compel them to make a new special cylinder for the improved model, so they're afraid to invest in product improvements that make their product secure again. And the other lock makers know it's only a matter of time before they'll be forced to break their products, so they start building in weaknesses into their products in the hope that they can avoid all the pain that their competitor is going through. Only a few small lock makers are truly building secure locks anymore, and they're afraid to advertise too loudly for fear they'll be targeted next.

Eventually only the determined (and often the criminal) are able to find good, secure locks. The rest of us are exposed and often targeted by criminals who have figured out how to defeat our locks. The FBI is happy on the one hand, because they have less work to do than ever to bypass a lock. But other government agencies are in crisis, because just like the general populace they find themselves vulnerable and exposed to these attacks on the locks they buy. The specialists with good locks don't dare sell to the government for fear of being the target of law enforcement themselves, so citizens are doubly penalized.

None of this should have happened if the constitution were being followed because the government can't do things like force a doctor to deliberately harm a patient or force a journalist to deliberately share a false news report, even though the government can limit their actions or compel their testimony (as long as it's not self-incriminating), which can include their records and knowledge.

Once the government is able to force you to become their agent and deliberately act against your rights and interests (and those of your family, friends, and customers), you are no longer free.

This doesn't mean free people can't have obligations (and even have those enforced by court orders), but they must enter into those freely and not through coercion. There are a few exceptions to this laid out by the constitution and subsequent laws (taxes, jury duty, and providing testimony at the trial of others, for example), but these are narrowly defined, reasonable, and essential to the functioning of our government. Until now.

People like me that build products that use encryption know the clash between law enforcement and product integrity was inevitable. We had hoped (in vain, it turns out) that the debate around it could be civil and informed. To me, the world of compelled creative works now being contemplated should Apple be required to create a trojan horse for the FBI is much more scary than the world we know today with terrorism - I can only hope that our courts and our lawmakers are able to discern this in time to prevent a much worse catastrophe.