I'm not generally one to start debates about political/news issues, but this one is rather disturbing. A recent privacy legal battle is starting again (or continuing). The US government is attempting to force Apple to write a program that will allow them access to Apple devices. If you've heard the over-simplified blurbs in the news, it probably reads something like "Apple refuses to unlock San Bernadino Shooter's Phone". The administration is really taking the low road on this one and picking a case that will make Apple sound like co-conspirators in domestic terrorism.

In reality though, it's not just that they won't 'unlock' their phone or release code or documentation on how to do it, but their attempting to compell them to write a program that will allow them to open any Apple device. Apple's argument is that this is tantamount to compelled speech and is fighting it.

I'm rather confused as to why they have to resort to the 'compelled speach' defense. How can the government force anyone to work for them? Can they just force a construction company to build a building for them?

I'm kind of surprised the topic isn't already up here since it's computer/tech related, but maybe the purposeful linking of the case to San-Bernidino is having it's indended effect of silencing objection.

(Full disclosure: I'm left-leaning politically and socially, but against government backdoors/tech-spying. Creates huge security holes and they've shown they can't keep their own data safe.)

The hesitancy on the part of Apple to comply with this lawful order is due to the fact that once that software is released into the wild, it enables the FBI, and all the other possessors of bute-force cracking machinery, to have an arbitrary back door into any and every iPhone in existence. Needless to say, that would have the unintended consequence of destroying Apple Corps. bottom line.

Without commenting on whether Apple or the government is in the right (and generally, I distrust both), I think saying it'll destroy "Apple Corps. bottom line" is exaggeration.

Apple makes the bulk of their money by selling overpriced hardware to computer-ignorant people who want to look cool. Apple is now very much like Nike.
Intelligent and tech-savy consumers are likely a small segment of Apple's sales, and that's the only segment that Apple is likely to lose sales from if Apple met minipax's demands.

I'd have to disagree. The reason they are fighting it is due to past bottom-line problems. Before the Snowden leaks, Apple gleefully complied with the government with no argument. Once the leaks got out, they began to fight it. It damaged their reputation in other coutries, damaged trust in the company, and essentially made them an arm of the U.S. government. If it hadn't damaged their bottom-line, they wouldn't be fighting it.

If it hasn't cost them money, they at least perceive the possibility that it will cost them money. At some point, governments could easily pass laws stating that it's illegal to distribute software that has a government backdoor in it - which would cut them off from the rest of the world if enough countries did it. All it would take is the EU issuing some law (or guidline or whatever they call them) to chop their earnings by 1/3rd.

If you think that's far-fetched, look at what China is doing. Microsoft, who hasn't seemed as willing to fight against it, is essentially being dumped by the Chinese government. They are developing their own OS. China apparently isn't comfortable with the idea of the US government possibly backdooring into their top secret files, weapons, or infrastructure control systems.

I think a big problem with this isn't so much the short-term privacy concerns, but that it's building a information-control infrastructre that is uncomfortably omniscient in any situation where a less democractic law-governed government is in control. Imagine a situation were a dictator decides to use the same system to track, monitor, and eliminate political opponents. Conveniently enough, the same system could be used to reward business allies with information on their competition. It's not like this sort of thing can't happen in the US. Immagine this level of techno-control back during the "Red Scare".

You're right, Apple's global sales is a far larger percentage (66% of their revenue) that I originally thought.