This is some pretty wacky legal argument.<p>Background:<p>&gt;  Here, as in those other cases, the government had a search warrant for the device, but it was thwarted by the device’s lock screen in executing the search.<p>&gt; The government cannot impose an unreasonable burden on Apple<p>And the case EFF cites to for that proposition holds: &quot;We conclude, however, that the order issued here [requiring a telephone company to assist the FBI in wiretapping its customers] against respondent was clearly authorized by the All Writs Act and was consistent with the intent of Congress.&quot;<p>&gt; and it cannot violate the Constitution.<p>Sure. But the fact that there&#x27;s a warrant takes away your biggest Constitutional argument--the 4th amendment.<p>&gt; What’s more, such an order would be unconstitutional. Code is speech, and forcing Apple to push backdoored updates would constitute “compelled speech” in violation of the First Amendment<p>So the government can&#x27;t force Toyota to push a firmware update to fix faulty electronic throttles?<p>&gt; government keeps pushing for “exceptional access” to encrypted devices and communications.<p>But that&#x27;s the thing. It&#x27;s not &quot;exceptional.&quot; Since the founding, the compromise is that the government can get at nearly any place that might contain evidence, so long as it has a warrant. Digital privacy proponents are trying to move the goal line, limiting government power in unprecedented ways.<p>Note bene: I support pervasive encryption and oppose back doors.