&gt;<i>&quot;hundreds of iPhones they want Apple to unlock if the FBI wins this case.&quot;</i><p>Only hundreds?<p>It&#x27;s not &quot;unlocking&quot; anyway, it&#x27;s exposing the phones to an opportunity of cracking them open. A non-trivial time-consuming task, hardly the domain of opportunistic hackers with stolen iPhones.<p>&gt;<i>&quot;government-ordered backdoor.</i>&quot;<p>&quot;Backdoor&quot; is not what is being asked for, so they shouldn&#x27;t use the word &quot;backdoor&quot;.<p>Encryption is not under threat by this request. If raw computing power can break the encryption, then Apple should improve their encryption. Use more bits, more salt or whatever. Make it so a computer needs 50 years to crack a password, even with electronic brute force. Then it wouldn&#x27;t matter whether the self-destruct kicked in or not.<p>And no mention of the compromise offer for Apple to keep the alternative OS on their premises and destroy it after.<p>Apple are trying just a bit too hard to &quot;not put customers at risk&quot;. The risk is almost zero.<p>If Apple&#x27;s security was as good as they claim, then not even Apple, no matter what they did to help, could crack the phone. That&#x27;s where we want to be. At the point where it simply doesn&#x27;t matter what the FBI asks for, the phone is uncrackable. Sounds to me like we&#x27;re not there yet. Apple helping crack this phone will help us get there. And that&#x27;s why I don&#x27;t agree with Apple&#x27;s position here. Let&#x27;s see this phone cracked open, and then evolve the security to a point where a similar request would be impossible to achieve no matter what Apple or anyone did.