I&#x27;m really trying to figure out what this case is really about, vs. what the players are saying it is about.<p>The government says it just wants to unlock this one iPhone.  But is it really just looking for a legal precedent in a case that the public is likely to support the unlocking?<p>Apple says is it afraid of creating a &quot;master key&quot; that could fall into the wrong hands.  But doesn&#x27;t it already have such a key, in the form of a signing key controlling what payloads the iPhone will agree to load?  Is Apple primarily concerned with both precedent and perception of security on its phones?<p>I personally feel that any mechanism by which iPhones could be unlocked with a warrant -- but <i>only</i> with a warrant (ie. the gov&#x27;t physically lacks the capability to do it themselves) -- is a good compromise.  It&#x27;s in Apple&#x27;s interest to push back on such requests, so you have two powerful and well-funded entities adversarially fighting to define the line of what can get unlocked and what can&#x27;t.<p>Now NSL&#x27;s, those are a whole different kettle of fish.