If you ask yourself if the contents of the phone could reasonably aid in saving other lives and bring about justice for those lost, then many would without a doubt say yes, make it public.  Equally if it was some politicians emails then would they equally be happy for Apple to deny access being another question you could ask with many comming up different perspective of reply if you just ask the question about privacy.<p>Privacy is important but as with any rule, there has too be exceptions and I would say clear lives at stake would be one case.<p>But equaly the way things work and setting precidence, I can totally understand Apples and those supporting it&#x27;s stance as  
the way things work in law is once the door is open, its a lot harder to close it.  If better prevision without blanket abuse and a case by case basis could be approved and not set some blanket level of privacy abuse then again many would be happier.<p>Alas it is the way the government has approached this in that  they would be in effect given a way that could be used with this but any other such devices at no need to even speak with Apple that is the real crux I feel.<p>We agree terroisim and indeed impacting others life spans is not the types of crimes we want hiding behind encryption or law, be that individuals or goverments themselves.  But in a World in which such terroisim definitions and associated laws have and are being used on a scale and definition that trancends what a terroist is, then the element of suspicion and mistrust on the use of the term to jsutify any law or action comes more and more under public scrutiny and concerns of how it will be abused more than it should.<p>So an area that is very much dammed if you do and potential dammed if you do no equally.  But for now Apple as others equally say are making the right moves, albeit II hope a fair and acceptable compromise is established and no blanket precedence that does more harm than good goes thru.