&gt; I&#x27;m aware of all that<p>Was your original question rhetorical?  In case it wasn&#x27;t clear by my summary, no, we should not be satisfied with a longer passphrase.  We should be concerned about the precedent-setting nature of this case.<p>&gt; your summary wasn&#x27;t needed<p>This is an open discussion.  Nobody&#x27;s forcing you to read my summary.<p>&gt; &quot;I think&quot; is not a bad thing to say once in a while.<p>I think that is implied by the fact that I wrote all that.  Anything that I haven&#x27;t cited is my personal take on the issues.<p>&gt; I think Apple should help unlock these phones, with the condition that such help may be impossible in future versions of the OS<p>Nobody believes the FBI will adhere to this condition.  They can always change their minds down the road.<p>&gt; It&#x27;s a bit like chess<p>It is like chess, you&#x27;re right.  The move has been made and the hand removed from the piece.  Time to act, carpe diem.  The best thing to do now is educate people about encryption and potentially make this an election issue at some point in the future.  Right now the public has nothing to do with this case.  It&#x27;s going to be decided in a court among experts, lawyers and judges.<p>&gt;  Apple should comply now, and make a better chess move later<p>That&#x27;s fine, it&#x27;s your opinion.  I disagree, and would add that now is the right time to take a stand while this is in the public spotlight.  It will take time to educate the public about encryption and we might as well start now.  Compelling Apple to circumvent its own security will make us less safe.  There is a black market where exploits are bought by intelligence communities, and if Apple creates this exploit, there&#x27;s a chance it will fall into the wrong hands.