&gt; Just because they have a tool doesn&#x27;t authorize them to use it.<p>Why do you think they wouldn&#x27;t use it? Of course they would use the tools that are available. The FBI&#x27;s regular use of &quot;stingray&quot; devices (&quot;IMSI-catchers&quot;) has was in the news recently, as just one example.<p>Law enforcement does a lot of stuff without a warrant. The &quot;exclusionary rule&quot; doesn&#x27;t prevent them from conducting a search; it only allows the defense to get the evidence from those warrantless searches thrown out. The problem with modern data technology (for both mass surveillance and easy access to private data such as an Apple phone) is that it makes <i>parallel construction</i> much easier, where data found during a warrantless search is laundered illegally into a new search that can be used in a court.<p>Besides, the FBI has stated many times how they intend to continue accessing phones and other network devices.<p>&gt;  they are a huge company<p>So you believe Apple should be <i>de facto</i> deputized into a law enforcement role against their will and at their expense, just because they are &quot;huge&quot;?<p>&gt; Apple can request to get paid<p>As this will continue into the future (the FBI apparently already has a list of cases in waiting), do you really think the government will continue funding Apple for their new law enforcement role? The government doesn&#x27;t get to nationalize part of a corporation just because it would be convenient for law enforcement.