&gt; It&#x27;s on you, not me, to make a case.<p>That&#x27;s just the same thing as before. &quot;I&#x27;m right because and therefore I don&#x27;t have to prove anything&quot; is not a convincing argument. You&#x27;re the one wanting to require and prohibit things.<p>&gt; And you completely missed the point, which is that it&#x27;s possible for smart well informed people to disagree with you.<p>That isn&#x27;t a point, it&#x27;s an abstract statement that applies equally to anything. Don&#x27;t tell me how smart you are, convince me why I&#x27;m wrong.<p>&gt; Maybe you should come up with a convincing reason I should fear this FBI request instead of jumping straight to &quot;you must be ignorant&quot;.<p>Because the precedent is what matters. Nobody objects to the FBI having access to this phone, the objection is to the FBI being able to force someone else to help them do it.<p>What happens when Apple makes an iPhone they themselves can&#x27;t hack and then the FBI points to this precedent and says &quot;we order you to hack this&quot;? If they&#x27;re allowed to say no then this case is totally irrelevant to both sides and will only happen once, because from here out that is exactly what would happen. But if the FBI can point to this precedent and nobody will be allowed to refuse then it would be a prohibition on making a secure device. Which is the thing to be feared.