&gt;&gt;  <i>&quot;The thing is, if privacy advocates lose this fight, we have a greater chance of losing the next one.&quot;</i><p>&gt; you could say that about any skirmish in the privacy debate. Every legal case sets some precedent that affects the next one.<p>Yes and no.  The role of the judiciary is to interpret and implement the law.  They are not supposed to create law.  That is the job of Congress.<p>This case is <i>so unprecedented</i> that there&#x27;s a chance the precedent here will effectively create a law.  It will come down to a matter of interpretation by the justices.  If they rule against Apple, the message is, <i>&quot;This is covered by the AWA, and the AWA was intended to compel companies to weaken their products&#x27; security&quot;</i>.  In that case, many of us in the public feel that the justices will have unfairly created a new law.<p>If they rule for Apple, the message is, <i>&quot;This is an undue burden being forced upon Apple.  That is not the intention of the AWA.  If you want them to comply, go to Congress and ask for a law&quot;</i><p>Obama was a lawyer, he knows this, and in light of the public&#x27;s disapproval of mass surveillance, he chose the path (the AWA) that is most likely to get him what he wants, which is to grant law enforcement access to all iPhones.  The public currently will not re-elect congressmen and women who push through new surveillance laws.<p>P.S.  I like your site vayable.com