<i>&quot;They were pretty clear that there are major differences in the case in the article you linked to.&quot;</i><p>No, there really aren&#x27;t. From the article:<p><i>&quot;The cases are different, but the underlying legal question is very similar,&quot; says Alex Abdo, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union. &quot;The question in the New York case is whether the government can rely on this very old statute to conscript Apple into government service.&quot;</i><p>Moreover, the &quot;ask&quot; in this case is nearly identical. Apple is being asked only to bypass the 10-failed-attempt device wipe, so that investigators can enumerate all 10,000 codes:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;arstechnica.com&#x2F;apple&#x2F;2016&#x2F;02&#x2F;encryption-isnt-at-stake-the-fbi-knows-apple-already-has-the-desired-key&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;arstechnica.com&#x2F;apple&#x2F;2016&#x2F;02&#x2F;encryption-isnt-at-stak...</a><p>...which means that it&#x27;s effectively <i>exactly the same thing</i> that Apple has done in previous cases. The only technological difference is one that has been manufactured by Apple.<p>This whole thing boils down to a question of whether or not Apple should facilitate a brute-force attack on a single phone, under a search warrant, for a known criminal. And they&#x27;ve done same thing 70-some times in the past.