&gt; Brining up the most horrible of crimes to justify a particular argument for increasing the powers of law enforcement is an obvious attempt to appeal to emotion, rather than to experience.<p>No it&#x27;s actually an appeal to both. The increase in powers here if any exists whatsoever is minimal. I&#x27;m advocating Apple comply with them.<p>&gt; If your argument is any good, it will be just as good when talking about why the police should be able to search your phone for evidence of tax evasion as it is for talking about why the police should be able to search your phone for evidence of child rape and terrorism.<p>If they can search your home for it, they should be permitted to search your phone for it. Both should have the exact same expectation of privacy and the exact same judicial oversight.<p>&gt; Otherwise, we go to a place where we say, &quot;Well, the shouldn&#x27;t summarily execute people who steal cigars from convenience stores, but when it comes to terrorists, we shouldn&#x27;t let laws get in the way of their need to do what&#x27;s expedient.&quot;<p>There is no evidence that there is any legal protection for Apple here and strong evidence that indeed the FBI can compel them. Nobody is advocating breaking the law or even going around it.