There needs to be a distinction between state security and "retail" security. State security agencies have the legal framework to compel Apple to do anything a

There needs to be a distinction between state security and "retail" security. State security agencies have the legal framework to compel Apple to do anything and not even talk about it. What I call "retail" security is any act by any legal enforcement agency in the country. Their requests are bound to be in large numbers and for all kinds of things. On top of that, these requests, apparently, are not yet covered by a legal framework. Hence the need to force upon an old law to try and make Apple comply. What's at stake for Apple is not only their principles but also one of their marketing pillar: "you, the user, can trust us with your data/privacy." By asking Apple to give that up, and quietly, you actually are asking them to undermine their business model. Shareholders will not appreciate that if they wouldn't have a chance to hear about it first. The Apple brand would lose from its value and it would reflect in the AAPL share price. My point is that the whole thing needs to have legal backup. And Apple is asking for this exact thing: give me a law to use. And not something from the 1700's.