Thanks for working with me, I understand your point about distrusting future courts over current ones. I don't think it's too hard for Apple to do this; they c

Thanks for working with me, I understand your point about distrusting future courts over current ones. I don't think it's too hard for Apple to do this; they could probably turn out the request in very short order. However, as soon as they let this go and do that very thing, their legal obligations skyrocket as thousands of cases pour in; in truth, my cynical conjecture is that this is the very reason Apple is fighting this fight. Not for the consumer, but to minimize the very real cost associated with satisfying this kind of request. The Secure Enclave is likely as much a legal defense for Apple as it is a technological one for the consumer. Whatever the motivation, in this case the consumer seems to win. I must admit I don't disagree with the specific details of the actual case. What I draw exception to is the specificity of the ruling (dictating how Apple does business) and the precedent it sets of enabling courts to force a company to create. That exception is exacerbated by this case's proximity to the FBI's very recent and very real behavior regarding cryptographic systems.