The larger issue, by far, is whether we are a free people. From the article: CLARKE: No, the point I'm trying to make is there are limits. And what this

The larger issue, by far, is whether we are a free people. From the article: CLARKE: No, the point I'm trying to make is there are limits. And what this is is a case where the federal government, using a 1789 law, is trying to compel speech. And courts have ruled in the past, appropriately, that the government cannot compel speech. What the FBI and the Justice Department are trying to do is to make code writers at Apple - to make them write code that they do not want to write that will make their systems less secure. If the FBI gets its way in this case, forcing Apple employees to perform a service for the government, then it sets the precedent for the government to compel anyone to do anything the government wants. When you are forced to work for someone against your will, this is called slavery. Of course the FBI used a terrorist attack to try and get what it's always wanted, and it will abuse the unlock power in the future if it gets it now, but judges could easily cite this case as a defense for the government to compel other action from the people. Clarke makes it sound like there is court precedent against this compulsion, but that would be overturned if the FBI wins. Indeed, encryption and privacy are very important, but our very liberty is more important.