Everything you need to know about Apple vs. FBI, in simple terms

Encryption and Apple vs. FBI

All the hype and sabre rattling about this case shows the frustration we have with our current Government, and the Government's desire to maintain their current level of control. 

The US Constitution 4th amendment.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Analogy is the best way to argue technical cases, and I have yet to see a good analogy presented on this subject.  Here is my safe analogy, which presents an accurate view of this case specifically for the non-technical person.

Consider that a person commits a crime, and the Government suspects that evidence to that crime is being stored in the person's personal safe.  The Government may obtain a warrant from a court requesting that a safe maker attempts to open a safe.  It might go without saying that the Government must compensate the safe maker for their work which can only be done by taxing the populace, but I'm saying it for more points later on.

The US Constitution is clear that the Government has such authority, and it implies that the safe maker should be required to comply with the warrant.  I'm sure that even the "Progressives" would agree with my analogy up to this point, but here is where a Constitutional scholar will divert from the "Progressive" view.

The safe maker can, and should, attempt to open the safe as we said is legal the obligation.  There is no guarantee that the safe maker does open the safe, nor can that be the expectation by any party.  The safe maker can not guarantee that the client has not modified the safe in such a way as to prevent the manufacturer from opening it.  In fact a safe maker who wanted to assure customers of a desire to protect their belongings may provide tools to customers for the purpose modifying the safe and removing manufactured settings.

Would you find a bank that modified it's vaults so that the people who built the vault could not open it "bad"?  If your money was being held in that vault, of course not.  You would most likely compliment them on their wit and ingenuity, more so if one of the vault builders attempted to rob the bank and was thwarted.

The courts and Government can not mandate that the safe maker opens the safe because that task may not be possible.  They may only mandate the attempt to do so.

The long and short of the issue is twofold.  First, the FBI in this case is demanding that Apple open the safe, not simply make an attempt.  The second, in the demands for both the iPhone source code and a permanent Government back door, the FBI is demanding that a Government door exists in every safe phone Apple produced or produces in the future.

A door is a door, is a door.

It is important to understand that a door, front or back, does not have prejudice on who walks in or out.  The existence of the door can allow bad actors in and out as easily as good actors.  Each year billions of dollars are spent by Governments trying to find and exploit back doors in order to spy on each other (as well as their own citizens).  Each year many millions of dollars are traded on black markets for those same back doors.  The criminals find them in the same way as Governments do, and uses them the same way.

Let us not attempt to fool anyone, a key does not negate a door.  A key only delays the amount of time it takes someone to open the door. 

Let us also not pretend that everyone in the Government is a good person with altruistic motives at all times.  In fact the Government is regularly found guilty of violating it's own Laws, paying constituents who have suffered at the hands of people holding positions of power and terminating employment.. after the fact.

All of these attempts to thwart the US Constitution costs you and I money.  Lots and lots of money, both in higher costs for goods as companies have to pay to fight these cases and higher taxes for the Government to fight these cases.

People will attempt to convince you that the Founding fathers never saw this one coming, and that the Constitution should change.  If a person spends time reading the US Constitution and all of the History surrounding this incredible foundation for our Government, there really is no mystery and the myth of the "living" Constitution needing to change disappears.  The spirit of the Constitution is very clear.  The Government must be limited in power.