"For some reason the FBI made this demand unsealed. "
This sort of reinforces my point, no?
To me it strongly suggests the opposite but that is obviously open to different interpretations.
Apple agree, provided a mock battle ensues, that no doubt Apple will "win", thereby allowing the Company to gain massive PR kudos around the world, even though the deal had been done at the outset.
This doesn't look like a battle the FBI wants to lose and it is far from clear that they will.
I see the argument and wholeheartedly support personal privacy, but I have no problem in having a mass murderer having his/her home turned over and ripped apart using a warrant, so why should organised teams of murdering fanatical bastards have protection against what would effectively be a technological warrant being served?
Because there is a way to open just one house without making a way to open all houses. This would be more like the government insisting on a digital key that can open any house any time.
It's really tough to explain concepts about encryption, it is a very complex subject that even programmers who work with it every day are mostly not experts in (my company has made software that encrypts passwords and secrets for teams to share, we understand it well enough in concept but none of us are encryption experts even as programmers who deal with encryption). I mention that because there's really no shame in not understanding it and I don't think most people involved in the debate do (which is why you see a united tech front against lawmakers etc). The people who understand it generally understand why it's obviously a bad idea, the people who want it generally do not fundamentally understand it.
Encryption is something that needs to be done right to provide the value that it does, it is designed specifically to prevent third parties to snoop on it. That is the whole point. Designing the technical stack so that any third party can snoop on it weakens it inherently.
This is not getting into one house, this is rewriting the laws on what keys you are allowed to use and insisting that every house, every car, every lock out there be allowed to be opened by a digital master key.
This is weakening the institution of house keys, not asking for one key. Weakening encryption does not merely grant access to just one person's information, it weakens security for us all. And encryption is a fundamental building block that a lot of what we take for granted is built upon.