IANAL, but I think that argument about code-as-not-speech breaks down when you consider that this is code that, because of the digital signatures it includes, is intrinsically tied to Apple, and can be used to break any Apple phone. Perhaps a good analogy there would be that the FBI is asking Apple to write a speech that they disagree with, and then sign that speech, and then allow the FBI access to that speech, and the FBI is saying "don't worry, no one will see it, just us". And Apple is, quite rightly, saying "like hell, you can't even secure your personnel records - that speech is harmful to us and we will not be compelled to write it and sign it."
I think the argument that signing is an expressive act and thus protected is much stronger than the idea that the code for disabling the checks is speech and thus protected.
Just for the record, the FBI isn't saying "don't worry, no one will see it, just us." as they aren't requesting a copy of the signed code. They're just requesting that Apple use it to unlock the device.
So the FBI's ability to secure the code isn't currently relevant.
Considered in isolation, it isn't relevant. But the basis of this decision will serve as a precedent to get Apple to unlock a multitude of phones. And that's not Apple's business. Apple, or any other company, is not a branch of law enforcement, and cannot be conscripted to perform law enforcement's functions.
That's simply not true. Businesses of all stripes are conscripted all the time to gather data and turn it over to law enforcement. The government has very wide latitude in this area.
Gather data, which Apple already does and provides. Not write wholesale operating systems, sign them, and maintain them for only the government to use.
You make it sound like Apple is being asked to put a man on the moon. They're being asked to comment out a few lines of code and recompile. Apple's objections have nothing to do with the volume or difficulty of work.
