> Could you elaborate, why this makes a difference?
I have to admit that the difference I mentioned was more of a feeling I have, but let me try to figure out why I feel that way.
If Apple had the data, they could hand it over without suggesting any vulnerability that wasn't already known to exist. In this case, they no longer had access to the data. They had to create access to the data. For me, that active creation of a vulnerability where none existed before is the core of the distinction.
I'd also like to mention that there are other aspects of the San Bernadino case that make me uncomfortable.
The idea that any private citizen of the U.S. should just roll over for the government is ridiculous. Apple wasn't acting illegally. All Apple wanted was to legally respond to the warrant. They believed that the law was on their side, and they were willing to argue that point. They have the right to do so. The government seemed to want to make the case that Apple should just obey. I applaud Apple for telling the government that they would not submit without a fight.
Based on what I've read, the goal was not merely to get the data off that phone. I don't believe the FBI needed or cared about what was on that phone. If there was anything useful on it, the terrorists would have attempted to destroy it as they did with the other two (everything I've seen said they didn't bother). I think the only thing the FBI was interested in was setting a precedent for breaking or weakening encryption.
I believe that the FBI was always going to come back for more. I don't think they would have kept the lock pick. Instead they would have just kept coming back to Apple to recreate it. I think the ultimate goal was to try to prevent tech companies from coming up with encryption that the government couldn't break.
If the government can break the encryption, so can other groups. Unfriendly governments, criminal organizations, and even terrorists could discover the means to break encryption. Once that happens, we all become even more vulnerable.
Of course, all those groups are already breaking our security, but I think the goal should be to make it stronger not weaker.
In the interests of full disclosure, I also believe that the FBI & US government in general have used the terrorist attacks to unnecessarily limit the rights of citizens. I believe accounts which state that the USA PATRIOT act was written well before the 9/11 attack, and the government was just waiting for the appropriate justification to get it enacted. I think they play on the fears of weak minded Americans to increase what we'll put up with and distract us from their true goal of keeping a docile, cooperative populace. Personally, I'd rather die at the hands of a terrorist than give up my freedoms to ensure a longer enslavement.
Also, the history of the FBI tells us we shouldn't trust them. Too many abuses have occured. The only thing that can prevent future abuses is vigilance on the part of the citizens and an active defense of our civil rights.