The commentary about it being pro-unlocking vs. anti-unlocking is inaccurate.
It's really pro-FBI Compliance vs. anti-FBI Compliance (or if you want to use stronger language, pro-Backdoor vs. anti-Backdoor).
When it comes to allowing the FBI access to the data, note that almost *all* parties involved (including Apple) *does* agree that the FBI should have access to the data. In fact, Apple has done quite a lot to try and get FBI access to the data, including providing any available iTunes Cloud backups to Farook's phone.
The problem is the *how* -- meaning, *how* should the FBI get access to that data, and to what extent can the FBI compel Apple to provide the data by having Apple compromise the security of the iPhone itself.
Furthermore, in terms of the "two sides", the summary provides a very inaccurate portrayal of the two sides of this argument. If you read thru John McAfee's quotes, he actually *agrees* with Apple, and states that Apple should *not* be compelled to comply with the FBI / court order. (What he then stated is that he could get access to Farook's data *without* requiring Apple to create the backdoor, which is what he was arguing.)
Also, to say that "even some of the victim's families on the con" is also inaccurate. In fact, there has only been *one* victim's family (specifically Carol Adams -- http://nypost.com/2016/02/18/m...) that has been on the record stating that they think Apple should not be compelled to comply with the FBI, not "some".
EDIT: Gates actually says that his quote was misinterpreted, and he does *not* necessarily side with the FBI -- http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...