There is much in the news about Apple's refusal to help in accessing the phone of a dead terrorist.
Should Apple compromise the integrity of their encryption system to aid the FBI?
Bearing in mind that there does not exist a means of entering the phone, the FBI or anyone else is free to have a try; should Apple be forced to develop a system at the behest of the US Govt?

Apple should definitely not be forced.

Working for another against your will is called slavery - I believe it was abolished, errr... was it?

Nevertheless, I can't see why Apple should not, voluntarily, help in the investigation: it need not compromise its encryption system, but instead take in a copy of the encrypted data, decrypt it themselves, then send the files to the FBI in order to help fighting terror - they don't need to tell the FBI how they did it.

No, I definitely do not think Apple should assist the FBI if it will affect all Apple users privacy and security....I have 3 Apple products myself.
Surely the FBI can work out their problems with good old fashioned police work?

Of course Apple should not be forced to open the phone.

However they should be banned from marketing anything in the US, while in contempt of a US court order. They should have the right to chose which they prefer.

Any company has a responsibility to the society in which it operates. It has no responsibility to protect the end user of their equipment when it is used in illegal activities.

Categorically NO.

1 - It will eventually be used against other people for any purpose a public servant or politician wants. Proof of that is the US Government has members of the TEA party be audited by the IRS.

2 - Guaranteed a rogue employee will sell the method to other Governments or criminals.

3 - Goodbye Apple stock value and that of any other American technology company, only a fool will trust them.

4 - Do you trust the people with access to the information on phone etc not to tell or show others, there are frequent reports of police etc emailing private photos on peoples phones to others.

I have doubts about the entire story.
I thought the US govt already had backdoors built in to all mobile devices so I wonder whether the whole story is just cooked up for people 'to think' they have security when they don't, though I've heard that governments don't like encryption.

Regards the FBI, they find patsies to engage in terror activities so they can bust them and tell the world how they foiled a terrorist plot...
When they actually manufacture them...

I was thinking this morning - Who's worse - the terrorist who engages in bombings that kill many innocents, or the US govt who will kill 50 civilians just to kill one known terrorist.
I'm not sure one is any better than the other, 2 wrongs don't make a right, crazy upside down world.

Apple has a large investment in that its products are secure. Breaking the security on even one phone will mean that it can be forced to do the same again.

The US government has a legitimate reason for getting the information, but if it gets legal authority Apple loses out big time. I believe that it would be in Apple's best interest to give them access and make it clear that it is a one off gesture.

This is a prime example of “for the greater good,” bear with me on this. I am opposed to the death penalty, that is, a governments legislated right to take the life of a citizen. Not because I value all life equally, but we rely on an unbiased judicial system to pass judgement. Nazi Germany had a judicial system but the courts were the implement of the government, detractors of government policy were sentenced to death, legally.

I view the Apple scenario in the same light. Governments cannot be trusted to use the power of surveillance for the sole purpose of protecting the wider society against anti social forces. Encryption will be used by the goodies and the baddies, but that is the price we pay in staving off totalitarianism.

As Abraham Lincoln said “those who are ready to sacrifice freedom for security will ultimately lose both."

I would have thought that Apple would have a legal duty to assist the FBI in this case; it certainly has a moral duty. The chance of the FBI wanting to access the privacy of 99.9% of American Apple customers is nil. This case is about a rotten terrorist!

Apple's refusal to the FBI to unlock an Apple phone, phone having belonged to a terrorist, is an opportunity to show separation between share market traded corporations and government agencies. One more bit of quick judgment, media listeners who can't think to doubt, that the news story is propaganda.

Simple minds will believe anything that which reinforces prompted believed memories to what people want to believe. Entertainment is the reinforcement of believed childhood judgments of feeling smart for understanding similar ideas within stories.
Separation between: media organisations; law enforcement; government; church leaders, are believed because doubt creates fear of childhood judgments being incorrect.

Same idea that gets aged five years children to believe in a religion, children will believe in the religion for their entire lives.
Adults will believe in aged five years childhood judgments in fear of being incorrect, reinforced in primary school, fear of being seen by everyone in a classroom for answering teacher questions incorrectly.

Media's constant separation scandal stories prompting listeners to revisit memory judgments, felt to be correct, reinforces beliefs in an economic system that at some point in time, religion's end of time, will remove wealth from people's spending ability.

How could Apple have either a moral or a legal obligation to use something that doesn't exist?

Why doesn't the FBI invent the technology, or pay another company to do so?

1. In US law programme code is held to be speech. So the US government is demanding that Apple employees write particular speech. How far is that from demanding journalists write articles with a certain slant?...for the greater good, mind you.

2. If Apple writes this code, what are the chances of it not being made available, either by design or theft, for the use of other governments and agencies? Anyone who thinks there is the slightest chance this genie can be returned to the bottle is naive in the extreme. Who's in favour of the Chinese government being able to break into the phone records of one of its dissidents?

3. I'm just so heartily sick of all of us having to surrender liberties, freedoms and personal data to this or that group so that we can be held safe from terrorism. This is about the San Bernardino killers. These people were the very epitome of the radicalised mohammedan and yet the government weren't able to stop them. Governments are terrified of being seen to profile those most likely to kill in the name of jihad lest they be accused of racism or islamophobia. So the liberties of those who do the killing are protected religiously. But those who are targets are expected to give up rights left, right and centre. Well I want it to change. I want my liberties back and I want the jihadis and potential jihadis hounded to within an inch of their liberties - liberties that they will remove from everyone given the chance.

So governments should do their job and protect their people. Instead they want to appear to be doing their job by attacking their people. One third of the army's rations are halal. What a world these 'protectors of liberty' (/sarc) have created.

"As Abraham Lincoln said “those who are ready to sacrifice freedom for security will ultimately lose both."

I think you'll find it was Ben Franklin and if not him then someone of his era. Irrespective, it was said and recorded before Lincoln was even a twinkle in his father's eye.

"Accustom your children constantly to this; if a thing happened at one window, and they, when relating it, say that it happened at another, do not let it pass, but instantly check them; you do not know where deviation from truth will end." Johnson.

....thanks mhaze.

Interesting story, supports what I said about people who hold the power abusing it, it happens.

Man sues government after Border Force officer secretly texted on his phone.

"and the department had refused to tell the man what messages had been sent and to whom."

Rest of story.
http://www.theage.com.au/nsw/legal-action-after-border-force-officer-secretly-texted-on-passengers-phone-20160218-gmy8c3.html

apple are as bad as those who protected the kiddie fiddlers in the Catholic church. Profit and ideology over the safety of the majority. Just following the footsteps of their founder.

Apple has unlocked phones on over 70 occasions at the request of the U.S government, the reason they won't co-operate on this investigation is down to the religion of the former owners of that particular handset and the conflict such co-operation would cause with Apple's corporate image.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/17/apple-unlocked-iphones-for-the-feds-70-times-before.html

Have a read of this:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/22/snowden-government-trust-encryption-apple-fbi

Well, if helping FBI could prevent any crimes or terrorism acts to happen, then yes - I think that they should cooperate.

and if helping the FBI would facilitate crimes committed by the FBI then neither Apple nor any one else should co-operate.
Going on the US Governments trampling of the Constitution then it is the duty of Apple to refuse to co-operate as it is the duty of all American citizens where the rights of the people are concerned.