Hi, I need help with this case study. Thank you for your assistance!

Case Study: In Spring 2016, a huge legal dispute between Apple Corporation and the FBI made the news. The facts are the following: the FBI needed Apple's assistance to hack into an encryptediPhoneowned bySyedRizwanFarook, one of the shooters in the San Bernardino killings in December 2015. The information on the phone, which the FBI could not access, was needed to assist in its investigation into the killings and into the killers' potential connection with ISIS. Apple refused to assist the FBI, citing its customers' privacy concerns, among other reasons. The FBI then filed a lawsuit against Apple, asking the court under the All Writs Act to compel Apple to create the software needed to hack into the phone. Underthe All Writs Act, courts can "issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law." In other words, under this act courts may compel parties in a lawsuit to cooperate in cases before them, but there must be no other legal options available, the target of the writ must be closely connected to the case, and the court order cannot impose an undue burden. Apple's legal argument was that being compelled to write new software to defeat the password protections on theiPhoneviolated its freedom of speech - in doing so, Apple was making the not unprecedented argument that software code constitutes speech. All of this came to a temporary end, however, when the FBI announced that it had managed to access the phone via a third party's assistance. However, it is far from likely that this is the end of the story, and we will most likely see this issue come up again in another form in the future.

Please answer the following questions. Please support your responses with research and citations:

1) Do you believe Apple should have provided assistance to the FBI in this case? Why or why not?

2) What merits do the legal arguments on both sides have? Regardless of your own personal beliefs, if you were a judge considering these arguments, whom would you rule in favor of?