Then they would have to brute-force the encryption key, which is much harder than brute-forcing the pin, no?

The encryption key on the files themselves had better not be just a few digits (and the corresponding number of bits) long.

Not necessarily agreeing that the claim that there is no other way to search he phone is true, but mounting and brute-forcing the hard drive would seem to me to be the worst possible way to try.

Obviously, there are not only "a tangle of legal problems" here, but also maybe "pragmatic problems" as well. It seems to me that it is very easy, maybe too easy, for you to "lose your data forever" with Apple's uber-secure system as it stands right now. It might well be overkill for dealing with the basic issue of "someone stole your phone or you accidentally left it on the bathroom sink." We are not dealing with James Bond here.

We do have in the United States, as in most countries, the concept of "search warrants" and a legal duty to disclose keys (in proper confidence) when served with one. The complication in this case is of course that the "perp" is dead. Search warrants are a very important consideration in the grand scheme of public justice ... as is privacy.

This, therefore, is not "hacking" the phone: a court of law has issued a search warrant for an indisputably-valid reason, to help solve a heinous and hideous crime. The legal justification is at the highest possible level: It cannot be argued that the warrant was lawfully issued, and that "the place to be searched," which has already been "seized," is a phone, which there is "probable cause" to believe does contain evidence relating to a capital crime. While no one can claim that Apple is "obstructing justice" (unless they do), it certainly seems that their engineering has frustrated the purpose when the owner is six feet underground.

Okay, well, what about pragmatic issues? "Business associates get hit by taxicabs, too." What then? Extremely important business data might be on that phone, and the original owner's funeral was last week, and now the business ... for entirely legitimate reasons ... needs to get to it. Can they? It certainly sounds like, with Apple's present system, they could not. Has Cupertino, in its zeal for information security (and recognizing that phones are "none too secure" in any case), built a system that is too strong?

A lot more thought needs to be put into this, by a lot of people: lawyers, judges, legislators, and hardware and software engineers.

It would certainly be funny if there was nothing on the phone.
The idiot wiped, or destroyed everything at the house.

I think they have all the "contacts" leads they need, or likely to get...Enrique Marquez
Birds of a feather...

Here's another technical analysis.

http://darthnull.org/2016/02/19/apple-backdoor

And what they'll find on the phone is Rick Astley Never Gonna Give You Up

Good article.

Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, is a courageous man. He has got to know full well what he is risking by saying no to the federal government’s demand that he sell out the interests of Apple’s customers by effectively becoming an agent of the United States national-security establishment. He deserves the thanks of every American who still places a high value on the principles of liberty and privacy.-Jacob G. Hornberger

It escalated while you were writing that.

Reuters: U.S. files motion to force Apple to obey iPhone order

(And I agree with you).

Why do they need to go to the phone? Can't the FBI get the info from the NSA prism program. I mean, the NSA prism is supposedly to record every form of communication i.e phone meta data, emails, SMSs, etc.

I feel bad for the victims of the awful terrorist attack. But the FBI and/or the NSA is just using terrorism as a catalyst to collect more data on people and playing the encryption is bad game. I guess the NSA prism program isn't good enough for them, they need more and more out of everybody and every device.

Some folks are believing the FBI and NSA are the same thing. Well, they're not.
They may not even like each other, or co-operate, even in matters of "National Security" without a direct order from "on high" to do so.
There's a lot of pissing contests between agencies.

No wonder there's so much FUD.
No wonder some folks are in fear of the unknown boogie-man de jure.

The over reach of the United States government, in violation of our constitution, is just going to force even more companies to relocate to other countries or quit doing business here altogether as Lavabit and other email services did!!

There's a few other points that could be made:

(1) The "street value" of the proposed hack would probably be about $1 million, at a guess, which the FBI wants for free. Perhaps compensation would be appropriate.

(2) In a way, the standoff is similar to the virus/antivirus race. Assuming the government prevails, it will be extra incentive for Apple and other manufacturers to make encryption schemes available without any ability of Apple or anyone else to open them. To use something like that will be less convenient for the average user than a simple pin or password protected by firmware, but surely there will be a market for it. So the eventual future outcome doesn't look good for decrypters, regardless of the current case.

(3) There is a certain appeal to "the greater good" for justifying anything. Usually there are other unpleasant consequences. 14 people lost their lives, but decrypting the phone will not change that. Many others, dissidents, human rights workers, intelligence agents, could also lose their lives if there is no way to protect secrets.

I'm not sure that I have a position on this one.

Is there anything wrong with the idea that if you want to be encrypted why not learn how to do it yourself? There will always be free open source tools available that noone can control, and Apple is selling a lot of phones to bad people. Plus I suspect it would push more people to use GNU/Linux the free open source platform..

It's more than just a pin. My phone passcode is over a dozen characters. Biometrics means I only need to enter it some of the time. Using stronger passcodes is an optional feature.

Also, regarding the argument that encryption shouldn't be available to normal people: the argument is nonsensical. It's simply not possible for a normal American consumer to have "open source" encryption on current devices. Apple did good by that one for making encryption widely available even if it is proprietary. I question the morality of anyone who supports weakening encryption. They either don't fully understand the implications or have an ulterior motive.

The real publicity nonsense is being performed by the Justice Dept.

Being an American myself it's a shame to see Apple move it's companies outside US. However if DIY encryption is not possible on current mobile devices,then I would have to agree that encryption shouldn't be tampered with.. But how do we know if Apple hasn't say gave it's keys to China already?