Apple and the FBI head into a court hearing on March 22 in the dispute over access to a locked iPhone. In its last filing before then, Apple says the government is stretching laws to fit the case.
The government says Apple has cited broad generalities in its refusal to help the FBI circumvent an iPhone's security features — and argues that the FBI's request is, in contrast, modest and specific.
How hard would it be for Apple to write the software the FBI wants? Should the order be up to the courts, or Congress? How is the First Amendment involved? The two parties lay out their arguments.
Local authorities allege that FBI agents failed to disclose as many as two shots they fired at LaVoy Finicum, though neither shot hit him. The shots that killed Finicum were justified, officials say.
Is the FBI director right when he says that strong encryption is taking us to an unprecedented new world, where some places in our life are "warrantproof"?
Wiretaps, messaging and metadata: If it reaches the Supreme Court, Apple's legal clash with the FBI would fit into a long discussion about the role of telephones in our lives.
Cybersecurity expert Susan Landau argues that the FBI's dispute with Apple over the San Bernardino iPhone shouldn't be a choice between weaker phone security and the FBI's investigative power.
Among many privacy issues debated in the courts and Congress is whether law enforcement officials should be able to know someone's whereabouts, as recorded by cellphone towers, without a warrant.
Silicon Valley firms, human rights nonprofits and other groups have filed legal briefs in support of Apple's defiance of an FBI order. Some San Bernardino victims' families have filed in opposition.