Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are right about the government being able to compel some action. Where it gets tricky with Apple is around the argument that code is speech. The government can compel an entity to do something, but they typically can't compel them to say something. Even though this is incredibly unlikely, say for a moment that Apple has only hired developers that feel strongly that privacy is an inalienable right. If Tim Cook con…
What about bank employees who feel strongly that financial privacy is an inalienable right? Do they get to avoid complying with government investigations into tax evasion or money laundering? I see your code is speech point. I'm skeptical about it, because usually code is just code. It's meant to do something, not to express an idea . But I think there is some merit to the idea that code signing combines doing someth…
Can the government compel the creation of original tools and IP outside the typical operations of a business? If so should they be required to compensate the business? Does the business then own the IP or the government? What happens when compelling a company to create IP or perform process outside of its typical operations is a net loss regardless of compensation? Should it be required to notify stockholders? Is it legal to make investments based on this PARTICULAR kind of inside government information? What if the entire company's operation may be plausibly undermined by the operation?
I think a more relevant example here would be whether the government could compel a bank or financial company to create or alter its financial reporting tools to falsify data or misreport to the subject of an investigation.