> Compelled speech, and compelled work, are both disallowed by the US constitution... Apple successfully used this argument several years ago when the FBI tried to demand that they break a phone for an investigation.

I'm not sure this is how the San Bernardino case actually panned out:

"Apple declined to create the software, and a hearing was scheduled for March 22. However, a day before the hearing was supposed to happen, the government obtained a delay, saying it had found a third party able to assist in unlocking the iPhone. On March 28, the government claimed that the FBI had unlocked the iPhone and withdrew its request."

The arguments were never actually tested in court, the whole thing was quietly put away once the FBI found another way to unlock the phone.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_d...

Yes, in this case: successfully used this argument to delay until the FBI gave up.

If it had gone to court, the argument was considered strong, but of course no one knows until a verdict is reached and appeals are exhausted.

This is a gross simplification of the many factors that lead to the FBI dropping the demand against Apple, in my opinion.

But it is everything we know.

The expectation was that FBI would lose in court. But that was not guaranteed, certainly.

FBI had multiple reasons to abandon the effort, but one was that if legal precedent was established at that time, for that case, it would be harder to bypass in future cases.

I expected the FBI to win in court because the FBI had precedent on its side. The judge had asked Apple to provide reasonable technical assistance to access data on the phone, and modifying one line of code fits well within the judge's request.

Apple is not in scope for CALEA requirements. But point taken.