Macworld: "The question isn’t why Apple doesn’t want to unlock the device; it’s why wasn’t this device managed. Why wasn’t a device owned by a government entity being managed by that government entity? And, to personalize this a bit, what are you doing to take control of your devices?"
Bruce Schneier: "The FBI's demands are specific to one phone, which might make its request seem reasonable if you don't consider the technological implications: Authorities have the phone in their lawful possession, and they only need help seeing what's on it in case it can tell them something about how the San Bernardino shooters operated. But the hacked software the court and the FBI wants Apple to provide would be general. It would work on any phone of the same model. It has to."
In the piece above Schneier states that the FBI wants to frame the debate as security vs. privacy while the technology industry wants to frame it as security vs. surveillance. I see the issue as something much more fundamental, whether or not we have a right to our identity. Strong encryption is our single defense against identity theft, and we cannot afford to have that encryption put at risk.