softeky

Sorry but I am confused. There are many suggestions how the scope of the FBI request is limited but I don't see much discussion about the practical/technical consequences of the proposed solution.

1) How to get an iPhone to load a new version of iOS without wiping the user-data content from the phone. Whenever I've done a restore it has been after a local or iCloud backup has been taken and after the iPhone wipe, a restore is done from that backup.
1a) Installing a fresh iOS (one containing the hack) would require the iPhone already be unlocked with the PIN (from what I recall, the backup and restore process requires an already PIN-unlocked phone). If they already had the PIN to perform this process the FBI would not need this request.

2) Perhaps the hack is going to be introduced via an application download. Loading software into the user's iCloud space, will result in it being auto-downloaded to the iPhone (in the background) but only if that option is already set by the user in advance.
2a) if the user has not set the auto-download option in advance, can Apple set it remotely (where is this state kept)?
2b) for this option to make any difference, it would not only have to be an auto-download but also an auto-execute on the iPhone. I thought that was blocked by iOS (again requiring a different operating system (see #1, above)).

In other words I do not see how this request can be of any benefit to the case it is being applied. All solutions result in a wipe-before-backup of the user data. A direct consequence is that the hack can only be of benefit to future cases, making a lie (for purely technical/practical reasons) of the FBI's request.

What am I missing here?

We design product all the time that may be used to further illegal practices.

Cars are designed to be able to exceed speed limits, they are able to run red lights, transport illegal drugs and terrorists.
Hand guns are specifically designed to kill people - some of the people killed are murdered.

Imposing rules on product use, criminalizing certain behavior, is what governments do. Government should not put the onus on manufacturers to impose arbitrary limits on product.

Terrorism is illegal, it may be facilitated by using encrypted communication just as it may be facilitated by using cars. That does not mean it is reasonable to ban cars (which have many legal uses). Nor is it reasonable to ban encrypted messages (which also have many legal (indeed constitutionally protected)) uses.

No big deal now? You may be happy that current government will not abuse this power-creep - but what about the next government or the one after that?

(just my $0.02 on the subject).