en apple news

"Because technology is moving at warp speed, we don't have two to three years to wait for a solution here in this particular case or in the boatload of cases after it," said Ed McAndrew, a former federal cybercrimes prosecutor and now a lawyer at Ballard Spahr.

While we wait it out, let's look at those worst-case scenarios from each side.

Going dark

In the eyes of the FBI, this is about keeping Americans safe. If law enforcement can't get access to data on iPhones, criminals can "go dark," the govement says. FBI Director James Comey waed a Congressional committee earlier this month that offering a place no authorities could touch would create a haven for terrorists and criminals.

"Before these devices came around, there was no closet, basement or drawer in America that could not be entered with a judge's order," he said. Privacy is important, Comey said, but so is stopping murder, violence and pedophilia.

A loss in this case could also hurt the FBI's ability to get info from other tech companies, like Facebook.

Apple counters the govement's waing by saying the FBI shouldn't be fixated on what it can access but realize there's a "mountain" of information that now is available because of technology.

"Going dark -- this is a crock," Apple CEO Tim Cook said during an interview with Time. "No one's going dark."

And experts say law enforcement has to find a way to fight crime in a world with strong encryption.

"The cost of maintaining a free society is that sometimes criminals won't be caught," said John Hasnas, a professor of ethics at Georgetown's McDonough School of Business. "Sometimes there are bad things we can't prevent."

Police state

Apple says the govement is asking for a back door into all iPhones. If the FBI is able to get access to one phone, it'll ask for access to more, the company said. There's also no way to guarantee that the loophole won't fall into the hands of criminals. It would become a top prize for hackers, and Apple undoubtedly would face attacks.

Apple also fears the govement's demands won't stop with unlocking iPhones. Next, law enforcement could ask for access to an iPhone's camera and microphone to keep tabs on you, Eddy Cue, Apple's head of Inteet software and services, said during a recent Univision interview.

"Where does this stop?" Cue said. "In a divorce case? In an immigration case? In a tax case with the IRS? Someday, someone will be able to tu on a phone's microphone. This should not happen in this country."

Then there are the inteational implications. No foreign govement has a back door into Apple's products, but if the US govement is successful, you can bet other countries, such as China, will come knocking too.

At stake are the "very freedoms and liberty our govement is meant to protect," Cook said.

The FBI counters by saying that Apple helped it gain access to devices in the past without causing a loss of privacy and freedoms. Stacey Perino, an FBI electronics engineer, argued in a declaration that even if Apple didn't destroy the new software and criminals got access to it, they couldn't use it to hack all iPhones. That's because the code would run only on an iPhone if it had Apple's unique digital signature, Perino said.

Apple disagrees.

Finding middle ground?

Even the American public is split on the issue. According to a poll by CNET sister publication CBS News and The New York Times, half of Americans believe Apple should unlock the phone, while 45 percent think it shouldn't. More than two-thirds of Americans think unlocking the phone will make it at least somewhat likely that other iPhones are more vulnerable to hackers, and 58 percent of Americans remain conceed about losing some privacy in the fight against terrorism.

Some are hoping to find common ground.

Apple has recommended that a commission set the parameters for tech's interactions with the govement. Two US lawmakers, Rep. Michael McCaul, a Republican from Texas, and Sen. Mark Waer, a Democrat from Virginia, agree and say they want Congress to form a commission charged with addressing issues on digital security that have put authorities and private companies at odds.

"Both the FBI and Apple are taking absolutist positions and in many ways are talking past each other," Waer said in an interview on Wednesday. "I do believe there are technology solutions that can protect encryption and not lead to back doors."

Waer hopes to have a commission approved within a couple of months and to see the group issue a full report in about a year.