I think enlightenment values ultimately support the position that consenting adults should be able to say whatever they like to each other in private, and that should be a protected right.

This puts me in direct conflict with the way the law is going right now, where it is supposed to be acceptable for government and/or searches to be an invisible third party to all conversations.

Not sure where this goes but I feel like there is an MLK or electronic Jesus moment here somewhere.

Apple did not place themselves about the law, they went to a properly constituted court and asked the judge to rule on whether what the FBI was asking was lawful.

During those proceedings, they also explained how complying with the FBI's request would lead to a highly damaging corruption of the privacy of their users data.

They asked the judge to make a judgement which was that Apple were right in saying that the FBI had over-reached in their warrant.

The case was headed to appeals when the FBI withdrew after finding another way to get the information they needed. Notably they did so without Apple having to compromise security or user data privacy.

> I'm curious what you think of companies who do put themselves above law enforcement when it's the right thing to do ... A case to cite might be Apple vs. FBI in 2016. The company placed itself above law enforcement.

Apple did no such thing. They asserted their legal rights. They used the exact mechanism -- the law -- that you are saying they ignored or held themselves above.