> if you have a locked safe, they can get a court order that compels you to open it.
But in this case, the FBI wants the safe manufacturer--not the owner of the safe, who is the one who could be compelled to open it by court order--to redesign the lock on the safe so that the FBI can keep trying combinations indefinitely until it opens. That's not the same thing.
Then I don't understand your position. Just because a court order can compel some things that law enforcement can't compel in its absence, it does not follow that a court order can compel anything that law enforcement can't compel in its absence. But that seems to be what you're claiming--or at least it seems to be the grounds on which you're rejecting the argument you were responding to.
My point is that even if a court order can compel the owner of a secret to either divulge it to law enforcement or face consequences, that doesn't mean it can compel a third party to help law enforcement pry loose the secret in the owner's absence. That seems to be precisely the distinction the article is making.
But in this case, the FBI wants the safe manufacturer--not the owner of the safe, who is the one who could be compelled to open it by court order--to redesign the lock on the safe so that the FBI can keep trying combinations indefinitely until it opens. That's not the same thing.