You may have heard that the FBI and the Department of Justice were fighting Apple with court orders. More specifically, Apple was being compelled to create a method for the federal government to unlock an iPhone — the one that belonged to a suspect in the San Bernardino shootings.

You may be saying to yourself: “Well, they’re terrorists, so for public and national security we need to access whatever information is on that iPhone.”

Let’s assume that there is valuable information on that phone, which was issued by the government for business use. Let’s assume the phone is perfectly secure and the FBI absolutely needed Apple’s compliance to access that information.

Why, then, was this request so absurd?

It can be summed up in one word: precedent. The entire judicial branch of our government stands upon precedent. It’s the idea that previous actions and decisions made by the government affect later ones.

How does this apply to the Apple case?

Was Apple to submit, the government would establish that it can force a private company’s engineers into creating software — and do so against their wishes. It would establish that it is Industry’s job to weaken security if it makes the jobs of government investigators easier.

I know what you’re thinking: “Gui, I know what you’re up to. This is that slippery slope fallacy, isn’t it?”

Sure, it might be a slippery slope, but it’s one that was created by the U.S. government. In the judicial system, even a non-binding decision like in this case can have far-reaching consequences. The decision reached in this California district courthouse can be used as compelling evidence in other courts around the nation.

There is no limit to the ways this precedent could be abused. We could be denied strong protection over our data for the sake of government access, creating security holes that would make any “black hat” hacker drool.

Now, you say, “The federal government would never push for increased control over our data. And even if they did, they would only use it to fight terrorists.”

Unfortunately, you’d be wrong. In fact, our government has made it very clear that there are no boundaries on their data collection. Edward Snowden revealed to the world the extent of the NSA’s spying and highlighted the warrantless, bulk collection and storage of digital information in 2013. Everything, from phone calls to emails, was tapped.

Thankfully, the FBI has since stepped away from the courts — for now. Regardless, the discussion about digital rights is not over.

We cannot allow our grief and sorrow — our pain following a deplorable act of violence — to justify attempts to reduce our digital security, privacy and liberty.