Apple Stands Its Ground, Refuses to Hack Shooter's iPhone

Apple has been given three more days to respond to a court order requiring it to help investigators break into an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters.

The company is fighting the order, with Apple's CEO calling it unprecedented and saying it threatens the security of its customers.

The FBI is still looking for clues in the San Bernardino terrorist attack that left 14 people dead.

The agency is locked in a battle with Apple over its request to hack the iPhone of Syed Farook, one of the shooters in the deadly attack.

Apple so far refuses to give the government access to the phone, but on Tuesday a federal judge ordered the company to help the FBI gain entry into the smartphone.

And now social media giants Facebook and Twitter are defending the tech company.

Facebook warns the order sets a chilling precedent and pledges to fight aggressively against the government's efforts to weaken the security of consumer tech products.

Some experts say creating a backdoor to break into the phone would in turn create serious security problems.

"You would have created what amounts to a smart software bomb that if it falls into the wrong hands could then be turned around and used to unlock every iPhone and iPad in existence," said Patrick Edding with the CATO Institute.

And some on Capitol Hill are speaking up against Apple.

Republican Sen. Tom Cotton says Apple's response means "they are unwilling to compromise and that legislation is likely the only way to resolve this issue."

And North Carolina Republican Sen. Richard Burr is calling on the company to comply with the court order, saying the charade has gone on long enough.

The Obama administration is also weighing in.

White House spokesman Josh Ernest says the FBI is "simply asking for something that would have an impact on this one device."

But Apple says helping the FBI bypass the encryption locked on Farook's iPhone would threaten the privacy of all its customers.

Meanwhile, this is only the latest battle in the ongoing debate over personal privacy versus national security – and it certainly won't be the last.