The US has always struggled with how to balance government power and personal liberty. Past breaches of human rights were to justified because of perceived risks to national physical or economic security. The US constitution embraced slavery. And in 1798, soon after it was ratified, the US passed the Alien and Sedition Act, because
"[a]s one Federalist in Congress declared, there was no need to 'invite hordes of Wild Irishmen, nor the turbulent and disorderly of all the world, to come here with a basic view to distract our tranquillity.'"Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus.
In the Dred Scott decision
"the [Supreme] Court held that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, could not be American citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court, and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States."There's a long history of abuses against Native Americans.
The Roosevelt Administration interned US citizens of Japanese descent during WW II.
There's Guantanamo and torture following the 9/11 attacks.
There are the thousands of civilian deaths and injuries due to our current drone attacks.
So I tend to be skeptical of the FBI's claims of national security when they pressure Apple to create a way to hack their own encryption. I'm not all that trusting of Apple either in the long run, but in this case I'm more likely to support Apple's stand than, say, I would Goldman-Sachs and other financial institutions stands against government regulation.
But like probably most Americans, I don't really understand the details of this. It's not as obvious as waterboarding.
So I offer this link to The Intercepts' post Eight Memorable Passages From Apple’s Fiery Response to the FBI.