APPLE is the most valuable listed company in the world. It has also become the most controversial. Tim Cook, Apple’s boss, is in a heated battled with America’s Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which wants the company to help it unlock a terrorist’s iPhone. Mr Cook says complying with the FBI’s request would have dangerous consequences, and is refusing to do so. The standoff has sparked a fierce public debate about how to balance personal privacy and public safety. Americans are divided about whether Mr Cook is a hero fighting on behalf of privacy rights or a publicity hound who is out of touch with the public mood. Some 51% of Americans think Mr Cook should assist the FBI, according to a survey by Pew Research Centre, while only 38% side with Apple.

This standoff escalated on February 16th, when Tim Cook posted an open letter on Apple’s website explaining why the company did not want to comply with a federal judge’s order to help the FBI unlock the phone of Syed Rizwan Farook, who, along with his wife, murdered 14 people at a holiday party in San Bernardino last year. The FBI has requested Apple to design a solution to bypass one of its security procedures, which deletes the contents of an iPhone if the password is guessed unsuccessfully ten times. A federal court has ordered the firm to comply with the request, but Mr Cook is refusing, on the grounds that doing so would have dangerous consequences. It would enable the FBI to gain access to the contents of the phone, which, granted, could provide helpful clues to law enforcement. But Apple says that such a tool does not yet exist and that building one could put its users at risk. Once a key exists, it could be used by law enforcement to unlock people’s private information in less justified cases. Apple also suggests that this would set a dangerous precedent; if Apple is forced to build something like this for America, what would stop other foreign governments from requesting something similar?

Apple may not have picked the right case over which to grandstand. Every other request made by government for Apple’s help has been in lower-level criminal cases like drug dealing; this one concerns the most deadly act of terrorism on American soil since September 11th. If Apple is hoping to show off its willingness to stand up for customers’ privacy, this case is also not clear-cut. The owner of the iPhone was actually Mr Farook’s employer, the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health, a government agency that wants to see the iPhone unlocked. However, Apple is right to be concerned that complying could trigger an avalanche of requests and potential privacy concerns. Governments have not always shown a respect for privacy, as Edward Snowden’s revelations of government spying proved in 2013.

The outcome of this case will be watched closely, and both law enforcement and Apple have a great deal at stake. Apple is expected to file an application for relief by February 26th explaining why it should not have to assist the FBI. After that there will be a formal hearing on March 22nd. The Department of Justice has already filed a motion in support of the FBI in this case, dismissing Mr Cook’s rhetoric as glorified marketing to help the firm sell more iPhones to customers who care about privacy issues. But such a charge misses Mr Cook’s ambition. He has become a sort of statesman, campaigning for public support and trying to shape policy. The law is murky when it comes to privacy issues in the digital domain, and Mr Cook is hoping to play a role in helping decide how laws should apply in this new era of mobile technology. (He is of course also advancing Apple’s interests.) No one elected Mr Cook to this cause; he has nominated himself.