They basically argue that Apple is incorrect about security implications and that marketing concerns don't cause undue burden. They also argue that Apple isn't above the law and just because Apple marketed themselves that way doesn't make a burden.
The question of whether such rights exist is separate from the question of whether breaking into one device threatens security of all others. If true that seems to call into question the assumptions on which data protection algorithms are based. In other words, assuming you can create truly unbreakable encryption and it only works if there are no backdoors, is that really a data protection strategy that meets the needs of society as a whole? You could argue it's flawed even if the mathematics work perfectly.
p.s., I'm not defending the Chinese position in any way. If it were my company I would leave the market.
p.p.s., For anyone down-voting it would be helpful to state your argument for doing so. The Apple case is not as clear cut as some of the learned commentary on HN would have it.
It seems here that nobody here is concerned about non USA citizens.
in China.
Can you imagine what a reputation for standing upto governments (in a democracy, but with most of your employees as taxpayers) will look like?