My first thought is "why isn't this prohibited by the Fifth Amendment," and it seems that the court order actually answers that question already:<p>"With respect to the Fifth Amendment, Reffitt's entering his password in to the Subject Device does not violate his privilege against self-incrimination, because his act of production would not be testimonial, since the only potentially testimonial component implicit in his act of producing the unlocked/unencrypted device is a foregone conclusion."<p>In somewhat more detail, this is permissible because the act of unlocking his laptop does nothing that can be seen as incriminating himself:<p>* The laptop is already known to exist, and known to be owned by the user.<p>* What is being sought on the laptop [a video the defendant recorded at the event] is already known and admitted to exist, and it is known that the files in question are (at least were at one point in the past) on the laptop.<p>* The video in question was prepared prior to the search warrant and investigation, so it's not a Fifth Amendment violation to produce it unless the production itself is potentially incriminating (see <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Hubbell" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Hubbell</a>). But as mentioned above, the ability to produce the information isn't protected anymore, since there's no question that the individual could produce it.<p>This <i>feels</i> like it ought to be a violation of the Fifth Amendment, but it seems that it's pretty long-standing precedent that there's really nothing here that would violate the Fifth Amendment. Were this password-protected, or even a locked box in a safe, there would similarly be no Fifth Amendment violation, and the biometric aspect of the request doesn't (nor should it) change the analysis meaningfully.
I don't see the practical difference between forcing someone to show self-incriminating evidence and forcing someone to unlock a box in possession of authorities that contains self-incriminating evidence.
The phenomena of compelling biometrics for unlocking devices doesn't seem to be a new problem. They present a convenience factor, but from a security standpoint there's issues with others being able to compel their usage, spoofing, and not being able to change your biometrics (not within reasonable constraints anyway).
The rate at which law enforcement attempts to chip away at Constitutional Rights to pursue agendas is frightening. Perhaps it's always been this way, and I've only recently started to notice it.
friendly reminder: biometrics are NOT COVERED under the fifth amendment. if courts can force you to surrender your blood in a DUI case, they can absolutely force you to use your fingers face toes and other body parts to unlock your laptop phone and PC.<p>use a strong passphrase, 15 characters or longer.
On one side this is a bit of karma, the rioters had their own interpretation of the constitution , now the government is using their interpretation.
All jokes aside, no matter the mental gymnastics, 5th amendment etc, this is just bad and contributes to the erosion of civil rights.
Say, you have some darknet drug marketplace admin account on a laptop, and the police suspects that, forcing you to unlock the machine is of course forcing you to self incriminate.
Especially if you compare this to a street dealer, the non virtual dark web drug marketplace. Only the seller knows the deals of the past and where money and supply are stashed. Nobody can force him legally to disclose any of that.
Meanwhile , the laptop guy, by unlocking the laptop will hand them on a silver plate: past transactions and sales, delivery addresses, vendor data.<p>Both commit the same exact crime, one can't be forced to disclose a thing, the other can?<p>You can try to sugarcoat this in any way you like, if this is not defended against, this will come back to bite many regular people, probably even some who support it. Think of divorce cases, the lawyers are very creative, rest assured they will exploit this as much they can.
I am not American but I wonder why this is an issue. I can understand refusing to do so when passing through customs but this person was accused of a crime. Shouldn't law enforcement be allowed to check inside the laptop for evidence of his involvement? I mean if the government comes in and arrest me at my home they are allowed by warrant to enter my home. Why should a laptop be any different?
I guess facial recognition systems should allow for a "distress" face that will lock the device being authenticated down further.<p>Yes, clear violation of a legal order, but it's in the same spirit as TrueCrypt's "hidden volume" feature.
I don't use Windows Hello -- is there a setting that requires entry of a password instead of biometrics after a period of time or after a restart?