[Hupriene]

While I generally agree with you, a court order to provide a password does bring with it a few problems.

1. Sometimes knowledge of the password itself could be considered testimonial. If there is doubt as to whether or not the an individual owns a particular computer, then being forced to provide the password is tantamount to being forced to concede ownership, which would violate protections against self incrimination.

2. People do legitimately forget passwords, and the courts have no way of distinguishing between people who have genuinely forgotten and those who falsely claim to have forgotten. Being subjected to indefinite detention for forgetting a password would violate due process, while keeping someone in jail until they comply with a legal warrant is legitimate. Since the court cannot distinguish between these two cases, any penalty the court may impose for contempt runs a variable (depending on the facts of the case) but non-zero risk of being a miscarriage of justice.

[sevenf0ur]

That second scenario has always fascinated me. What's the burden of proof for contempt of court? Forgetting a password seems plausible to me. Anyway, reminds me of this reddit post: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/afib1/truecrypt_and_t...

[treis]

That's probably a made up story or at least not accurately told. That's not how the legal system operates.

[LifeLiverTransp]

What if the software on the phone, hypothetically was able to detect you beeing in distress and would stop complying to even the correct password if you are clearly coerced?

[rolph]

"Alexa ! Im scared!" -would you like me to dial 911? "No Alexa,Hide!" -OK, they cant find me now.

[b_tterc_p]

A second self destruct password