![[16] I disagree with this assertion, as it involves a difference without a distinction. Properly considered, fingerprint or thumbprint locks and facial recognition locks on digital devices are all shortcuts of the same thing: the deliberate input of a password that otherwise exists only in the password holder’s mind. Whether being required to utter the password itself to authorities, to input manually the password on the device, or to provide their finger, thumb or face to the police to assist in unlocking the device, these are all part and parcel of the same testimonial compulsion. They all compel the Target to participate in their own incrimination by providing the information held only by them. This, as the jurisprudence to date has made clear, is unconstitutional. [17] The proposed biometric scanning sought in the Order is tantamount to an Order compelling the Target to provide the password from their own mouth, and in this respect is unlawful. As such, I must deny this](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HHPL_OkXEAAyoN3.png?name=orig)
ALT [16] I disagree with this assertion, as it involves a difference without a distinction. Properly considered, fingerprint or thumbprint locks and facial recognition locks on digital devices are all shortcuts of the same thing: the deliberate input of a password that otherwise exists only in the password holder’s mind. Whether being required to utter the password itself to authorities, to input manually the password on the device, or to provide their finger, thumb or face to the police to assist in unlocking the device, these are all part and parcel of the same testimonial compulsion. They all compel the Target to participate in their own incrimination by providing the information held only by them. This, as the jurisprudence to date has made clear, is unconstitutional. [17] The proposed biometric scanning sought in the Order is tantamount to an Order compelling the Target to provide the password from their own mouth, and in this respect is unlawful. As such, I must deny this
