Oh, I dunno, what have you got to hide? And before you say "nothing" realize that there's a hell of a lot more laws on the books than you think. You don't even have to dig very far for laws against things that shouldn't be illegal. What if you were living during prohibition, and the court ordered you to unlock your safe that had photos of you drinking in it? The biggest problems with how warrants are handled these days is that many are "fishing expeditions" where even when they are written for something specific, they can get you for something completely unrelated (eg, found a joint in your house while searching for stolen goods).
This isn't "NSA surveillance when you've done nothing wrong".
This is a proper legal process initiated against you, with a proper court order.
What greater process do you want?
Do you believe the answer is "you should never be forced to disclose this?".
If so, the answer is to expand the fifth amendment. It doesn't say that :)
"What if you were living during prohibition, and the court ordered you to unlock your safe that had photos of you drinking in it? "
Don't do illegal things?
"The biggest problems with how warrants are handled these days is that many are "fishing expeditions" where even when they are written for something specific, they can get you for something completely unrelated (eg, found a joint in your house while searching for stolen goods)."
So then your problem is essentially "you don't liek what is illegal", and "you don't like that warrants enable the police to investigate"?
Seriously, i'm not trying to make light of your concerns, i'm just trying to see what you see as the solution, and i can't see how "not having to unlock your phone" is the solution to any of the concerns you raise.
While i'll admit my remark is a a bit flippant, i don't see how your example is relevant to the current discussion.
I think we can safely separate "drinking alcohol during prohibition" and "protecting people who are going to be shipped off to be killed" in the scale of things here. One is a clearly legitimate use of government power, one is not.
Note that all criminal laws legislate morality, so it's always a matter of degrees.
Nothing in the discussion above related in any way to the "need to protect refugees from oppressive government" use case. The original article is about US courts, and the discussion centered around fifth amendment rights in the US.
So i'm trying to understand why "you have done something society has deemed illegal, that illegality is within the legitimate power of the government, a court has ordered you to unlock your phone so the police can investigate the crime" is not a legitimate exercise of power.
Hint: The fifth amendment does not give you the right to destroy or hide evidence.
The fifth amendment doesn't mean that if you are really really good at hiding stuff in your phone, you get away with a crime.
It literally says "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself".
This was originally referring to being forced to take the stand or being tortured to give evidence.
To the degree some act you are being asked to do is testimonial in nature, the fifth amendment protects you.
It is not a general "i don't have to do anything if they are criminally investigating me" right. You may have to give hair, stand in lineups, or a bunch of other things.
If your argument is that these are immoral requests, modify the fifth amendment. It 100% was not written to protect you from these cases, and it was 100% anticipated that you may be required to do things like "stand in lineups" and all kinds of things.
"The 5th amendment prohibits the courts from doing it, and even if it didn't I would still think it was wrong."
No, it does not. The fifth amendment does not allow you to hide or destroy evidence. You can be ordered to produce things in your possession that you are hiding. It's not a game where the fifth amendment says "well, if you hide a murder weapon well enough, ..."
The founders believed the same, and that's how the fifth was written.
If the police can prove you are in possession of something, and that you are the single owner/controller, you can be ordered to produce it, because the goal is not to enable evidence hiding, but to avoid things like "torture".
The fifth amendment literally says a person cannot be compelled to give "witness against himself".
It is referring to testimonial situations, like being put on the stand in your own trial.
You are welcome to thing "this is wrong". You are welcome to try to convince society of this. So far, not enough of society has bought it that it has been changed.
You are always welcome to think things are immoral, but that does not change what they actually say or mean.
Can i start with a simple question, actually?
What is wrong with the authorities asking you to unlock your phone with a court order?