No, according to the ruling, this came up as an issue because the guy had already incriminated himself by saying "I did it, and the evidence is in these files".

You don't really get to willingly incriminate yourself, then suddenly start trying to hide behind the right not to incriminate yourself.

The Supreme Court has ruled that you can't be compelled to provide a password, if the fact that you have the password is, in and of itself, incriminating. So, if there's a hard drive that the police have reason to believe contains child porn (just as an example), and you haven't acknowledged that the drive is yours, then the police can't compel you to provide the password, since to do so would be to admit that the drive is yours (or at least provide strong evidence that it is). If there's no question that the drive is yours, however (particularly if you've admitted that it's yours), then providing the password doesn't in and of itself incriminate you.

You may not agree, but it seems to be well established in law that once you admit to the crime and identify the existence and location of evidence, you've waived your 5th Amendment right.

Just doing a little digging into the details of the 5th Amendment in practice, and found this interesting tidbit:

That could very well apply in this case, so that even if there is additional evidence in the files beyond what he has admitted to, the moment he started admitting to some of it, he effectively waived his self-incrimination right.

Haven't read the entire ruling, only scanned it, but there is an important caveat in it:

Seems like this guy has said "I did this, this, and this, and these files show that, but I don't want to let you see them", and the Court has ruled that he has to, because he's already admitted to those things, and therefore he would not be incriminating himself in doing so.

Of course, the reality may be that there's evidence of further illegal activities that he hasn't admitted to in the encrypted files. That might make the case for self-incrimination. I'd have to read the full ruling to see what, if anything, they said about that possibility.

It's not Nook that's interesting, it's the College Bookstore business. Very stable, solid margins.

In other words, it'd be perfect for the McNuggets production line.

Wait, so you're claiming that reference constitutes a loophole? Any trial judge, reading this opinion, is going to very clearly understand how narrow that exception actually is. The state would need to show that, given that the Court has specifically cited the multiple ways that the remote wipe could be blocked, _none_ of those could be used. So, I suppose, if you had a phone without a removable battery, that couldn't be switched off (but could still somehow be searched), and the police had good reason not to be in possession of a Faraday bag, and had a reasonable belief that the phone was going to be remote wiped before they could get a Faraday bag, then they could search the phone. In practice, it's hard to see a scenario where the phone _could_ be searched, but _couldn't_ be switched off or disconnected from the network. I've never heard of a phone that locks up the ability to turn it off, but not the ability to search the phone.

Yes, I have read it, and you can't say "they are only allowed to search, even before this ruling, if it is an imminent threat to the officers" and say that you also understand exigent circumstances. If the police kick down the door of a random apartment, and find the owner sitting there surrounded by drugs, the proceeds of that search (i.e. the drugs) couldn't be used to support a narcotics charge against the occupant, it'd be a 4th Amendment violation. If the police hear screams coming from within an apartment, though, and kick down the door to find the owner sitting there surrounded by drugs, and with another person tied to a chair, the drugs certainly CAN be used in evidence against the owner.

Similarly, if the police have good reason to believe that, say, an arrestee's phone contains the location of a ticking bomb, or an abducted child, they can search the phone, and use evidence found against the arrestee. Then, it becomes the judge's call as to whether the circumstances justified the search.

You really oughta read the TFD (The F'ing Decision). This issue was specifically mentioned, and there is no loophole:

"In any event, as to remote wiping, law enforcement is not without specific means to address the threat. Remote wiping can be fully prevented by disconnecting a phone from the network. There are at least two simple ways to do this: First, law enforcement officers can turn the phone off or remove its battery. Second, if they are concerned about encryption or other potential problems, they can leave a phone powered on and place it in an enclosure that isolates the phone from radio waves. See Ayers 30–31.Such devices are commonly called “Faraday bags,” after the English scientist Michael Faraday. They are essentially sandwich bags made of aluminum foil: cheap, lightweight, and easy to use. See Brief for Criminal Law Professors as Amici Curiae 9. They may not be a complete answer to the problem, see Ayers 32, but at least for now they provide a reasonable response."

Google "exigent circumstances."

Actually, no, they don't. They acknowledged in oral argument that, while _some_ of the antennas are statically assigned, some are also dynamically assigned. See the transcript, bottom of page 32.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/or...

It would take a Constitutional amendment, not just a law.

Yup, he/she is, and no, it won't apply, since screening at the border is a different animal.

You don't remember correctly. Breyer voted against Citizens United.