Stored data is physical evidence.
Passwords are different because they're in your head. They're something you can know (and forget).
Only constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure protect you from access to physical data.

5th amendment protects against compelled confession. It does not protect you from the collection of physical evidence, including your biometrics (or even your blood in the case of DUIs and such)

The warrant is because you are protected against unreasonably search and seizure. Has nothing to do with self-incrimination.

Your invented legal theories are meaningless. You have no right to deny the Government physical evidence. What a wonderful criminal world that would be.

I tried to read the first wheel of time and just gave up. I enjoyed the TV series way more than I was expecting.

You implied no-fault divorce means that you cannot divorce for cause.

I did not. Whackadoodles will remove no-fault divorce which then leaves them open to attack what constitutes "fault" piecemeal until divorce is practically impossible.

That's literally what the 5th amendment was written to prevent- compelled confession: "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"
You're trying to equate preventing police from obtaining evidence with compelled confession. That's either disingenuous, or stupid. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and call it the latter.

Your thumbprint is not a password though.
Just as a Judge can compel you to give blood to look for evidence of a charge of intoxication, they can compel you to give your thumbprint to look for evidence for the charge of X.

The fuck? If you leave things in public view, police don't even need a damn warrant to use it.

Not even remotely.

The spirit of the 5th amendment is to prevent the Government from compelling you to be a witness against yourself.
Broadly, it meant "no, you can't torture someone until they confess."
Today's meaning has expanded quite a bit past the original spirit, but it's still nowhere near what you think it is.

Never did it mean, "you have the right to keep the Government away from physical evidence"

No, it is not.
Trying to keep physical evidence from the police is not testimony.

You have no such right.
You have a right against self-incrimination. You do not have a right to obstruct justice.

Presumably, they'll target distributors, as you do on any War on Drugs.
Seize domains that host apks, threaten Apple and Google with big fines, etc.

US corporations have killed far more US citizens than the pinkos.
And yes, I'm including 2 ground wars in there.

You gloss over the real problem- how do "the commies" get your house from your IP?
Easy- a US corp sold it to them with no questions asked.

And therein lies the problem with the proposed fix.

Separate thing.

The US is able to impose domestic ownership requirements on broadcasting licenses, because they are the sole grantor of license for use of the airwaves.
There is no issue with his ownership of News Corp.

Restriction of corporate ownership is a bit more murky in the constitutional waters. The Equal Protection Clause comes into play (as TikTok is a legally incorporated US entity, it therefor has rights), as well as the constitutional restrictions on Bills of Attainder.
Passing a bill specifically targeting an entity was seen by the framers as a usurpation of executive or judicial power.

This is a stupid fucking bit of logic right here.

You know what else is banned in China? Speaking ill of their fucking dictator.
Seek a better fucking benchmark, dude.