The Democratic party has a huge problem. It's also a pretty simple problem: If the US equivalent of the Australian Electoral commission got caught picking a favourite between one of the two major parties there would be a royal commission and a complete overhaul of our political system.
It's really not comparable. The Democratic Party is, fundamentally, a private organization. While I agree that, in principle, the DNC shouldn't favor one candidate over another in the process of choosing who the Democratic candidate for a particular office will be, it's entirely different from the actual election to a public office. As an analogy, the DNC is like a team's manager, not the referee.
Of course, if you are using a voice lock on something that opens with you saying, "Alibaba was a fool", and they try to force you to say that to the lock to open it, I doubt anyone would consider that anything other than being forced to give up your password and open your locked items.
After all, it's not the existence of the voice/fingerprint/password/key, it's the being forced to provide it for unlocking purposes that's F'd up.
Depends on the circumstances. If the gov't knows the password, and there's no question that the device is yours, then you could be required to state the voice passphrase. Again, the Fifth Amendment protects you from having to testify (i.e state something you know) against yourself. It doesn't protect you from having to provide charactistics of yourself (appearance, fingerprints, DNA, voice, etc.).
Actually, it's not, since there's no way any reasonable person could believe that, by repeating the words you're being instructed to say, you're endorsing those words. While it may be "spoken," it's not "speech."
Yup, because that's something (the location) that you know, not something that you are.
Was he compelled to actually put his finger on the phone, or was he just compelled to surrender his fingerprints? TFA is not precisely clear about that. If it's the former then that's incontrovertibly a violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Not a Fifth Amendment violation. He's not being required to testify as to anything he knows, it's just a physical characteristic. Other example would be voice exemplars - it's Constitutional to require a defendant to say "hands up, give me the money," as part of a "voice lineup," since saying that doesn't require the defendant to testify to any content or knowledge. United States v. Dionisio
Help fight continental drift.