And, for that matter, wildly differing capabilities to securely handle and keep private the information they find on people's phones.
No thank you, and Apple is right to refuse them.
but can the government compel you say a password aloud that will open a device, especially in that having that password proves you had access to incriminating documents
No, and it's a good point. Currently I don't believe that in any US jurisdiction a person can be forced to reveal a password (knowledge that would implicate him/her) in some action. That is different (or has been treated as different) from objective physical evidence that generally does not have a bias for or against a person (until it is linked to some other evidence that does incriminate the person in an criminal matter).
If these employment stats had to mirror the population (which is 50.9% women, 12.2% black, 16.3% Hispanic, etc etc according to the recent US Census), Google would need to find:
employees. (and of course we would need to reduce the number of white male employees accordingly) I do not think the entirety of California could produce these numbers. So tell me, how is Google or Apple, or all of the tech community combined supposed to achieve these lofty political goals?
Last month, Alphabet's Google released data on diversity, saying it had more black, Latino and female employees but still lagged its goal of mirroring the population.
You will find on closer examination that, actually, many of these tech companies' hiring results actually do mirror the population. But the relevant population that you're talking about is those people who apply to places like Google, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc. And that population is heavily underrepresented in female/black/hispanic people compared to the population at large. That is what many people seem to be willing to be blind to. If the source population from which you draw such workers is skewed, no amount of effort is going to enable you to hire 100 female/black/hispanic workers when there are only 30 to choose from. And yet people will still criticize you for it.
These companies are not going to singlehandedly change the makeup of tech (or even just high paid) workers in the United States, no matter how much they try (or are put under political pressure to do so). And I think that it is rather disingenuous / politically correct of them to simply market that they will do it because it's fashionable to say they will. Addressing this problem is deeper and requires more of the desired target segments to go into these fields to be available to apply to the positions to start with. Which is a much more difficult challenge that most of the advocates for such policies actually don't even want to put in the effort to do themselves.
I will openly say that I do not believe (as many people seem to reflexively parrot the phrase) that a company's workforce "needs to look like the general population". I find that a dubious proposition, usually supported by poor logic. If it happens that the general population has the propensity and skill to become tech workers in equal proportions across all demographics, then that could be true, but I doubt it. But at the same time, I support any effort to make sure that primary/secondary/higher education gives everyone access to succeed in these fields, if they want to.
But I will not subscribe to the idea that we should skew the output of the process to some political goal, when the input of that process is what matters and determines it more than anything else. When you do that, all you get is symbolic, and often detrimental, results.
Those who can, do; those who can't, write. Those who can't write work for the Bell Labs Record.