[michaelmrose]

There is nothing that is similar. The journal is a physical thing you can lay your hands on and the password exists only in the individuals mind. The act of producing it is both inherently testimonial and testimony to ownership of the contents of the data on the machine which is distinct from ownership of the machine.

It is further impossible to distinguish between won't and can't unlock.

Even if believed that you can subpoena the content of your skull you arrive at a situation where every criminal "can't remember"

[daveFNbuck]

Giving out the code to a wall safe demonstrates my ownership of the safe contents in exactly the same way that giving out the password to a computer demonstrates my ownership of the contents of the computer.

[michaelmrose]

It seems so. It seems unlikely that such an order would be successful so they would drill the safe.

[daveFNbuck]

The point of bringing up wall safes is that it courts have already ruled that it's unconstitutional to require someone to give up a wall safe combination.

[nine_k]

Isn't there a right to not testimony against oneself?

[notimetorelax]

This was the point of the article.

[yxhuvud]

No, the point was that there was a ruling on it from a highly divided court that only applies to Pennsylvania.

The article didn't really argue something like that. It only reported on a court case and really didn't say if they agree with the decision or not.