[PragmaticPulp]

> How is this different than refusing to tell where you've buried the bodies?

It would be more equivalent to refusing to let the police search one room in your house after they’ve established a reason to believe that you might be hiding bodies in it.

> Why should the police be permitted to assume you're guilty and in possession of vital information under certain circumstances?

They haven’t assumed guilt of the suspected crimes. However, if they have sufficient reason to believe that evidence of a crime exists in a certain location then they can compel someone to provide access to it. It’s similar to how the police can search your private property if they have sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed

That said, I don’t know the standard of evidence necessary in the UK to get this far.

[hiatus]

Yes but your mere refusal to allow entry to a room is not grounds for arrest if the police already have a warrant and can search it regardless of your permission.

Put another way, the police do not require you to produce the keys to the subject of a warrant, they will enter by force if necessary. It's perverse that technology is different only because the police have no means of forcible entry.

[kevviiinn]

>the police have no means of forcible entry.

Technically they do as seen in the San Bernardino shooter case, it's just expensive

[negidius]

> It would be more equivalent to refusing to let the police search one room in your house after they’ve established a reason to believe that you might be hiding bodies in it.

No, it isn't. The police searching a room in my house doesn't require me to do anything. They can even do it while I'm in a coma or dead. It's nothing like forcing me to tell them my passwords or any other information.