I'm not responding the post. I'm responding specifically to your comment (where you did not give context but made a definitive statement). That's on you.

You can't be compelled to give up your password.

OP IS USING A GOOGLE ACCOUNT WITH GOOGLES BIOMETRICS BEING SUGGESTED TO THEM.

The police will bypass you to get that data and Google will likely give it to them without a subpoena. And even if they don't, it's likely that given the state of the justice system in this country they will be able to subpoena that information anyway, assuming they don't just break into your phone (see link I posted in this comment thread a few comments back).

Laws are poorly written, sometimes intentionally, to make them more vague.

I guarantee you can get arrested for something if they really want to.

They will do this with or without access to your device and it will more than likely be with access regardless of what kind of security you use.

Separate from and entirely irrelevant to a discussion about biometrics and passwords.

You haven't explained how.

I have been. I'm not sure that you have, and I don't mean that to sound like a dick, I'm saying I think you are severely underestimating the issue.

Clearly not.

Biometrics provide functionally zero password. That'd be the context here. A weak password is better than no password. A strong password is better than no password.

Nope. You clearly didn't read the entirety of what I said, but I guess I'll explain. If I'm not using a password my behavior on that device reflects that. Often meaning I'm not logged into anything, clear browser history and don't download anything. That's basically a burner phone at the point. Because there is no expectation of privacy or security.

As biometrics means functionally no password, any password is superior.

I can tell you didn't click the link. False sense of security ahoy!

Yes, because it means no password is required at all. Even a weak password is better than no password.

A person who isn't using a password does not have the expectation that their device is secure. A person using a password has the expectation that their device is secured, but with a weak password that doesn't mean it actually is. Biometrics mean that your device is secure against the average individual (because you know, that's what locks are for, to keep honest people honest).

The context of this entire discussion. Yes.

And in that event you can force Android and IOS devices to require a password. So biometrics wouldn't allow them to force you to use biometrics to unlock the device.

Everyone. See above.

Not everyone. Most Americans never leave the country. EVEN when you consider international airports, most Americans don't fly regularly and even if they did, see my above comments about burner phones because (see my above comments about brute forcing devices or subpoenaing the data on those devices) that's pretty much the only way to be sure.

As in not biometrics, because biometrics are the same as no password. Yes.

You keep saying that word but I don't think you know what it means.

If you had said using biometrics is like using a TSA approved luggage lock I might be inclined to agree with you. But what you said was that "you can be compelled to give up biometrics to unlock your device) and what I said was, a weak password is not better.

You can continue to argue but you seem to keep missing context here. A weak password is what most people use. That's why there's a top 1000 passwords in use news article every couple of years.

Your birthday or anniversary is not better than biometrics. Say whatever else you want here. You haven't actually proven a point but I'm over it.