>"We question whether identifying the key which will open the strongbox - such that the key is surrendered - is, in fact, distinct from telling an officer the combination," wrote Judge Black.

Well, the circuit court is right, there really isn't much difference between forcing someone to give you a key and forcing someone to give you a password.

The article did a really bad job of explaining the legal parts of the argument (as nearly all articles do). The whole key vs combination distinction wasn't a part of the Doe vs US. decision, it was actually a part of the dissent (dissent means the opinion of the minority judges which isn't really law).

The issue here was self-incrimination and self-incrimination only applies to "testimonial evidence", testimonial evidence that is evidence that communicates some information. If that sounds confusing as hell, that's because it is, it's an absolutely vague and ridiculous standard that can go any way depending on who looks at it.

For example, the Supreme court has at various times decided that being forced to give your name is, and is not a violation of the right against self incrimination(1). It's a terrible standard and I think that's why it gives room to so much back and forth. In this case, the courts were trying to decide if an i-phone password is "testimonial" as described by the Supreme Court and of course, it can go either way and no one is really sure because the standard doesn't make any sense.

1. California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424 (1971) for yes, Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582 (1990) for no.

What would happen if the defendant forgets the passcode, a la Alberto Gonzales?

Would this case set a precedent?