I&#x27;ve read the source document, and it makes a good attempt at explaining the issue in a mostly balanced way to a less-technical audience, even if it does gloss over some things. Its recommendations, though, are mostly familiar ones with familiar refutations. Here&#x27;s what they&#x27;re asking for:<p>&quot;The federal legislation would provide in substance that any smartphone manufactured, leased, or sold
in the U.S. must be able to be unlocked, or its data accessed, by the operating system designer.
Compliance with such a statute would not require new technology or costly adjustments. It would
require, simply, that designers and makers of operating systems not design or build them to be
impregnable to lawful governmental searches.&quot;<p>And this is the main thing that they find frustrating:<p>&quot;Case law holds almost universally that a defendant cannot be compelled (by, e.g., a grand jury subpoena
or order of the court) to provide the government with her or his passcode, because such compulsion
would violate the defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.&quot;<p>I was under the impression that they already have a tool to deal with this called &quot;hold someone indefinitely until they give the password up.&quot;