STEVE: Also in good news, we have one more judge. We're still sort of feeling our way through this question of fingerprint versus password. And a Virginia Circuit Court judge ruled last Thursday the way we wanted them to, which is that a person does not need to provide a passcode to unlock their phone for the police. We've pretty much already lost the battle of the fingerprint. That seems to be pretty much gone. But at least the issue of what you know cannot be extracted. That's still considered testimony, which is protected under the Fifth Amendment to the - in the U.S., I should say, to the U.S. Constitution.

So a couple quote snippets here: "Giving police a fingerprint" - and this is from the judge's comments. "Giving police a fingerprint is akin to providing a DNA or handwriting sample or an actual key, all which the law permits. A passcode, though, requires the defendant to divulge knowledge, which the law protects." And then, lastly: "A communication is testimonial only when it reveals the contents of your mind. We cannot invoke the privilege against self-incrimination to prevent the government from collecting biometrics like fingerprints, DNA samples, or voice exemplars because the courts have decided that this evidence doesn't reveal anything you know. It's not therefore testimonial."

Without this capability, the authorities are trying to get suspects to cough up their passwords instead. The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of the issue. There's been a smattering of varying court rulings nationwide on the topic. In 2012, a federal appeals court said that forcing a child-**** suspect to decrypt password-protected hard drives would amount to a Fifth Amendment violation.

In the latest case, the SEC is investigating two former Capital One data analysts who allegedly used insider information associated with their jobs to trade stocks—in this case, a $150,000 investment allegedly turned into $2.8 million. Regulators suspect the mobile devices are holding evidence of insider trading and demanded that the two turn over their passcodes.

The defendants balked at supplying their passcodes, saying the Fifth Amendment protected them. The judge agreed and said that the government was going on a fishing expedition