Thank you for the explanation. Aside from saying once that he was not bothered by this state of things, I took the poster to be mainly explaining the consequences of the law (don't act as if your fingerprint is as secure as your password) rather than specifically endorsing it.
I definitely wasn't just giving the current state of the law; I was offering the opinion that out of the pile of problems we do have with government overreach, surveillance, and lack of understanding of technology, this case seems perfectly reasonable and not worth worrying about.
I'm not bothered by the compelled production of a fingerprint, given the due process of a warrant; I don't see any obvious reason why someone should expect otherwise from the law, nor any right or reasonable expectation this violates, and I don't think the law needs to change in that area.
(I do see other issues associated with fingerprints, such as the retention of fingerprints from non-criminals cleared of all charges, but I don't see an issue that applies to this case.)
I am bothered by (attempted) compelled production of a passphrase. And I see those as significantly different cases.
