As far as I'm concerned the standard should be what they could have seen in 1800. In other words, any capabilities from tech newer than the Bill of Rights should be denied to police by default unless they get a warrant. (And banned to private snoops as well.)
The way the law is written today, possession is a felony, period. Intent is not required. If some hacker in Russia thinks it's funny to write a virus that loads child porn on your computer and then calls the cops on you, you're a felon.
If the appeals courts had any humanity at all, they'd change that and require proof of intent for any felony conviction. (And put some teeth in the 8th Amendment, so prosecutors couldn't just force you to confess by threatening you with life-without-parole if you go to trial.) But so far, the Supreme Court continues to have a majority of monsters on it.
The comments on those two WP posts explain it somewhat better.
The kicker is that the court drew an analogy to where an accused person has a locked safe or lockbox that may contain evidence. Existing precedents say that prosecutors may demand you turn over the key -- but they may not demand you turn over the combination if it's a combination lock.
And the password on your phone is more like that combination.
It looks like 8% of rape cases are "unfounded" accusations according to the DoJ in 1997. I'm too tired at the moment to look up more recent stats, but I don't suspect that they'd have cause to change much unless something really dramatic happened since then, such as an internet revelation of a massive police cover-up or something. Feel free to look for more recent numbers, or numbers based on a better statistic than investigated police reports.
I can believe that only 8% of cases investigated by police are unfounded, only because 2/3 of the time the police know better than to bother.
The US's puritan-descendant culture still takes its courtship cues from the pursuit / evasion model of the age of courtly romance. I (for example) was taught in a California public high-school by teachers that a woman saying no or otherwise expressed disinterest in a man was supposed to be pursued and persuaded with bribes and deeds to change her mind. Yes. I was (along with all the boys in my school) instructed by the public education system to stalk and harass women.
That's not stalking and harassing, it's how the normal "making out" process is supposed to work. No one is going to stop and ask verbal permission between steps because it would spoil the atmosphere and your partner would walk out.
Oh, and adult women who drink or get high at parties do it to lower their own inhibitions. Part of being an adult is to own the responsibility if you do something stupid while drunk or high. You're not entitled to a pass just because you're female.
DOE now requires all colleges receiving federal money to investigate all accusations, and to expel the accused upon a "preponderance of the evidence".
But now that at least three universities have had to pay out large settlements to the men railroaded that way, I predict that many schools will soon stop accepting federal money because it costs them more in payouts than they receive.
I also expect the federal government to be successfully sued directly over the lack of due process, since the government is imposing that wrongful standard on the schools.
The EU countries and Switzerland always put treaties this important to a vote of the people (in addition to legislative approval, not instead of it). We should too, even though it will require constitutional change here.
There are always going to be physical limits on the capacity of any data service. The only question is how the company deals with that fact.
If they promise "unlimited" service, then they have a duty to keep it unmetered and unthrottled, even though it will likely result in a few big users hogging most of the capacity. So I'd much rather they not use that word, but instead set a specific limit and tell us what it is and exactly what will happen to people who go over it, whether that's an extra usage charge, throttling, or even termination of service. Then we can make our choices intelligently.
Even better would be a way for us to find out (perhaps on the router's control panel IP address) how close we are to hitting that limit at any given time. Maybe even an app to show it in a corner of the screen.
So I'd say this new ComCast policy is a step in the right direction, and I hope the other ISPs will be made to follow suit.