I was under the impression that previous rulings with regards to safes and keys did not carry over to combinations, i.e. one could be compelled to surrender a key but not the combination to a safe. Whatever the case, I think it's foolish to argue by analog.

Do you think the government ought to have the right to invade a person's mind and analyze its contents? I find that idea repugnant - under no circumstance should the mind be available to third party scrutiny. Personally, I consider my laptop as an extension of my mind. Much in the same way I don't go around sharing every errant thought I have with the world, I have password protected my laptop and encrypted its contents.

I concede that my personal feelings do not make for a convincing argument, so instead consider this: In the future, probably in the very near future, computers will directly interface with the brain and will provide all sorts of computational assistance - information search, number crunching, memory storage and lookup, communication we can hardly dream of... Cybernetic implants would indeed be an extension of one's mind, and I think most of you here would argue for its protection. The users of these devices would be living in a dystopia if they had to censor their thoughts and usage of their cybernetic brains!

And well, frankly, I don't see much of a difference between a neural interface and a digital (fingers) interface.