> The authorities also said that it's not a violation of the man's Fifth Amendment right against compelled self incrimination because it's a "foregone conclusio

> The authorities also said that it's not a violation of the man's Fifth Amendment right against compelled self incrimination because it's a "foregone conclusion" that illegal porn is on the drives, and that he is only being asked to unlock the drives, not divulge their passcodes. If its a "foregone conclusion" then why do they need it? If the authorities made this claim in a legal brief they should lose the argument. It concedes the need for the decryption. Either they have evidence apart from the drive or they don't. I think if this guy was into child porn there has to be enough circumstantial evidence in logs and download records to convict. Its no accident that this case is against a child pornographer, don't be fooled, the government is trying to establish legal precedent on the most loathsome of criminals and then later will expand their powers.