> We're unlikely to get it both ways: both a right to strong encryption without government interference and a right to defy court demands to decrypt specific fi

> We're unlikely to get it both ways: both a right to strong encryption without government interference and a right to defy court demands to decrypt specific files. What about the plausible deniability that is provided by some encryption softwares (Truecrypt was one of these when it was still relevant and considered secure, I don't know about current ones)? If the suspect decrypts an encrypted volume and can deny plausibly that there is another one hidden within, is he supposed to remain in jail until he decrypts a volume providing evidence of crimes he might have committed? In my opinion this is the reason why "I have forgotten the password" should be accepted as an answer, for the two situations are similar: either there is enough evidence to convict the guy and other evidence is not really needed, or there is not and the burden of the proof should not be on the suspect.