> No doubt, but the issue is that a judge's authorization can be ineffective in the face of crypto. Only when it should be. Crypto just means you need a secret

> No doubt, but the issue is that a judge's authorization can be ineffective in the face of crypto. Only when it should be. Crypto just means you need a secret to access the data. If you can't compel the secret, why should you be able to compel the data? > That targeted intervention is really easy to block for those who want too. All it takes is not revealing a key/passphrase. You say that like it is an easy thing. Try keeping your key/passphrase protected against an adversary that can replace/intercept your keyboard, your touch screen, your mouse, your network, etc. It's just a lot more intrusive and a lot more work, which is why it has to be far more explicit and targeted. > > There's no way because legally the system (for the most part) considers it outside the scope of fraud laws. > Not just that though, it is also impossible because the conditionals introduced by a court system are very hard to encode in a crypto system, even more so if you want to do this and be able to retain trust. Those conditionals were all choices made by the legal system. Those rules can always be changed if so desired. If they aren't... maybe it is because they shouldn't be. ;-)