> The problem with this new territory is exactly the unsettled issue of whether providing a password is testimonial and protected. I can see no possible correc

> The problem with this new territory is exactly the unsettled issue of whether providing a password is testimonial and protected. I can see no possible correct answer than "yes, absolutely, it is testimonial." If I may take some minor artistic liberty and change the words without changing the scenario: Consider a person on trial for murder, and the prosecution believes they wrote down where the body is buried on a piece of paper. The paper's got blood on it and was found next to a hatchet and duct tape. Gee shucks though, it's written in an ancient dialect of Silbo Gomero and they're the last person alive who speaks it. The prosecution would really love to have that evidence for their case. Can they make the defendant translate it for them? Absolutely not, right? That's clear-as-day 5th amendment, if-I-translate-this-for-you-I'm-incriminating-myself territory. It is the exact same concept with encryption. There is a piece of information unintelligible to an adversary (prosecutor), that the adversary believes (due to surrounding known evidence) would further their case. The only way to transform the information into something useful for the prosecutor is with the help of the defendant, using knowledge that exists only in the defendant's mind (password). Asking the defendant to create the evidence against themselves (evidence that does not exist until the defendant creates it, mind you - not something like the contents of a safe where the physical evidence exists whether the defendant wills it or not) is a 100% textbook 5th amendment violation. I really feel that if someone sees this any other way, they fundamentally misunderstand how encryption works. The documents the prosecution wants do not exist unless the defendant (re)creates them, and you can't ask someone to create evidence (testimony) against themselves (5th amendment, again).