> One can claim they forgot the password. The judge might not believe them, so they can just slap contempt of court charges one after another? What the person h

> One can claim they forgot the password. The judge might not believe them, so they can just slap contempt of court charges one after another? What the person has actually forgot the password? How can they prove that they forgot something. Shouldn't the court be the one proving stuff? Having to prove you have forgotten your password is like being guilty before being proven innocent. Obviously, there are many cases where it seems extremely unlikely to us that someone has just forgotten his/her password, but as far as I'm concerned that does not constitute proof. (Otherwise, I think this would be one of those cases where people can get convicted just for being not very smart.) > Not a bad idea in theory. However if the judge/jury can be convinced that you set up your password retrieving system specifically so that a search would destroy the password, they can still slap obstruction and contempt charges on you. I think that is the problem -- inability to convince the judge that you can't decrypt vs that you don't want to.... Except that one could argue that you have been using this system for a long time (as you have) in case people who were not authorized to use your computer stole it. They can't prove you've set up this system specifically to disrupt their case. This doesn't solve the problem when law enforcement simply asks you to hand over your computer, of course, but when they come stomping through the door and take away your stuff, you can say "neener-neener, you should've just asked." (I suggest not using those exact words.)