Actually you are right and I overstated. This has been the distinction in the recent laws, if the provider as opposed to the interlocutors can decrypt it is re

Actually you are right and I overstated. This has been the distinction in the recent laws, if the provider as opposed to the interlocutors can decrypt it is required. It is a challenge to build a system that encrypts as part of a service (rather than users encrypting at the endpoints), yet prevents the service operater being able to provide plaintext. In this situation the 5th amendment does not avail, but I think there is a strong argument for the service provider having an option to shut down (like Leveson/Lavabit) rather than cooperate - not on the grounds Leveson argued, but rather by a right to avoid being used as an instrument of fraud. But we digress from the main topic here.