[aliguori]

This is not about privacy, it's about self incrimination which is far, far more important.

You can be compelled to testify under oath for many reasons none of which involve doing anything wrong. When you testify under oath, you must answer the questions asked truthfully or face unlimited jail-time for contempt.

The fifth amendment is the only form of protection you have from being called to testify and being grilled about any random topic. It's a balance to the otherwise tremendous power that a court has.

The prosecution must be able to make their case without the defendants assistance. This is a fundamental aspect of our legal system.

[aspensmonster]

Unfortunately it seems that discovery and testimony have become increasingly conflated over time. I don't buy the arguments that compelling someone to decrypt something is discovery rather than testimony. The precedent that tips the scale between discovery and testimony hinges on whether the prosecution "knows" that the data is there, which is bogus to begin with precisely because the supposed data is encrypted. They couldn't possibly "know" what is there without compelling the defendant to decrypt. And if there is already "sufficient evidence" to tie a defendant to supposed encrypted data, as has come up in certain cases, than there is no need to compel the defendant to decrypt in the first place. Provide your "sufficient evidence" to the court and let the judge and jury do their jobs.

I think precedent leaned this way precisely because people understood that otherwise, guilty people would definitely walk. And they couldn't have that, even if it meant that the spirit of the 5th amendment was violated.