I dunno what the law says. However, it is very easy to imagine a situation where someone LEGITIMATELY cannot decrypt the device. Is indefinite detention without even a criminal charge a valid punishment for that? We can make analogies all day "is it testimony? Is it like the code to a safe?"... But there is a real concrete fact that the government wants to be able to imprison someone indefinitely, without a jury trial, for claiming not to know something when there is certainly a reasonable doubt about them knowing it.
So, whatever they have to do with the analogies, this decision cannot go the way the prosecutor wants it to.
Is indefinite detention without even a criminal charge a valid punishment for that?
The defendant was charged with child pornography offenses.
But there is a real concrete fact that the government wants to be able to imprison someone indefinitely, without a jury trial, for claiming not to know something when there is certainly a reasonable doubt about them knowing it.
The defendant was claiming to forget the encryption key to a device because it allegedly contained a massive trove of photos that would likely get him locked away in prison for life. Said device was one he had owned and used for years, including shortly before he was arrested and the device confiscated (based on testimony of his sister). It's not reasonable to believe that he just conveniently forgot his encryption key as soon as he was arrested, especially when forgetting the key was beneficial to him in the underlying proceeding.
However, it is very easy to imagine a situation where someone LEGITIMATELY cannot decrypt the device.
Yes, but this isn't that situation. And this ruling benefits that hypothetical person.
this decision cannot go the way the prosecutor wants it to.
We agree on that, but it didn't need to. The prosecution already had a strong case against him on the underlying criminal charges. They got what they wanted -- a deterrent to others trying to do the same thing just to avoid jail time.
> the government wants to be able to imprison someone indefinitely, without a jury trial, for claiming not to know something when there is certainly a reasonable doubt about them knowing it.
This is incorrect. The judge could not have found Rawls in contempt if the judge was not satisfied that he intentionally failed to comply with the password disclosure order.
The person isn't claiming they don't know the password though. The person is claiming they don't have to provide the password. If they claimed they don't remember the password the prosecutor would have to convince the judge he is lying about that.
So, whatever they have to do with the analogies, this decision cannot go the way the prosecutor wants it to.