Comment Re:Face it ... (Score 1) 560
That's pretty edgy and cool but it's also completely wrong. Read the decision. Let's start with the simple notion that the Fifth Amendment protects you against self-incriminating testimony, but it is not an absolute bar against all kinds of self-incrimination. The court can still compel you to provide non-testimonial aid in their prosecution of you. For instance, the court can get a blood test to show that you were drunk while driving, or swab your cheek to test for DNA, get an example of your voice to play to witnesses, to have you participate in a line up, provide a sample of your handwriting, a sample of your hair, putting on a costume that the suspect was wearing, etc. If this were not the case you'd never be able to convict anyone of any crime.
The defendant in this case was read his Miranda rights. He said that the computers were encrypted, and that he could decrypt the files but would not do so. That doomed him. The court said that decrypting the hard drive was not testimonial in nature. If he had shut the fuck up and said nothing, then the court would probably would have denied the prosecutor's motion because decrypting the drive would be an admission that he knew and owned the contents of the drive. But this fuckhead had already bragged to cops that he could decrypt the data but wasn't going to do so. Thus, there was no self-incrimination.