"I find and conclude that the Fifth Amendment is not implicated by requiring production of the unencrypted contents of the Toshiba Satellite M305 laptop computer,"
The above copied here purely so that we can marvel at its raw, pure nonsense.
"requiring the production of the unencrypted contents of the Toshiba Satellite M305 laptop computer" :
this
1. assumes the computer belongs to the accused, and requires the accused to essentially admit that
2. assumes the computer has data on it which is cyphertext for some imagined/alleged plain text. There is no way to prove this. If such ciphertext exists, the court is requiring the accused to admit they had knowledge of it.
3. assumes the accused knows the passphrase for said alleged data, even if the accused knows of its presence.
There are probably more I am missing.
The big thing that keeps coming up in these cases is this:
Prosecutors in this case have stressed that they don't actually require the passphrase itself, and today's order appears to permit Fricosu to type it in and unlock the files without anyone looking over her shoulder. They say they want only the decrypted data and are not demanding "the password to the drive, either orally or in written form."
I don't see what they are doing there. They are stressing that they don't require the accused to hand over the (supposedly existent) passphrase, but that they only want the accused to hand over the (supposedly existent) plaintext data. I don't see how this distinction matters. If the court can compel the accused to hand over possibly incriminating (supposedly existent) data, then why couldn't they compel them to hand over the passphrase? How is the alleged passphrase more incriminating than the alleged plaintext? If anything, asking for the plaintext is a harsher demand because it requires the accused to do the (admittedly minimal) work of decrypting the data for the accusers.
I know that courts can compel people to produce documents. But I just don't see how they can get around the fact that they are asking for
--a passphrase which they assume exists, and which they assume the accused knows, but they can't prove either,
--to decrypt plaintext that they assume exists, but which they cannot prove exists