Then why hasn't this person been prosecuted yet? Are they just wanting him to give up his credentials so that they can refer to this case as a precedent?
Subtle point: "they" don't want or care about his credentials -- they want the underlying evidence for which they know exists (check out "The foregone conclusion doctrine" in page 34 of the source document[0]) and they know that he is capable of providing said evidence.
> > Here, based on Doe’s own statements, the testimony of his sister, and forensic analysis of the hard drives seized from Doe via a search warrant, the government already knows that Doe possessed and owned the hard drives, that he can decrypt them, and that they contain child pornography.[0]
Based on computer logs (of checksummed files being transferred to drives (and, importantly, knowing those filepaths) he admits to owning), online activity, witnesses, his own admission, and his unlocking of his phone provided the evidence needed to reasonably detain him on suspicion of a serious crime. The defendant is known to collect child pornography, even provably sourcing his own from family members -- again, the source document provides far more detail.
Further, my understanding is that the complication is his refusal is frustrating the process of deciding exactly which crimes for which to charge him and he is acting in defiance of a court order (to produce evidence).
A possibility is that if they prosecute based on what they have now, then he will _never_ decrypt it - they may be aiming to break up a porn-ring or the actual producers, and he may have very valuable data on the drive, that may potentially save lives
I think this is just a thing that happens in the movies. Also, check out the source document and let me know if you think someone found guilty of the described acts deserves immunity.
It's not really a matter of my opinion on the specific case. Even with the full documents, there is no way that I'd have enough information to judge fairly, so I wouldn't try to.
I'm just saying that they have a way out, and it seems that they've made the judgment that the potential of finding other criminals (if that's even a motivation) for them is not worth it. And the courts are making the downside "indefinite prison", which isn't much of a downside for the prosecutor.
I think you can expect this to be used far more broadly if this is allowed. If I were a prosecutor I'd probably abuse the power too as yet another lever to use to get my way.
Then charge him for it. This is such an insane precedent to set, I cannot believe anyone is OK with this like we don't have a long and proud history of railroading people we disagree with for any number of stupid reasons.
