Re: The law is there to protect us.
OK, it was obvious that this case was going to inflame a lot of tensions on both sides of a debate. Let's try to sort through all this mess. One of two things is true:
1) A *potential* kiddie fiddler is free because he didn't hand over his keys. Oh noes.
2) A *potential* entirely innocent person is free because he didn't let the paedofinder general lock him up on trumped up charges. Good good.
At this stage it is impossible to know what happened. Anyone who claims either is true is, while not necessarily lying per se, is being economical with the truth.
The problem here is the juxtaposition of: on the one hand, the idea that criminals should not hide behind the algorithmic equivalent of a locked door; on the other hand, that people should not be forced to open their entire lives to the police on a fishing expedition.
Perhaps there is some middle ground: the self-incrimination defence should still be valid, perhaps unless there is a prima facie case of wrongdoing, accepted by a judge with the standard set of appeals. The prima facie case should not have a "reasonable doubt" level for winning the case, but a "balance of probabilities" level, to compel someone to hand over combinations to safes, passwords, etc. This would offer some compromise between the perfectly reasonable positions of total defence and total offence.
But then what do I know? This is the end of a second bottle of wine. But fuck it, it's a Monday.